The Joy of Love

If you have the patience.(as I do not have that kind of patience (well, I do, but I'd rather not exercise it on this)...read it for yourself here

I hope that all are doing well...

Papolatry and Politization

Lately, it's been so overwhelming with all of these reports about the pope doing x, and the pope doing y, it seems to me a perfect time to zip both sides up.

The pope is certainly not God, we love him, we respect him, but not necessarily every word that comes from his mouth is Gospel, or is necessarily a good idea.

It seems to me there's an extremist point of view with the pope:

a. 100% of what he says is orthodox
b. 0% of what he says is orthodox

Where the truth is that there's no set percentage in between...the charism of infalibility only applies when the pope either via ordinary means or extra-ordinary means, re-states what the Church has already taught. (cf. Vatican I). Basically, the pope has zero power to invent dogma (has to already be taught through the centuries, via the Liturgy, Scripture, Tradition)...or in short, yes, a pope can indeed be quite heretical.

Sure, a pope can lose his office, if he does in his official capacity as pope attempt to require us faithful to believe a heresy, but it is NOT up to us as private lay people to be the judge, jury and executioner of this action. (Hence as tiring as it is sometimes to hear this pope is from time to time, no we have zero authority to depose him)

Yes, we can (and should) point out errors when they do occur, but it is our job to inform, not convict anyone. Hence why we can say something such as that is heretical, but we can't say if a person is a heretic (formally) for we are lower than the clergy...At most we can say a person is a material heretic, we can't assume there is knowledge on the end of a person.

Quite frankly, we need to keep our eyes focused towards heaven, and stop stressing over everything that comes out from Rome. Doesn't mean we need to be ignorant of what is happening, but before we go transforming the world, we need to start on the interior.

So, the Pope has been talking....I guess I should say something

Rumor has it that the Holy Father is present here in the US for the next few days...good...but I must admit, I'm on brain overload from watching both sides screw this up....To be perfectly honest, I've tried to tune this whole situation out....but it even got to me.....So first I'll comment on his "denial", then I will comment on his speech on the important paragraphs of substance, since

Well, the Pope had another interview on the plane...here are the Pope's actual words

And then he spoke to congress here

I come from the school of, one means exactly what they say, unless it's absolutely 100% clear by context that something was intended as a joke, or what not. That is to say, people need to stand behind what they say, people are adults (in general) and if they need to clarify a point, they can make this point explicitly....taking that into account, consider what Our Holy Father actually said during his plane interview...my comments in red

Pope Francis: A cardinal friend of mine told me that a very concerned woman, very Catholic, went to him. A bit rigid (Rigid, something inflexible at least in physics, people can also be a bit inflexible too...but it's very possible that a person has strong stances on *insert whatever they want here* and is not willing to break them.) , but Catholic (Almost as if the Catholic is a qualification nearly, but at least he said this lady was Catholic). And she asked him if it was true that in the Bible, they spoke of an antichrist, and she explained it to him. And also in the Apocalypse, no? And, then, if it was true that an anti-pope, who is the antichrist, the anti-Pope. But why is she asking me this question, this cardinal asked me? “Because I’m sure that Pope Francis is the anti-pope,” she said. And why does she ask this, why does she have this idea? “It’s because he doesn’t wear red shoes. (Actions have consequences, actions lead to people thinking various things, even if not intentional on the part of the person doing the action..the red shoes are of course a symbol of martyrdom)” The reason for thinking if one is communist or isn’t communist. I’m sure that I haven't said anything more than what’s written in the social doctrine of the Church (Are specific positions on issues engraved in the social doctrine of the Church? That is to say, certainly we have the corporal works of mercy, but is there a monopoly on HOW these works of mercy are to be taken out? Of course not, this is why prudential judgement exists true?...Also very apparent, he does NOT remember necessary everything that comes out of his mouth). On another flight, a colleague asked me if I had reached out a hand to the popular movements and asked me, “But is the Church going to follow you?” I told him, “I’m the one following the Church.” And in this it seems that I’m not wrong. I believe (Of course belief is amongst the lowest of the orders, even the devil can believe, but that's besides the point, believing, and what actually happens, can on occasion be in opposition) that I never said a thing that wasn’t the social doctrine of the Church (So it's social doctrine that we must believe in man made global warming, it's social doctrine that we must take these specific steps? God help us all). Things can be explained, possibly an explanation gave an impression of being a little “to the left” (Understatement of the year, a little, no, far out about 600 ft in left field? Possibly more accurate), but it would be an error of explanation (Okay, fair enough, so your intention is not to the left, fair enough, but if you don't wish to be misunderstood, of course you need to be clearer). No, my doctrine on this, in Laudato si' (Oh dear), on economic imperialism, all of this, is the social doctrine of the Church (Again though, is there a possible confusion on this point on the application of particular principles of social doctrine and equating the two together? I'm not sure...The Church explicitly condemns Communism and Socialism, but makes some critiques on Capitalism as practiced in particular places, but to say that one absolutely must apply these principles in a specific way is more than likely wrong). And it if necessary, I’ll recite the creed. I am available to do that, eh. (Great, do so in Greek, but, you'll notice completely absent is how we go about doing specific social issues in the Church...but something tells me this is more or less a comment because he was annoyed rather than in true sincerity) 

