Thursday, October 19, 2017

JUST WHAT IS THERE TO SEE WITH MASS FACING THE PEOPLE?

The  National Catholic Register has a story on a parish that has gone Ad Orientem. You can read it there.
Above, Bishop James Conley celebrates Advent Mass for the diocesan staff at the John XXIII Pastoral Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. Below, Mass being said <i>ad orientem</i> at Star of the Sea and Holy Rosary parishes.
Above, Bishop James Conley celebrates Advent Mass for the diocesan staff at the John XXIII Pastoral Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. Below, Mass being said ad orientem at Star of the Sea and Holy Rosary parishes. (2015 photo, Southern Nebraska Catholic via Bishop James Conley Twitter; others courtesy of the parishes)
NATION   |  OCT. 17, 2017
Ad Orientem Posture Given New Life in Nebraska
Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has provided the latest inspiration for its use in the ordinary form of the Mass.

My comments: When altars were turned around almost overnight around the world beginning in early 1966 (just add another 6), the point was to make the Mass more intelligible to the dumb laity who didn't know what was going on. It was another case of academic liturgists looking down their academic noses to the peons who knew nothing and had to be informed.  

But the turning around of altars wasn't enough, the entire interior of magnificent old churches had to be reoriented too so that the laity could gather around the altar as if concelebrants. In fact, many academic theologians insisted that the laity have a more active part in the Eucharistic Prayer. Some priests invited the laity to say the prayers with him all or in part. The Doxology is a classic example. 

But what is there to see when the priest faces the congregation? Nothing but the priest's facial expression, arm gestures and eye contact or lack thereof. You might see the epeclesis and the single Sign of the Cross over the bread and wine prior to the consecration. You'll miss the reduced number of genuflections, now only three, because most of the genuflection is behind the altar and thus obscured. 

Symbolically, what was gained in turning altars around and reorienting entire older churches and new ones to be built? NOTHING except the loss of Catholic reverence and awe!

Symbolically what was lost? That all liturgical prayer is directed to God, through Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. Facing the people this symbol is diminished and weakened so much so that most congregants believe the prayers of Mass, as though these are greetings, Scripture readings and homily, are directed to them as is the  central part of the Eucharistic Prayer, the Consecration, especially when the priest uses the bread and chalice and gestures with them in a wide sweep over the altar to the congregation. 

Facing the people is the cause for so much of the loss of symbol and sign when it comes to the direction of prayer.

Facing the people moves the priest to a confrontational and superior position to the congregation as though he is a professor, an academic, teaching the poor dumb souls before him. 

Ad Orientem places the priest in the same direction as his congregation, poor souls all in need of salvation and the  gifts of sanctifying Grace the Holy Mass offers.  

Ad Orientem isn't about clericalism or fostering it.

Facing the people fosters clericalism in the priest because of his "superior" not humble position before the laity. 

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

A REAL EF MASS FOR A REAL PARISH BY A NON-ROBOTIC PRIEST IN FRANCE! MISSA CANTATA

Please note there is a lector for the Epistle as the celebrant proclaims it to God!


IT JUST MAKES COMPLETE LOGICAL SENSE! IN THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, THE WORD MADE FLESH, JESUS CHRIST OFFERS HIMSELF AS PRIEST AND VICTIM TO HIS HEAVENLY FATHER! AND THE HEAVENLY FATHER ACCEPTS HIS WORD MADE FLESH SACRIFICE OF LOVE AND RETURNS THE WORD MADE FLESH TO US! IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO OFFER THE WORD OF GOD AT MASS TO THE FATHER THROUGH THE SON AND BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT! IT JUST IS LOGICAL!

reading of the gospel
The reading of the Gospel at a low Mass

Mordacil has left a new comment on your post "DID THE COMMITTEE THAT REVISED THE MASS MAKE IT TO...": 

I'm 29 years old and didn't become a catholic until 2014 but somewhere along the way I heard that the readings were an offerings to God in the Liturgy of the Word like the Eucharist was an offering to God in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. It made sense to me especially after seeing Tridentine Masses and realizing the Latin readings were for God and the English during the homily was for us. It was a gray parallel that helped teach me the meaning of the Eucharist-just as we offer God his own word that he gave us, we also offer the Eucharist, which we can only give because He gave it first. It really emphasizes the fact that we have nothing to give to God that He didn't already provide for us to be able to give it. It puts us in our rightful place regarding His love and our salvation. 

My comments: And the Word of God is returned to us in the homily. At the Cathedral's EF Sunday Mass, a lector reads in English from the pulpit the readings as the priest offers the readings to our heavenly father in a low voice from the altar. 

A PRIEST POPE FRANCIS WOULD LOVE ❤️ WE CAN SAY THAT FATHER ROBERT WAS A FRANCISCAN PRIEST IN THE TWO MEANINGS OF FRANCIS!

Father Robert served as a Franciscan priest for decades before retiring in 2012. Instead of taking up a hobby or relaxing, Robert ministered to the poor and society’s misfits, said leaders in the Florida and Georgia dioceses. They came to Augusta in January to petition the prosecutor not to seek the death penalty for Murray.

Father Robert opposed the death penalty and in 1995 he signed a personal “Declaration of Life,” a document that requests no death sentence be imposed if he should be killed by another, regardless of how heinous the death.

Murray to plead guilty to murder in slaying of priest

The former Aiken man accused of killing a priest is scheduled to plead guilty Wednesday in exchange for a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Steven J. Murray, 30, will make what should be his last appearance in Burke County Superior Court, a short drive from where Murray said he shot the Rev. Rene Robert of St. Augustine, Fla., in April 2016.

Murray, a petty criminal and drug user from Aiken, moved to Florida several years ago. Not long after, he was behind bars again, this time for dealing in stolen property in 2012. Murray was the kind of person the 71-year-old priest spent his retirement years ministering to, according to friends.

Robert served as a Franciscan priest for decades before retiring in 2012. Instead of taking up a hobby or relaxing, Robert ministered to the poor and society’s misfits, said leaders in the Florida and Georgia dioceses. They came to Augusta in January to petition the prosecutor not to seek the death penalty for Murray.
Robert opposed the death penalty and in 1995 he signed a personal “Declaration of Life,” a document that requests no death sentence be imposed if he should be killed by another, regardless of how heinous the death.

Former District Attorney Ashley Wright, now a Superior Court judge, filed notice of her intention to seek the death penalty for Murray if he was convicted of murder, which she contended was committed during a kidnapping and aggravated battery.

According to Murray’s statements to investigators and a
Florida Times-Union reporter, on April 10, 2016, Murray decided to drive Robert’s car to Aiken so he could visit his children. Robert likely didn’t know where Murray was headed when he agreed to go for a ride, authorities said.

When Murray was denied access to his children, he forced Robert into the trunk of the car while he allegedly burglarized several homes, setting one on fire.

On rural River Road in Burke County just off Highway 56, Murray pulled to the side of the road and removed Robert from the trunk. He fatally shot the elderly priest, then got back in the vehicle and returned to Florida.

On April 12, 2016, Murray is suspected of leading Florida police on a chase. The next day he was spotted in Aiken near Snipes Pond and Wire roads. In the pursuit Murray crashed Robert’s car before being taken into custody. He was returned to St. Augustine where law enforcement were investigating Robert’s disappearance.

Murray

Robert

On April 18, 2016, Murray led officers from two states to Robert’s body.

Murray has been held in various jails since his arrest, most recently in the Clayton County Jail. On July 29, 2016, he threatened jailers, saying, “I got bodies under my belt. One more ain’t gonna make no difference,” according to the incident report.

On Aug. 27, 2016, Murray attempted suicide twice by jumping off a second floor balcony with a bed sheet tied around his neck. The first time the knot came undone.

On Jan. 6 while in the infirmary, Murray allegedly stole a pair of scissors and a calculator. An officer searching his room found two pairs of medical scissors taped under the bed, a broken light bulb under the toilet, and medical tape and rubber gloves on a shelf, according to another incident report.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

DID THE COMMITTEE THAT REVISED THE MASS MAKE IT TOO DIDACTIC, MEANING, TOO CONGREGATION ORIENTED, NOT GOD ORIENTED? HORIZONTAL RATHER THAN VERTICAL, IN OTHER WORDS, LATREUTIC?

A Scripture reading during Mass--is she using God's words during Mass to worship and praise God or is she reading them for the edification and instruction of those before her? 

Read these two comments about the use of two separate ambos, one for the Gospel only and the other for the other Scriptures:

--Nor do I (get it) as a post Vatican 2 "student". Are you saying the readings should not be delivered from am ambo or pulpit? If so, I can't see any reason why they should not be---after all, they are being read to the congregation, right? The altar is where the sacrifice is made present---but the preparation of the gifts happens after the readings and the creed. Is there anything wrong with saying the Mass has two main parts?....
"after all, they are being read to the congregation, right?"-------------------
--Not so. At least in the traditional view, where the purpose of the readings is latreutic (directed toward God) rather than didactic (directed toward the people. They constitute praise of God in God's own words.

Just as turning the priest toward the people during the Canon diminished awareness of the latreutic character of the Mass, so did his facing the people for the readings.


To be honest with you, I have never been taught, pre or post Vatican II that the purpose of the readings at Mass were directed to God in praise of God in God's own words. 

Given the fact that the Mass, all of it, is about the Church giving praise and thanks to God, it makes sense. 

But with the Mass facing the congregation, we think it is all about God instructing us--which He does, but the Mass isn't about God's instructions, it is our worship and praise and thus viewing the readings as a part of this is wholly consistent with the meticulous organic development of the liturgy where all fits together in a logical whole.  

In the EF Mass, the homily is not considered a part of the Mass. It is to be instructive and inspirational for the congregation and the priest can use his talents, rhetorical and teaching skills and acting to impress the congregation.  The homily is priest oriented as it is congregation oriented. And yes, the readings could be repeated at the pulpit (and in the traditional design of churches built for the EF Mass, the pulpit is outside the sanctuary!) for instructive purposes, not directed to God but the congregation. 

HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE EVERY BEEN TAUGHT THIS? I KNOW I WASN'T, NOT PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL AND DEFINITELY NOT AFTERWARDS.  

DIALOGUE IS GOOD, BUT NOT AN IDOL OR OUR GOD---I HOPE POPE FRANCIS REALIZES THIS AS HE INFAMOUSLY ENCOURAGED RISKING TO MAKE A MESS IN THE CHURCH

In new book, Francis calls honest interviews a 'pastoral risk' to create church of dialogue

by Joshua J. McElwee
Vatican

Rome — Pope Francis says in a new book that he chooses to give interviews and to speak freely in press conferences as part of his desire to create a Catholic Church that understands how to dialogue with the people of today.