• To say necessarily that he was denying leftism is a bit much. Rather more or less, I tend to take him at his word, describing using the left as his thought process would be wrong, he's saying his intentions come from the social doctrine of the Church, (which do somewhat seem left to use political language), which is entirely different than saying a denial of leftism took place. Sometimes I think people read between the lines, when there's only white space between words :p....But it's certainly easy to see how people can interpret what he's actually saying as something else. 

It's certainly okay to lean left of center to want to solve problems (One might be wrong of course), but there are legitimate issues where we can all disagree on how to solve problems....We're not supposed to be brainwashed minions that just recite an answer when available you know?

Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good (paraphrased from the CCC, fair enough, we should indeed seek the common good for all, and not just the select few), for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.

I would like to mention four of these Americans: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. (No St Francis Xavier Cabrini? (I'm not just biased because I was baptized at that parish))

This year marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, the guardian of liberty, who labored tirelessly that “this nation, under God, [might] have a new birth of freedom.” Building a future of freedom requires love of the common good and cooperation in a spirit of subsidiarity and solidarity. (One could argue that there was NOT a lot of subsidiarity going on during those days, and quite a bit of top down dictation, instead of solving problems on the local level, but hey, who am I to judge? ™ And one could argue, there's NOT a lot of subsidiarity going on today as well, There are many top down solutions being provided to situations, where state and local governments can provide a better solution, but hey, maybe I missed that :p)

All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities (specifics help here, WHO?), committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism (Surely, but again, specifics help, it's hard to point out things when specifics are not mentioned). This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion (You can say that again, but also apart of that balance is being able to explicitly say x is a problem), an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps (Well, when it comes down to it, things are good or evil...what we can't measure are peoples' hearts towards said actions, or their intentions it can be also said...So in other words, I can say abortion is evil, I can say objectively that a person who does so is in mortal sin, what I can't say is what motivated the particular person to do that, as reading their hearts is left to God). We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place (Well, how do you get rid of people that want to kill you? Sometime tells me dialoguing over tea isn't quite going to cut it ;)). That is something which you, as a people, reject.

In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening society (Yes, because we Catholics have been treated soooooooo well throughout the founding of the US, and it's history). It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each society. Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery, born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social consensus (Consensus has gone wrong in so many ways....especially in 5-4 situations).

Here I think of the political history of the United States, where democracy is deeply rooted in the mind of the American people. All political activity must serve and promote the good of the human person and be based on respect for his or her dignity. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776). If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort. (In short politics are not an end in of themselves....which in our case is definitely a good thing)

In recent centuries, millions of people came to this land to pursue their dream of building a future in freedom (Here we go, let's see where this goes). We, the people of this continent, are not fearful of foreigners (Well, I'm not fearful of anyone who prepares me for their presence by knocking on the front door, come into my house unannounced though, that could be problematic), because most of us were once foreigners. I say this to you as the son of immigrants, knowing that so many of you are also descended from immigrants. Tragically, the rights of those who were here long before us were not always respected (But is there an absolute right to immigration? No, one is bound to follow the laws of whatever country one is entering (CCC 2241), Yes, many of us are sons and daughters of immigrants, and most if not all came here legally...And before someone has the audacity to say the Europeans came and invaded the native Americans that were living here...we do not know the immigration laws of the various tribes of that time, so their status isn't quite as crystal clear as people would like to think). For those peoples and their nations, from the heart of American democracy, I wish to reaffirm my highest esteem and appreciation. Those first contacts were often turbulent and violent, but it is difficult to judge the past by the criteria of the present. Nonetheless, when the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past. We must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible, as we educate new generations not to turn their back on our “neighbors” and everything around us. Building a nation calls us to recognize that we must constantly relate to others, rejecting a mindset of hostility in order to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity, in a constant effort to do our best. I am confident that we can do this.

Our world is facing a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War (Oh dear, no). This presents us with great challenges and many hard decisions. On this continent, too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities. Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers , but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal. We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mt 7:12). (Well, any immigration should be done with discretion and prudence. We should first make sure these are not terrorists posing as refugees, and various background checks, a nation does have a right to protect its own borders)

This Rule points us in a clear direction. Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated (No one can indeed disagree, I fully agree, but the golden rule does not suspend use of our reason and our judgement). Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities (It is true that we can't give what we do not have.). The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.