The pontiff adds that while he knows giving such interviews entails the possibility of being misinterpreted he wants to run that "pastoral risk" in order to have direct communication with people.

Referring to the Gospel story of Jesus after his death appearing to two disciples walking together, Francis says the church of dialogue is "the church of Emmaus, in which the Lord 'interviews' the disciples who are walking discouraged."

"I desire a church that knows how to insert itself into the conversations of people, that knows how to dialogue," states the pope, writing in a preface for a new collection of eight of the interviews and public dialogues he has given since his March 2013 election as pontiff.

"For me, the interview is part of this conversation of the church with the people of today," he says.

The collection, to be released in Italy Oct. 19, carries the title Adesso fate le vostre domande ("Now, ask your questions") and was edited by Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro, a papal confidant and editor of the Italian Jesuit magazine La Civiltà Cattolica. Excerpts from Francis' preface to the volume were printed Oct. 17 by the Italian daily La Repubblica.

Francis says in the preface that during his press conferences on papal flights he likes "to look into the eyes of the person [asking questions] and respond to the questions with sincerity."

"I know that I have to be prudent, and I hope to be so," the pope states. "I always pray to the Holy Spirit before I start listening to the questions and answering. And as I must not lose prudence, I must also not lose trust. I know that this can make me vulnerable, but it's a risk that I want to run."

The pontiff says the interviews have a "pastoral value" akin to the daily homilies he gives at the Masses he celebrates on weekdays at the chapel in the Vatican's Casa Santa Marta guesthouse, where he lives.


"It is a way of communicating my ministry," says Francis. "And I tie these conversations in the interviews with the daily homilies in Santa Marta, which is -- let's say it like this -- my 'parish.'"

"I need to have this communication with people," states the pope. "I have a true need of this direct communication with people. Giving an interview ... means having an encounter with journalists who often ask you questions taken from the people."

"One thing I like is speaking with small newspapers," he continues. "I feel even more at ease. In fact, in those cases I truly hear the questions and the worries of the common people. I seek to respond in a spontaneous way, in a conversation that I want to be comprehensible, not [made up of] rigid formulas."

"I also use simple, popular language," Francis explains. "For me, interviews are a dialog, not a lecture. For this reason I do not prepare."

"Sometimes I receive the questions in advance but I almost never read or think over them," he states. "Other times, in the plane press conferences, I imagine the questions they might ask me. But to respond I need to encounter the people and look into their eyes."

"Yes, I have a fear of being poorly interpreted," says the pontiff. "But, I repeat, I want to run this pastoral risk."

Adesso fate le vostre domande is being published by Rizzoli, a publishing house based in Milan. The eight interviews and dialogues it collects include Francis' 2013 interview with Spadaro, his 2016 interview with Polish Jesuit Fr. Ulf Jonsson, and conversations he had in 2015 and 2016 with the Philippine and Polish Jesuits during papal trips to their countries.

[Joshua J. McElwee is NCR Vatican correspondent.

DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE EPISTLE AND GOSPEL SIDES OF THE ALTAR?

Spectacular start: An aerial view of Saint Peter's Square prior to the start of the installation Mass as the bishops, cardinals and VIP guests arrive
Spectacular start: An aerial view of Saint Peter's Square prior to the start of the installation Mass as the bishops, cardinals and VIP guests arrive

After the concoction of the "new" Mass, modern liturgists described the two main parts of the Mass as "the table of God's Word and the table of the Lord's Supper." Altar was not used in this paradigm as it wasn't ecumenical.

What the new Mass did was to seperate the offering of God's word from the one location where it had occurred, the one altar itself where also the one Sacrifice is offered, to another location, the ambo, referred to as the "table" of God's Word.

However a remnant of the Epistle side and Gospel side of the one altar continues at papal Masses but only outside St. Peter's Basilica at St. Peter's Square. It happened this past Sunday at the canonization Mass.

WHY?

And the Epistle ambo is smaller than the Gospel ambo.

No one on heterodox or orthodox blogs ever comment on this papal Mass anomaly. You would think traditionalists would applaud it and hold it up as an example for all parishes and non traditionalists would be apoplectic about it, like those at Praytell.

I don't get it.



ANOTHER REASON NOT TO PROSELYTIZE: IT CAN RUIN A BARBECUE!



Borrowed from www.sodahead.com

Were these soldiers really victims? Having grown up in the evangelical south I would have been offended as a Catholic if I were in the army and a Protestant chaplain used a barbecue to proselytize me. What do you think?

Seems to me Pope Francis is right about not proselytizing!

This is from this morning's Augusta Chronicle. Fort Gordon is in Augusta:

Group says BBQ aimed to convert

Troop complaints sent to Fort Gordon leaders

A religious freedom organization is calling on post leadership at Fort Gordon to take action after some soldiers reported they were forced to undergo fundamentalist Christian proselytizing by an Army chaplain during a Saturday “spiritual” barbecue. A post official said attendance was voluntary.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which advocates for a sharp separation of church and state, is acting on behalf of 43 soldiers, the majority of them young, but has not taken legal action, said Mikey Weinstein, founder and president of MRFF.

Weinstein said the soldiers were marched to a Fort Gordon chapel Saturday under belief the event was mandatory. At the chapel, loud Christian rock music played and an Army chaplain tried “his level best to get them to accept and surrender to his version of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” Weinstein said.

Weinstein was unable to provide documentation, but said MRFF’s clients gave their “confirmed word” of what happened. He said the event “divided people and hurt people” as several companies, and possibly an entire battalion representing a variety of religions and atheism, were ordered to participate.

Weinstein said his organization typically works with company or battalion leadership on complaints, but, in this instance, went straight to Maj. Gen. John Morrison, Fort Gordon’s commanding general and highest ranking official, and asked the general to investigate and actively punish those responsible.

Fort Gordon Acting Public Affairs Officer Geralyn Smith Noah said the post is aware of Weinstein’s concern and will investigate whether there was “undue command influence” resulting in attendance by approximately 500 soldiers at the Fall Spiritual Fitness Cookout.

“While the event was clearly advertised as a voluntary activity only, we will conduct an inquiry to ensure there was no undue command influence to attend,” she said.

ACTRESS IS CRITICIZED FOR SUGGESTING THAT IF WOMEN DON'T WANT TO BE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT THEY SHOULD DRESS MODESTLY




DAMIAN DOVARGANES AP
In a Facebook Live interview with The New York Times on Monday, actress and author Mayim Bialik discussed a recent opinion piece that drew accusations that she was blaming accusers of Harvey Weinstein.

In one of the news stories about Harvey Weinstein, an actress stated he made unwanted sexual advances toward her. Then she had the audacity to state that when a movie casting agent asks an actress to wear a bikini to a private audition so he can see her body since flesh will be the star of the movie, she should feel safe doing so.

No one wants to be a victim and yes, Harvey Weinstein should be charged if he victimized women who enticed him.

But just as one wears a seat belt to help reduce injury  when someone runs a red light, one should dress modestly to prevent from becoming a victim of sexual assault.

Miriam Bialik  became politically incorrect by suggesting women dress modestly to prevent from becoming a victim of sexual assault and was forced to walk it back. She understands concupiscence but was bullied into "clarifying" her remarks by a culture than is blind to it thus putting victims at higher risk:

BIALIK TALKS BACKLASH OVER WEINSTEIN COMMENTS

Actress Mayim Bialik has clarified her comments on the sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein after an opinion piece she wrote drew accusations of victim blaming.

Bialik wrote in a New York Times piece published Friday that she makes choices to be “self-protecting and wise” like dressing modestly and not acting flirtatiously.

She later added that nothing “excuses men for assaulting or abusing women” and women should be able to wear and act however they want.

Bialik responded to social media criticism in a Facebook interview with the Times on Monday.

She says women can’t avoid being “the victim of assault by what you wear or the way you behave.” She adds that she regrets that the piece “became what it became.”
— ASSOCIATED PRESS

Monday, October 16, 2017

WHILE I PERSONALLY DON’T LIKE IT, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH TWO POPES? PLENTY ACCORDING TO CRUX!

Pope Francis, like a triumphant politician, think Trump, emerged from his election to the loggia of St. Peter’s  Dressed down, casual in his greeting in Italian, showing in a somewhat arrogant way that he would be the anti- Benedict, that is, his papacy would be in discontinuity, a rupture with Benedict ‘s and John Paul II’s. This is a novel secular political thrust to the papacy dividing the Church  into political camps or parties!

However, every dead pope is always referred to as His Holiness or as pope. Once a pope always a pope. Pope Benedict is still pope as Presidents Bush, Bush, Carter and Obama are still refered to as President.

Pope Francis’ rupture with Benedict is the problem thus creating political parties in the Church herself or confirming the heresy of such that developed as a result of the “spirit of  Vatican  II” which Francis has recovered with a vengeance! With a living Pope Emeritus, the rupture is quite vivid and scandalous this energizing the Benedict Party to want to win the next election in order to undo the Francis effect. Francis, not Benedict, is to be blamed for this unprecedented politicalization of the Church and papacy!

Resigned pope creates ‘multiplied and divided’ authority, author says

Resigned pope creates ‘multiplied and divided’ authority, author says
From Crux, read the rest there:

What the author describes in his book is an ‘internalization’ by the Catholic Church of a conflict, typical of the political realm, that had never existed before. This matter is more relevant since both pontiffs recognize each other’s authority and position, something that had never occurred in papal history.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

BEAUTIFUL CANONIZATION MASS TODAY




(Vatican Radio) Inviting all faithful to practice Christian love every day, Pope Francis on Sunday canonized 35 new saints, nearly all of them martyrs, holding them up as models who “point the way”.

To the over 35,000 pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square for the Canonization Mass, the Pope said “They did not say a fleeting ‘yes’ to love, they said ‘yes’ (to God's love) with their lives and to the very end”. 

Those canonized included thirty martyrs, both priests and lay persons, who suffered anti-Catholic persecution in 1645 at the hands of Dutch Calvinists in Brazil, while three indigenous children in 16th century Mexico were martyred for refusing to renounce their Catholic faith and return to their ancient traditions. The other two new saints are a 20th-century priest from Spain and an Italian priest who died in 1739.

The Lord's desire for a true communion of life with us

The Pope’s homily inspired by the Parable of the Wedding Banquet speaks of the Lord’s desire for a true communion of life with us, a relationship based on dialogue, trust and forgiveness.
“Such, he said, the Christian life:  a love story with God. 

We are all invited, Francis said, and no one has a better seat than anyone else.

“At least once a day, he continued, we should tell the Lord that we love him” because once love is lost, the Christian life becomes empty.  It becomes a body without a soul, an impossible ethic, a collection of rules and laws to obey for no good reason. 