This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty (Oh goodness no dear Holy Father, stop here. There is a major difference in degree between abortion immigration and the death penalty. The death penalty is a matter of prudential judgement, I can certainly agree when innocent people who did not do the crime are killed, yes it's wrong. Yes, it's also expensive and maybe a nation that is near 20 mil in debt ought to perhaps consider where its resources are going, but to say we must be against the death penalty, I do not think the doctrine of the Church is this way. There are times where it is warranted). I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred (Amen!), every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes (Now for the question, can all people be rehabilitated? To what degree are we responsible for the prisoners rehabilitation?). Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation.

I''ll upload the rest of my comments later...

Laudato Si..how I would have written it, part I

The official disseration is here...It should have gone more like this:

1. God created the heavens and the earth (cf Gen 1), and as such we as His creation do not have a right to treat the earth as we wish and to simply do things without consequences. It is important that we do not confuse respect for His creation with worship of His creation. We adore the One True God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one in essence and undivided (cf Liturgy of St John Chrysostom). Pantheism is a heresy and is something that we cannot fall into as Christians. It is important to keep in mind the greatest commandment, To love God with all our hearts, minds and souls, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Our care for His creation involves both our love for God, because all that He created is beautiful, as well as our love for neighbor to make our earthly time a good place to live.

2. There are different theories and ideals as to how we should go about taking care of our earth. We must avoid both extremes: We can't be indifferent to the environment or exalt the environment above everything else. It is important for each local community to consider its own resources and abilities as to how to consider solving problems that do exist. As I do not live in your areas, I do not think it would be wise to offer blanket advice as for what to consider to solve environmental issues.

3. It is also important to not let our technologies become an idol and detract us from God. Technology can be used for good or for ill, and once again, we can not fall into a situation where we have extremes of avoiding technology completely, or making technology an end all be all. Technologies that destroy human life in particular life in the womb are an abomination, and must be avoided at all costs. Abortion is a crime against the dignity of a person, and cannot be justified as a use to safeguard the environment. With God's command of being fruitful and multiplying, He did not create the earth without being mindful of His creation and the great advances they would make.

4. St Francis of Assisi is often noted for his love of nature. It can't be forgotten that his primary love was God and His Church. He sought the best for the Church and absolutely condemned Liturgical abuses as well as un-worthy vestments and vessels for God. Let us indeed imitate his love for God and for His Church.

The 15 insults...I mean diseases of the Roman Curia...and my thoughts

I know from my own experiences that blasting everyone doesn't work. I do know that addressing specific needs with those that you have issues with typically works better. Humans are complex creatures and should perhaps be treated as such...On that thought comes these gems from the Holy Father, probably enough to make a volume 2 of the book of insults

So let's go through these point by point.

1. The disease of feeling 'immortal' or 'essential'

Feelings are subjective, and it is true that this can be a form of pride in the sense that one could feel immovable or important. But it is also true that every piece of the puzzle is important, even the most minor of pieces. So as a result everyone should feel important because all jobs need to be done with care and dignity.

Applicable to us, sure, especially when we're young, we do tend to think that we're invincible. Our final end, sometimes we tend to not think about. Perhaps we should spend more time mediating upon these things, rather than thinking that we're invincible.

2. The disease of excessive activity

Well, yes, there are some that make themselves too busy and take on too much, surely...however, what about those that use busyness as an anti-dote to sloth? I know this is true for me, To avoid being slothful, I give myself things to do, even if they're not important. The struggle for holiness is real folks, and some of us have to battle it in very specific ways.

Of course we should try to reach a balance with these things, our activity and our rest. God rested, as such, we should rest too. It's good for the soul to relax, but 24/7 relaxing is bad, and 24/7 working is bad too, a balance must be found...but if one is given 1000's of things to do, one should either do them or delegate.

3. The diseases of mental and spiritual petrification

It is true that we're not robots, and we do have emotions, and we should probably use them. It is also true that a holy indifference is needed to be able to analyze things objectively. This does not mean that we don't empathize when called, or what not, but does mean in order to be able to help people that one can't be too invested in the situation. There's a reason I believe that everyone should have a spiritual director. To be able to look at ourselves with an objective eye, sometimes the outside looking in can see things that inside looking out can't.

I don't know if I can agree to it being a loss of internal peace, for peace is a state of being, not an emotion. I can be peaceful within the context of what I'm working on, even if I take on a machine like behaviour. Like I alluded to in the 2nd point, things do need to get done, and there can be times and places for everything that's needed. A laser like focus is sometimes needed to get work done. It's not that we "don't care".