Every day is a wonderful opportunity to say 'yes'

“We are the beloved, the guests at the wedding, and our life is a gift, because every day is a wonderful opportunity to respond to God’s invitation” he said.

But he added, the Gospel warns us that the invitation can be refused.  Many of the invited guests said no, because they were caught up in their own affairs. 

"They were more interested in having something, he explained,  rather than in risking something, as love demands: this is how love grows cold, not out of malice but out of a preference for what is our own: our security, our self-affirmation, our comfort…" 

The temptation of settling into the easy chair of profits

And the Pope warned Christians against the temptation of “settling into the easy chair of profits, pleasures, or a hobby that brings us some happiness.  And we end up aging badly and quickly, because we grow old inside.  When our hearts do not expand, they become closed in on themselves”.

God never closes the door

He said the Gospel asks us then where we stand: “with ourselves or with God?  Because God is the opposite of selfishness, of self-absorption.  The Gospel tells us that, even before constant rejection and indifference on the part of those whom he invites, God does not cancel the wedding feast. He does not give up, but continues to invite.  When he hears a “no”, he does not close the door, but broadens the invitation.  In the face of wrongs, he responds with an even greater love”.

Love is the only way to defeat evil

This is what love does, the Pope said, because this is the only way that evil is defeated.

And inviting us all to live in true love and “practice” love every day, Francis said “the Saints who were canonized today, and especially the many martyrs, point the way: They did not say a fleeting ‘yes’ to love; they said they ‘yes’ with their lives and to the very end”.

At Baptism, he concluded, we received a white robe, the wedding garment for God: Let us ask him, through the intercession of the saints, our brothers and sisters, for the grace to decide daily to put on this garment and to keep it spotless” by approaching the Lord fearlessly in order to receive his forgiveness”. 

“This is the one step that counts, for entering into the wedding hall to celebrate with him the feast of love” he said.

Who the new saints are

The newly-declared saints include 30 so-called “Martyrs of Natal,” who were killed in 1645 in a wave of anti-Catholic persecution by Dutch Calvinists in Natal, Brazil.

Also from Latin America was a group of three indigenous martyrs from Mexico - Cristobal, Antonio and Juan - known as the “Child Martyrs of Tlaxcala.” Aged between 12 and 13, they were among the first indigenous Catholics of Mexico, murdered between 1527 and 1529 for refusing to renounce their faith and return to their ancient ‎traditions.‎

And then there are Father Faustino Miguez, a Spanish priest who lived in the 19th and 20th centuries, and Father Angelo d‘Acri, an Italian itinerant preacher who died in 1739 after serving in some of the most remote areas of southern Italy.

Announcement of Special Assembly of Synod of Bishops for the Amazon

After the Mass, Pope Francis recited the Angelus prayer and announced a  Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon regionm to take place in October 2019.

AT ONE TIME, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MADE SURE THAT THE HOLLYWOOD FILM INDUSTRY DID NOT PRODUCE MOVIES THAT GLORIED IMMORALITY BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH'S CONCERN FOR THE COMMON GOOD

 

HARVEY WEINSTEIN IS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG! LOOK AT WHAT IS ON SCREEN IN MOVIES AND TELEVISION AND THE INTERNET.  LOOK WHAT ACTORS MUST DO ON SCREEN AND OFF SCREEN TO GET A JOB. AND OFTEN THEY GIVE IN TO MAKE THE BUCKS THEY NEED. LET'S DEAL WITH THE CULTURE OF HOLLYWOOD WHO KICKED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OUT OF ITS BUSINESS SO IT COULD DO THE SEX BUSINESS AND MAKE MORE MONEY BY EXPLOITING EVERYONE, FROM ACTORS TO VIEWERS.

From about the mid 1930's until the late 1950's the Catholic Church was able to influence the movie industry by forcing them through censorship to produce movies that did not glorify immorality.

I read this unattributed article which is eye-opening in terms of the power of the Catholic Church over the movie industry but lost now because of the modern Church's loss of credibility:
 
Hollywood once lived in fear of the Catholic Church and its movie watchdog, the National Legion of Decency.

The Legion of Decency was founded in 1934 as part of a campaign for the “purification of the cinema,” the church’s response to the growing popularity of movies—especially gangster pictures that glorified violence and the widespread portrayal of the free-and-easy sexual attitudes of the Roaring 20s. Catholics were urged to pledge to “remain away from all motion pictures except those which do not offend decency and Christian morality.”

At the same time, a handful of influential Catholics—including Joseph Breen of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Fathers Daniel Lord and FitzGeorge Dinneen (both Jesuit priests), Father Wilfrid Parsons, the editor of America, and Martin Quigley, editor of the Motion Picture Herald—created a code for motion picture standards. It was designed to self-police the industry and turn popular entertainment into an “ally” of “basic teachings of the church,” according to Gregory Black in his 1996 book, Hollywood Censored.

The code they designed became the Motion Picture Conduct Code, popularly know as the Hays Code after it was adopted by William Hays, a Presbyterian elder who was hired by the major studios to help clean up the industry’s image after it was rocked by a series of scandals. The code, says Black, “was a fascinating combination of Catholic theology, conservative politics and pop psychology—an amalgam that would control the content of Hollywood films for three decades.”

Beyond banning images of married couples sleeping in the same bed or criminals profiting from criminal activity, the code was designed to emphasize that “the church, the government, and the family were cornerstones of an orderly society; that success and happiness resulting from working within this system,” says Black.

The Legion of Decency was created as a counterpart to the code to make sure that the threat of a Catholic boycott of indecent movies keep Hollywood on the straight and narrow, a task that, Black notes, the church was well-equipped for:

The Catholic Church, twenty million strong, heavily concentrated in urban centers, and boosting its own national press with a circulation of more than six million readers a week, was in a unique position to exert influence on the industry.
Films were rated on a scale from “A” (morally unobjectionable, which had four sub-ratings, from acceptable for all to acceptable for adults with reservations), to “B” (morally objectionable in part), to “C” (condemned). This rating system, which was even more stringent than the Hays Code, “dominated film production during Hollywood’s golden era,” says Black. Movie producers lived in fear of obtaining a “condemned” rating from the Legion and adjusted their output accordingly.

The Legion of Decency's motives was not only to protect the morals of America, but directly protect actors from being exploited on the screen, since making movies was their bread and butter, how they supported themselves. Movie moguls, especially if they were amoral, could take advantage of stars and make them do immoral things on screen and off screen for them.

Oh! That happened off-screen on the infamous and well-known casting couch. But in the movies themselves, actors were not exploited into doing something that could offend Christians and others who hold to a higher sexual morality.

The Catholic Church's preoccupation with modesty in general and in Hollywood pictures in particular is based on the reality of human nature disordered by original sin. What remains after holy Baptism is concupiscence.

Have you ever heard a homily on concupiscence? Has it been taught in Catholic schools and CCD programs today? What is it?

In Catholic theology, concupiscence is seen as a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. For Christians, concupiscence is what they understand as the orientation, inclination or innate tendency of human beings to long for fleshly appetites, often associated with a desire to do things which are proscribed.

At one time, parents taught their daughters to be careful in their relationships with men/boys when they started to date. They should dress modestly so as not to tempt the boy into doing something or proposing something immoral. They should avoid the near occasions of the sin so as to prevent the desires of the flesh from overwhelming.  Heavy petting and even kissing should be avoided because of concupiscence that could lead to actual mortal sin.

With the sexual revolution, promoted widely by the movie industry and the loss of Catholic censorship of the industry, rules of modesty were thrown out in society and the Church.

Will Harvey Wienstein help us to recover it? Maybe!

The Catholic Church has recovered common sense rules concerning the interaction of adults and children. The recovery of these rules acknowledges that reality of concupiscence and that children could be at risk because of it. Rules are in place to protect minors. But adults must be vigilant when the rules are thwarted in one way or another in favor of a predator.

Hollywood's problem goes way beyond Harvey Weinstein. Look at what actors are asked to do on screen and for what purpose?-- to titillate the audience, manipulate people into giving into base instincts.

We need the Catholic Church to be the Catholic Church and once again exert the influence of the Church toward modesty on and off the Hollywood screen.

Why should actors have to strip for a movie executive in order to show their bodies, because their bodies will be used on screen to sell a product. Why should actors have to sell their bodies on screen and give into the demands of movie executives to use their bodies for the executives' private pleasures off screen?

Modesty is not a four letter word.

Modestly IMG_4273

USING A CHILD FOR 30 MINUTES OF FAME, HOW DO YOU SPELL SHAME?

And if a boy wants to wear a dress and veil?

Girl denied First Communion because she wanted to wear a suit

Courtesy of Chris Mansell
Cady plays around with a fun hairstyle while trying on the suit she wanted to wear for her First Communion.
Cady Mansell has always had a strong sense of fashion. At 9 years old, she likes trying on makeup and painting her nails. She likes shopping trips to Chicago with her fashion-conscious mother. And since she asked for her first bow tie during one of those trips to the mall when she was just 4, Cady has had a thing for snazzy suits.
When it came time for her First Communion, a major event for Cady, she naturally started thinking early about what she wanted to wear on the big day. She settled on a brand-new all-white suit.
“It kind of sparkles in the sunlight,” she enthused when she tried it on.
But then word got out at her Catholic school about Cady’s planned attire. School officials told Cady’s parents that she couldn’t participate in First Communion with the rest of her class unless she wore a skirt or dress. And when the Mansells dug in their heels, insisting that their daughter should wear the outfit she had picked out for her special day, the argument escalated quickly – to the point that the Mansells pulled their daughters out of the school and the church altogether.
“It made me sad and mad,” Cady said. “We should all be equal and wear what we would like.”
At the school, St. John the Evangelist in St. John, Indiana, an official, who asked the Washington Post not to publish her name because she didn’t make the decision to ban Cady’s suit, said that the school simply couldn’t bend its dress code to suit Cady’s style.
“We have a dress code in place for our school. We consistently enforce that,” she said. “Oftentimes you’ll get somebody who wants to wear sneakers instead of dress shoes, or a purple shirt instead of a white shirt.”
The dress code prescribes dark slacks and a white shirt for the boys at the school, and a white dress or skirt for the girls.
The Rev. Sammie Maletta, the priest at St. John the Evangelist, told the Mansells that a deacon at the church could administer Cady’s First Communion privately, but that she couldn’t attend the ceremony with the rest of her classmates unless she wore a dress or skirt. Cady was upset by that; she wanted to sit with her friends.
“We couldn’t go to the real Communion Mass,” Cady’s mother, Chris Mansell, said. “We would have to wait until all the kids left the building, then come in like a secret. No picture, no anything, like we were ashamed of her. I said, ‘That’s not an option.’ ”
After Chris, who worked at the school as a teacher’s aide, discussed the dress code with the principal, her husband took Cady to the rehearsal for the ceremony. There, Chris said, Maletta pulled Cady’s father aside.
In Chris’ telling, Maletta said: “You’re raising your daughter wrong. You’re setting bad examples for her. She doesn’t have the brain development and maturity to decide if she wants to wear a suit. It’s your job as a parent to say, ‘You’re not wearing a suit. You’re wearing a dress.’ If you won’t do this, you’re raising your daughter wrong.”
Mansell responded by saying that if that was how Maletta saw it, the family would leave the parish, which was central to their lives. It meant pulling their daughters out of the school and Chris quitting her job at the school. They went through with it.
“He already said I was raising my daughter wrong and we’re bad parents. At that point, I don’t want to be in an organization like that,” Chris said.
Chris said that all this has nothing to do with Cady’s gender identity or sexuality – her 9-year-old girl definitely identifies as a girl. Cady does have short hair right now, for excellent reason. She has twice grown her hair long and then cut it to donate to Locks of Love, which makes wigs for patients who lose their hair to disease. And her father has shaved his head several years in a row as a fund-raiser for the St. Baldrick’s Foundation, which raises money for childhood cancer research.
This year, Cady declared, “Can I shave my head for St. Baldrick’s? I want to see if I can make more money than Daddy ever did.” And she did it – she said that she raised $6,000, the most of anyone at the event, and after she shaved her head, they gave her a medal almost as big as her face.
Her hair is still growing back right now.
Cady said she’s enjoying her new Catholic school. But the kids there did their First Communion at the end of third grade, instead of the beginning of fourth grade like Cady was supposed to do at St. John the Evangelist, so Chris is looking for a church where Cady can finally make her First Communion.
That matters a lot to Chris, who said she tried attending a nondenominational church for about a year but returned to Catholicism specifically because of her deep connection to Communion. “I just felt really called to go back because of the sacrament. I prayed on it a lot. I always wanted my girls to make the sacrament in the Catholic Church,” she said. “The Eucharist is just something so special. I think when you’re a cradle Catholic, it’s different. It’s in your blood. It’s in your roots. I just wanted my daughters to be able to experience that.”
Until that day comes, Cady is getting ready – she practiced Communion at home with orange soda instead of wine.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