4 and 5. The diseases of over- planning and bad coordination

Not necessarily every moment is that of the Holy Spirit, or necessarily of the Devil. Why do we plan to the greatest detail? Is to "avoid" promptings of the Spirit? No, of course not....Rather it's because being prepared for every situation makes things go smoother. To under- plan would lead to bad coordination. In order to run anything smoothly, everyone needs to be on the same page. This is why we plan, to keep everyone on the same page to work or get a job done. There's a heresy of formlessness because God is True Order itself. Now if plans don't go according to how they're written that's okay, it's not the end of the world, let's not make idols out of the schedule.

6. The disease of Spiritual Alzheimer's

The Spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak. I really have nothing to say on this one. Sometimes we do tend to forget that sin is a bad thing, and we should avoid it at all costs. Speaking in this subjective encounter with the Lord, we receive Him in Holy Communion, what greater encounter is there than this? That said, is always one of those happy joy joy, feel good moments? Of course not! I don't necessarily "feel" anything. To those that are given the gift of consolation great! But for most of us, that gift is not given...so it can definitely be easy to forget these things.

7. The disease of rivalry and vainglory

It is a good to be competitive and to try and do things well. However for maters within the Church, we don't do things for worldly accolades and vanity, we do them for the love of God, so again, I have nothing really to say on this point

8, 11, 12, and 14. The diseases of external schizophrenia, indifference to others, funeral face and closed circles.

These are the insults to introverts and to those of us that are reserve in our nature by not expressing our emotions one way or another (as a normal exercise)

Not everyone is called to "work with the people" or "walk a mile in their shoes" There are some that are called to the cloister or to be away from the daily struggle. Sometimes these people are dragged from where they're called for *insert reason here* and somehow have to make the best of the situation that they find themselves in. Some people are flat out reserve, and it's not that they're indifferent to other people, maybe the total opposite is true, they do actually care, but they show that care privately versus publicly. We can't smile in all situations, I think it'd be rather inappropriate if a person is getting shot to be smiling...If people are showing sad face, or a funeral face, one should probably ask what's going on...but perhaps it's just how they wish to express themselves. I know for myself, I'm reserve and I don't show my emotion always, I didn't realize being so would be condemned :p. The introverted or reserve person sometimes do tend to keep their circles close. It's no because we hate people, but giving trust is difficult for us, so as a result, yes, the circle is closed. There's no such thing as an open circle ;)

9 and 10. The diseases of "gossip and chatter" and defying the leaders

Well, here's a strange idea...watch what you say. If you don't wish to be spoken of, don't say anything in such a way that will be used against you. Don't pursue agendas that are contrary to the Truth, then you won't be defied. It's really simple, but no, people have to make things complicated don't they? Think twice, speak once....limit off the cuff comments when possible.

13 and 15. The diseases of hoarding and worldly profit and exhibitionism

Yes, having too much stuff is a bad thing (except for kittens and books)...it's true one should not be a materialist....or even do things for money, but rather for the love of God.

Exhibitionism, however, is a bit much. Yes, there are some that do wear the cuppa magna (Read Cardinal Burke, Bp Schneider, Cardinal Ranjith)...yes, these things do represent the world....they should. Then one strips off the world, and puts on a new creation in Christ. (the symbolism of the vestments by the way)...the cassock is street clothing...one puts on the armor of God. It's not exhibitionism to know this theology and to live it. It is not a form of pride to wear what was donated. If anything it's an exhibitionism to NOT wear these things because one is showing one's own tastes are greater than what is given to oneself.


Pax Vobis

A little help for my non scientist friends

I'm sure everyone was waiting for me to weigh in on the Pope's comments on the Big Bang Theory and Evolution.

The Holy Father is a trained chemist, so he gets a little bit of a slide on his comments. But of course as everyone knows the order or hierarchy in science is: physicist = mathematician > chemist > biologist > everyone else :p (And if you don't, this IS how we view the universe of science...(yes, it's tongue in cheek, but there's an element of truth to this, physics is HARD) But there are some important principles which are often forgotten which one needs to be reminded of.

a. Something can't come from nothing.

I feel that physics students would do better with either a semester or a year of philosophy under their belts because of the language of philosophy that penetrates physics often enough. Basic philosophy teaches that something can't come from nothing. This principle extends into physics. There can't be something without an atia (a cause)....Things do not appear out of thin air. In this sense, yes, God is not a magician...it's not a slight of hand or optical illusion, but His creation is real and True.

Understanding the laws of motion, there's a point that often gets confused about the first law. The first law deals with the absence of external (outside) forces. In this situation, a body is at rest or at constant velocity (but not both at the same time)...(The situation of the sum of outside forces being zero is not dealt with in the first law)

Likewise, any change in movement (whether it be a big bang, or even evolution) can't happen without a cause. To say that it happens by itself would be a heretical physics idea. More or less this is what I think the Holy Father was attempting to convey, but could have done so better (It's been a while since he's seen all this stuff, so I'm sure he's a bit rusty...I'm not allowed to get rusty, I have someone that's on my back for it)

b. Getting some things out the way

God is not the author of confusion or deception....that must be kept in mind when he is referring to God not being a magician. But there also things that we need to keep in mind.

Scripture reveals a few things about the order of the universe, that the earth was created first, light came before the stars and the sun, and man was formed from dirt, woman from the rib of Adam...

What it does not say is whether a model was used, where the earth was placed in the order of the universe. (It is not directly implicit that the earth would be in the center of the universe, many of the Church Fathers believed that the earth was at the center of the universe)....For God does not have to do so, but he could very well do so. God is all knowing and all present, and while not bound to our human limitations and our language, God is a God of order and reason, so He would not do things that'd violate order and reason.

A point I ought to mention about physics is that mathematics is a tool to assist us in the understanding of the universe. It is not, never has been, and never will be the end all be all of physics. There are times when math goes beyond physics and vise versa. So, I must say that this particular quote from Pat Archibald is not true at all. (Will  not let me link to the quote)

"Physics is the only profession where you can say stupid stuff like "Ummm, I think that 90% of the universe must be made up of unobserved and invisible stuff because otherwise my equations don't work" and people still think you are good at your job."

The vast majority of concepts in physics are NOT defined mathematically, but rather described mathematically. Y'all might think I'm being a nit picky person, but, it is a HUGE distinction which must be made. A great example is the equation for Gravitational Energy. We do not define force as a mathematical concept, but rather this is an approximation, what we've observed and shown through experiment to happen. To define something in stone, means that it can't be changed. And if you've noticed anything there have been lots of various discoveries, whether it be the Higgs Bosom, and pretty much everything post 1870. What beauty this universe is to be able to find out new things as we pursue the Order of Truth. Yes, I'm being picky, but it's because we do not wish to be limited by things we're not limited by.

But all my words being said, bear in mind that this is a weekday homily and has zero bearing on the Magisterium....but golly, it'd be nice if we at least can get some of these things right....I'm probably going to have to become the pontifical lecturer of physics just to keep his head on straight :p. Hopefully this relatively short post will help clear some things.

Pax Vobis

Closing thoughts on the Synod

The Pope's closing thoughts here...I'll add the official closing report when it becomes available (UPDATE here's the report in Italian)

I'm sorry to say this, but the Pope HAD to say these words. That's right, he was backed into a corner. His hands were caught in the cookie jar, trying to take the cookies out.

This synod exposed Pope Francis as a member of team liberal (through his appointments) (this does not make him the false prophet, an anti-pope, or even a heretic) and no one can now dismiss that. point. Now some of us have been saying that for quite a while...effectively here's what happened. Pope (through the person of Cardinal B) tried to bypass the teachings of the Church (as I've stated, teachings of the Church can't change)...Bishops blew back and said, no this is not happening. (Keep praying though, this doesn't mean team liberal won't try again and with different tactics)

The human misuse of certain faculties can make it appear as if there's a dichotomy between the letter and the spirit of the law. But we know through our reason that the letter and spirit can't be opposed because they come from the same source, and God does not contradict Himself.

I'm happy to be rather "inflexible"...I take it is a compliment. I don't bend because I love souls. We don't bend because we seek the highest bar and we think that all are capable of reaching this bar with the Grace of God. So it is with all of us that are conservative...it's because we believe that people are called to be greater, not to be reduced to the lowest common denominator!

God is constant, God is order, unfortunately, emotions and the subjective experience are far from constant or even orderly. (There's a reason we can't rely on our emotions to lead us you know)...God can fill our lives with surprises, but He himself is not a surprise. God is consistent.

But as you know at this blog, we don't merely complain and not do something about it. Let us continue to pray even harder for the Church, and the vicar Francis, let us pray that he (Francis) does not get swallowed by the enemies who seek to destroy the Church, and better we pray that he not misuse faculties to do the same.

Pax Vobis

Why do we implore Mercy?

In the glossary of the CCC 2nd Edition, there is given a definition of mercy, which is as follows:

The loving kindness, compassion, or forbearance shown to one who offends.

In the Byzantine Church, the priest says "Let us pray to the Lord" (Господу помолимся) and we reply "Lord have mercy" (Господи помилуй, Κυριε ελεισον)

I find it rather interesting during the present pontificate we're speaking of Mercy. But in order for us to speak of it, we need to know what in the world that we're talking about, and whether an action in of itself is merciful.