EVEN AS A 13 YEAR OLD, I BEGAN TO REALIZE THAT VATICAN II AS NOT SIMPLIFYING THE MASS BUT DUMBING IT DOWN!


Did Pope Paul's committee which delighted in simplifying the Mass actually intend to dumb it down for dumb laity who were too dumb to notice or care because they were simpletons who had to have the Mass as simple as possible?

Yes, by 1967 Simpleton Catholics began to realize that simple reverence was being replaced by irreverence. The institutionalized irreverence could only mean one thing, what Catholics believed about Jesus and His Sacrifice and transubstantial real presence was wrong until 1967 which corrected dumb Catholics who actually believed what the pre-Vatican II Mass conveyed in all its complicated reverence.

Thus the loss of Catholic Faith leading today to 12% to 25% of Catholics actually attending Mass compared to 95% who did until about 1965 began its relentless cross generational migration to the present.

Don't get me wrong, as a 11 year old I loved seeing the priest do the 1965 Missal facing me. I loved the blend of English and Latin. With all the symbolic "sign language" facing the people with all the kissing of the altar, all the signs of the cross, all the duplications, I was in hog heaven.

Then at 12/13, 1967 came and the Mass was institutionally deformed by an academic committee telling us poor peons they had a new and improved Coke, I mean Mass. even at 12 I knew it wasn't true when I saw facing me the dumbed down version of reverence (irreverence) which in just two short years prior to 1967 I saw first hand the solemn reverence of the 1962 Roman Mass facing me.

I was sad for the loss of reverence in 1967 until this day!

I copy this from The New Liturgical Movement: ( when I read this it all came back to me!


FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2017


1967: Reaching the Bottom of the Slippery Slope


Here is an interesting bit of history from the post-Conciliar period, a new set of variations to the order of Mass issued in May of 1967, following those implemented in March of 1965. The imprudence of Sacrosanctum Concilium calling for “noble simplicity” and for the rites to be “simplified”, without specifying what exactly that should entail, has by this point become impossible to deny. Less than three and a half years have passed since its promulgation, (the Council itself has been over for less than a year and a half), and the Roman Ordo Missae has already undergone more changes in that period than it had since before Trent. Altars are being turned around throughout the world, so that the faithful can see what the priest is doing at Mass; the time has now come for there to be much less for them to see.

Less reverence is the order of the day; “the altar is kissed only once”, and signs of the cross and genuflections are rapidly disappearing, most shockingly, the genuflection immediately after the Words of Consecration. As William Riccio wrote earlier this year, the faithful who were made nervous by the seemingly endless barrage of changes to that which was always held to be unchangeable “... were told that the Canon, that most untranslatable prayer, would never be in the vernacular because it is too steeped in meaning. In 1967, it was put in the vernacular.” The pretense that even the barest letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium will be respected, (“let the use of the Latin language be preserved... Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy ... should be given pride of place in liturgical services”) is now almost entirely thrown off.

We may also note that commemorations, a feature against which the reformers had a particular and wholly inexplicable animus, are now basically gone, with almost no exceptions. At the very end, there is a footnote concerning the Divine Office; in the fairly few offices of three nocturnes left at that point, one may choose to say only one. The parts of Matins specific to choir ritual (the blessings before the readings and “Tu autem, Domine...”) may now be omitted, along with the prayer called the Absolution, which is a specifically Roman feature. This presages their complete disappearance from the Liturgy of the Hours. The Ambrosian Liturgy of the Hours was not published until 1981, by which time many people were beginning to realize what a mistake some of these changes really were; it retained the blessings before the readings.

Thanks to Mr Richard Hawker for sharing these scans with us.







FINALLY, ITALY 🇮🇹 IS READING 📖 MY BLOG!

I was born in Napoli and my foundational years there! When I just checked my blog statistics, I saw for the first time that Italy has finally discovered me! Gratzie!

PAGEVIEWS ALL TIME HISTORY: 3,327,482

Pageviews by Countries for past week:

Graph of most popular countries among blog viewers
EntryPageviews
United States
4354
Russia
1967
Canada
291
Ukraine
199
United Kingdom
179
Italy
146
India
144
France
94
Australia
91
Philippines

WHEN APOSTACY OCCURS AND TRADITION, THE MAGISTERIUM, THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH AND THE SACRAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ARE ABANDONED PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS, A REINVENTION OF THE WHEEL BASED ON SCRIPTURE ALONE

From the Augusta Chronicle's on going series on the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation. Will there be a similar series on the Counter-Reformation?????

500 years of the reformation

Women answer the call through marriage, family, ministry

MICHAEL HOLAHAN/STAFF The Rev. Linda Birchall is the first woman to serve as the senior pastor at St. Mark United Methodist Church in Augusta. Birchall noted that the acceptance of women as clergy doesn’t change overnight.
As we commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, we will often look to Martin Luther as a starting point. His conversion to salvation by grace through faith in Christ is his most notable transformation. However, the transformation Luther underwent in regard to his view of marriage and family was perhaps just as great. 
Preston
Luther’s hesitation to marry and unromantic reasons for eventually doing so – to spite the pope and the devil – turned into a “partnership of real depth and touching devotion,” and became “a powerful archetype of the new Protestant family,” according to writer Bethany Jenkins in Without Luther, There Would Be No Bach: How the Reformation Influenced Faith and Work Today.
In her article on the Reformation, Jenkins introduces the context into which Luther was born: “Life was divided into the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular,’ ” she says. “And the priesthood of all believers was marginalized.”
In Luther’s day, the only calling viewed to be legitimate was that of a priest, a monk, or a nun. This was, of course, a life of celibacy. Marriage was for those who couldn’t control themselves and was thus considered second best, writes W. Robert Godfrey in Reformation at Home.
And so, Godfrey points out, the choice was given: “serve God or get married.” The two were viewed as mutually exclusive. In this way, the Reformation’s greatest contribution to our view of marriage and family was to rescue it from one that was fundamentally unbiblical, Godfrey writes.
By returning to a biblical view, we see, among other things, that every Christian is a “priest” (1 Peter 2:9) before God with a general call to do his will “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). This means that the calling to marry and raise a family is of tremendous value, even imperative to the Christian worldview and ethic.
From passages like Acts 2, the Reformers came to view the roles of women and children in this context.
And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. (17-18, cf. Joel 2)
Again, in the latter part of the chapter, those listening to Peter are “cut to the heart” and ask what their response to the gospel should be. He responds: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (38-39).
Acts 2 makes it clear that children are indwelt by the spirit and capable of making significant contributions to the kingdom. When we “train up [children] in the way [they] should go,” (Proverbs 22:6), they are being set apart as warriors for the conquering kingdom of God. Christianity grows by 22.5 million per year simply through covenant children being born into Christian families, according to Christianity in Its Global Context, 1970-2020. This should be encouraging to us and reveal to us that children’s ministry is the most effective strategy we can pursue for the advancement of the church.
Passages like Ephesians 5, where a husband’s directive to love his wife as Christ loves the church, leave no possibility for diminishing the value of women. The Old Testament also leaves no room for a low view of women, specifically mothers in the case of King Solomon. When his mother comes to meet him, he rises, bows, and has a throne set for her (1 Kings 2:19). Furthermore, Solomon writes in the first chapter of Proverbs: “… do not forsake your mother’s teaching; indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head, and ornaments about your neck” (8-9). The biblical view of women cherishes them as equal image bearers that must speak into family, church, and society with insights from Scripture.
Drawing on the reformers’ return to biblical teaching, “the Puritans viewed all life-activities, whether deliberately chosen or circumstantially … as callings,” J.I. Packer writes in A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. “To the Puritan mind, marriage and family life constituted a calling in this sense.”
Leland Ryken confirms in Worldy Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were, indeed, their “favorite image for the family was a church.” This made the family a calling in itself.
The Puritans could so confidently view the purpose of a family as being the glory of God partly because they believed that God had established the institution of the family. In the words of Williams Perkins, ‘Marriage was made … by God himself, to be the fountain … of all other sorts and kinds of life in the commonwealth and in the church.’ … Because the Puritans had such a high view of the purpose of the family, they naturally viewed it as a calling – a public good and even a form of social action.
The reformers believed that all of life was to be lived coram deo, or “before the face of God.” Marriage and family life are no different and thus constitute a high calling and an integral part of the modern day reformed church. Like Martin Luther and the Puritans before us, a biblical view of Christianity is one that cherishes marriage and the family as callings from God.
Josh Preston is pursuing a master’s degree in theological studies from Covenant Theological Seminary. He and his wife, Alissa, are members of First Presbyterian Church of Augusta.