The one thing I'd like to add to the definition of mercy that I've provided you is that mercy does not always imply kindness. In some situations we have to justly "be mean" in order to be merciful...

It is rather merciful to not allow a person to commit a mortal sin when receiving Communion in particular when this situation has gone public for everyone to know, and to receive would cause scandal amongst the Faithful. This is why the Church has CIC 915, not as a weapon, but rather as the greatest mercy she can provide to the Faithful, to help them not drown themselves further into the abyss. The same goes for the public knowledge of those that have re-married (Separation or Divorce does not exclude one from Communion per se)

At the same token it is merciful to allow people to present their case when they've been accused of a wrong doing. So of course it is positive as well. But Mercy can never be at the exemption of Truth.

Lord have mercy, we beg of Him to have compassion for our weakness...in His compassion for His creation, he gives us free will to serve Him...and so often we fail, and yet He still loves us...and in His mercy allows us another day.

Let us thank the Lord for His mercy, for without it, we're screwed.

Pax Vobis

Meanwhile in the land of pink and fluffy unicorns and rainbows...

We've all heard about the Cardinal Dolan Fiascoes, one of which he attempts to defend here, the other here and the salt on top of a wound of Abp elect Cupich to Chicago, up to the potential exile of Cardinal Burke, and the upcoming Synod...trying to organize thoughts has been rather painful, but I think now I've done so, hopefully rather charitably....and then the real salt on the wound if this is true

a. The St Patrick's Parade...

Let us start with a simple question: Why do we tell people information? It's because we WANT people to know what we're conveying. What we do NOT want people to know, we simply do not tell people...is this not true? For example, if I decide to tell you that I have a cat...it's because I want you to know that I have a cat, or know that you love kitties.

Likewise, if a person decides to "come out the closet" about who they choose to sleep with, it's because they WANT this knowledge to become public. If it wasn't to be public knowledge, then it simply would not be spoken in such a way that this information comes to the public.

As such, a group declaring on a banner that they freely choose to sleep with members of the same sex now makes this knowledge for public judgement and consideration. While it is true that one can't directly make the connection as to whether sodomy is taking place, it tends to be such a matter that those that are not seeking the attentions for these types of actions would not put themselves in the situations for that to happen. It is those that wish for the attention that make the public declaration....and there is no attempt to hide the activity that is going on. Let's not kid ourselves hee, those that are under the OUT NBC banner are more than likely not living lives according to he Church's teaching...

To the point of Cardinal Dolan being reassured that active promotion will not take place...You mean the same that he was "reassured" that Abortion wouldn't take place in Obamacare? How'd that turn out? The same one that trusts the criminal administration to work on illegal immigration, when it can't get abortion right? The same guy who Bravo'ed Michael Sam? I'd love to say he's being naive, but I can't agree, seeing that His Eminence has been fooled before....You really think that these people will not seek the opportunity to embarrass the Church and the Archbishop? There's a good reason his predecessors took the sand of no banners in the parade for St Patrick.

My friend Stephanie has a few points on her blog that are definitely worth considering, which although I do disagree with her, this blogger is all about giving equal time to the discussion.

To let oneself be manipulated in situations where there is clear opposition to what you believe is something that can't be allowed. It boggles me that the same approach (that failed back in the 70's) is being tried again, and somehow they're expecting to get different results? Insanity is probably being charitable, diabolical, may very well be more accurate.

But of course, it'd be crazy to not suggest a solution for this...whenever the parade will be next year...a Holy Hour to be done in reparation. Cardinal Dolan needs our prayers...big time...put your prayers on steroids for this Cardinal, that he may convert and really use the gift of fortitude to speak the truth, rather than capitulate to the culture....

b. Bp Cupich to Chicago

Now, I did live in Spokane for a short time and know of various orthodox priests that were placed in "interesting" positions...and also remember when the Bishop forbade his priests (later amended (don't fall for the amended piece being the original, it wasn't) (When I lived there, I was attending the Byzantine Catholic parish, his rule didn't apply)...made for some interesting times.

I find it interesting, we have a culture that will run us over if we don't stand up, and this appointment, is basically buzz kill for the culture warrior movement. There's an interesting defense here....but I must say, it's very true that one can tell a lot about a person by who their friends, and who their enemies are. It is also true that one can't directly implicate a person based upon their friends and enemies, but we can know about how a person interacts through their relationships....so when the liberal establishment is rejoicing....God help us...and yes, that does mean we need to pray for him, that he may use the gifts of fortitude for the Church. Apparently this is a Pope Francis personal pick....so much for continuity (but to be fair, he cleans up sex abuse scandals pretty quickly)...As I've said before, this pontificate may prove to be the Anti-Benedict XVI pontificate, and the last liberal hurrah before they hopefully go away and disappear.

c. The synod

I'll keep my thoughts simple, if this is a test to see whether God will allow this (Communion for Divorced/Remarried)....It's not a position that the Church wants to put themselves in....and if it does happen, the Pontiff will have publicly proclaimed error in solemn manner...and this would result in some very ugly things happening (Francis being anti-Pope Francis), schism, ugly things that we don't wish to happen. Pray for the synod, let us pray for them that they do uphold the teaching of the Church...let us not be presumptuous and assume it can't happen....there are humans involved, and schisms have happened.

d. Oh boy

If Piero Marini is appointed, that is salt on the open wound, and probably come to prove that the hypothesis about the anti-Benedict XVI pontificate to be true. We should pray that this does not happen, yes, I know God can write straight with crooked lines, but really...let us not be crazy.

Let us pray, pray, pray pray

Pax Vobis

A disagreement with Michael Voris (it does happen from time to time)

Today's Vortex was rather interesting...but I must say I don't agree with it

Some great comments at Connecticut Catholic Corner here and Restore DC Catholicism here

Is not the constant complaint that leaders in the Church are not speaking clearly and with unambiguity? The Faith needs to be taught boldly and with clarity...is not what happening with Pope Francis and the interviews, exactly the problem? The Truth is not being spoken clearly and with unambiguity. The fact that we need help to understand him in of itself isn't the problem (all of us get misinterpreted from time to time) it's the fact that this is a constant exercise...almost seems weekly this is happening. And this is a problem. While one is easily able to get away with this in Buenos Aires, as Pope the magnifying glass is even more magnified than normal. The whole world's eyes are on Rome...and such on the Pope whether he likes it or not.

It pains all of us to mention this, it's not something that we wish to admit, but it is a problem, and something needs to be done about it. While most certainly the laity aren't in much of a position other than to pray, the Truth always must be presented.

Some may wonder, why no benefit of the doubt for Pope Francis? and Pope Benedict got off the hook for his condom fiasco? Well, here's why: a. The mind of Pope Benedict XVI was known as then Cardinal Ratzinger through his various writings and through his work at the CDF and it was something that was clearly out of its context when one listened to the quote, something immediately seemed off. b. Pope Benedict learned from his mistake...you'll notice no one misquoted him again after that. For the sake of the Church, he (Pope Benedict) spoke in such a way that he would not be misunderstood. c. We still have no clue who or what Pope Francis stands for....is he liberal? is he conservative? For the most part he remains a mystery in the sense he never fully communicates what he actually thinks on a particular issue. Yes, we've had a few good statements from our Holy Father on women's ordination and abortion, but we really haven't heard much on other issues such as gay marriage (from him AS POPE)...But we've heard plenty of "who am I to judge?" or that we're supposed to welcome illegal immigrants, and plenty on the poor, or something on economics. This is of course not to say that other issues don't need to be talked about, surely they do, but they are symptoms of a larger problem, the fundamental respect and dignity of the right belonging to Life. Without it, everything else falls. As such without the expression of these points, there's no chance TO defend him when the time comes. d. The ostentatiousness of some of his actions, whether it's been the ditching of the moezetta, not genuflecting, the constant photo ops, violating liturgical law, insert other things here. It's extremely difficult to give the benefit of the doubt, when one is trying to force themselves to be seen. It's easy to see why people are quick to say, hey something's going on here instead of waiting.

Is it possible that if one is being misunderstood that one needs to look at how the message is being communicated? Of course! That is to say it's time for the Pope to take responsibility for his own actions! Enough with blaming the media! Enough with "this is what the Pope meant to say" (NO, if he meant to say that, he would have said it)...Start reviewing things before placing them online, in particular when it comes to interviews (or better yet, stop giving them). If it seems like I'm repeating myself, I am, because it needs to be said over and over until it's understood!.

One of the spiritual gifts is discernment, and I thought this was something that was emphasized in Jesuit spirituality (Ignatian retreats), apparently this is not done before publishing things in the Vatican. It needs to be done. Get things right the first time, so we don't have to go through this "mess" (Oh wait, he did say "make a mess") Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy

Let us pray for Pope Francis, that he may turn around, lest we end up having to pray Ps 108, 8 for him instead "May his days be few: and his bishopric let another take" (And just so we're clear, ABSOLUTELY NO HARM SHOULD COME TO POPE FRANCIS....an early retirement however, would be lovely...especially if we're going to have to do this all the time)

Pax Vobis

Unsolicited Advice where advice is needed

Rumor has it, another interview was given...Being the semi-compassionate person that I am, it's time to give some advice (This article helps a bit)

Here's some advice to help our dear friends in the Vatican Press Office/Pope Francis/G8/USCCB

1) NO MORE INTERVIEWS

To blame the media for things that are approved by the Vatican press office is absolute garbage. (Don't tell me that interviews like this are published "without approval"...I'm not buying it). The old foot in mouth problem seems to be at play here. This isn't to say that he (Pope Francis) shouldn't be allowed to speak freely....but this is the age of mass media, information travels quickly. Everyone needs to recognize this and ACT ACCORDINGLY, seriously all of this is getting ridiculous. The mind bending mental gymnastics that are being applied by the Papal Defense team to explain the obvious is outright repulsive. Call a spade a spade. When the pope is clearly speaking against Church teaching, state it as his private opinion and move on. Define the parameters in which one is working. If one needs lessons in this, just call the Emeritus Pope....he seemed to figure that part out really well.

2) NO MORE BROADCASTING OF THE DAILY HOMILIES

These are intended for a private audience, and should be treated as such. They don't form any magisterial weight, although, they are quoted as such. The only things we should see are the Sunday and Holy Day Homilies, the Angelus addresses, weds audiences, and any acts as Pope or head of state. The rest need not be broadcasted. These homilies are unscripted and are not run by a theologian for orthodoxy as such it's quite possible that something heretical can be said, the idea here being to eliminate confusion.

3) If you're not going to follow the law, either, explain why, or change the law accordingly. While Church Liturgical Law isn't Divine, it is there for a reason. If one physically can't genuflect, state this is not the norm, and because of an inability. (Yet it's hard to believe when we see one kneeling on the floor to kiss the feet of a disabled person). Otherwise it will be presumed that you're placing yourself above the law and being completely arrogant about it.

4) Humility is not ostentatious. It is not forced, no need to show off to anyone. Remember that you are in control of the cameras.

5) This one is for the USCCB...Stop sleeping with the Democrats/spewing the DNC talking points.

It's not like y'all have any authority (canonically they have zero authority can can easily be blocked by a local Bishop) anyway, but I'm happy to help get you some. Pushing for amnesty for illegal immigrants is definitely not going to help you, and certainly offend those that actually did patiently wait in line to come to the country. While many can say that the system is broken, it starts by enforcing the laws that are on the books....Stop selectively reading the catechism and read the whole section on immigration. You know the part where it says a state has a right to protect its borders and he part where immigrants are to FOLLOW THE LAWS OF THE LAND. I'm happy to assist in re-catechesis in any manner I can.

6) Continuing with the USCCB, some more help....funding pro-abortion groups completely undermines your so called message for "religious liberty" Want the "Fortnight for Freedom" to work? Well start by cleaning house, ending federal money from the government and actually teaching the Catholic Faith, that would help for sure...and I'm pretty sure celebrating the Liturgy correctly would also help.

7) Lastly, for all the Common Core people posting the math problems. Common core is the standard that's being taught, not the methodology or the pedagogy. Although the methods are certainly alighted to the standards in question. We need to oppose common core for two reasons. 1. The ease of the ability to indoctrinate kids, and 2. The principle of subsidiarity, otherwise it's symptom of a problem instead of the actual problem that we're treating.

Pax Vobis

Pope Francis...on the legalization of drugs...a partial agreement

Sorry for the link to NBC, but tis the link that was shared with me...Pope Francis' words here

In yesterday's thought of the day, I was alluding to this particular point, but I thought it a good idea to expand upon this point.

In our day where we have the government lusting for power and seeking to control every aspect of our lives, I can see really why people don't want the government involved in the regulation of drugs and such things like that. Seeing also our overcrowded prison systems, and the criminal activities that are involved in the drug war, I can see why the temptation to want to legalize drugs is here. Some points for consideration though:

1) Criminals will disobey laws regardless of whether they're there or not. That is to say, a criminal isn't going to suddenly behave morally because a law is passed for x. Those with the intent of breaking the law, will do so regardless of the consequence. This is of course not a good use of the free will they've been allotted, but hey, who am I to judge? :p

2) Drugs in of themselves are not an intrinsic evil. That is to say drugs can be used for good, or for evil, can be used to better you or make you sick. As with virtually anything, if one over uses something it is potentially harmful.

Now I did mention yesterday how the war on drugs in my humble opinion is a waste of money and resources. Why? I'm of the opinion that the money that is spent attempting to snuff out drugs could be better spent in other places, such as infastructure, the actual poor, you know those famous left wing pet causes that they pretend to care for, those ones :p....

But before we can even begin to have this discussion, we first need to figure out what role is the state supposed to play? Is the state supposed to play the moral police a la Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalist countries? Is the state supposed to just get out the way? Or is the answer somewhere in the middle? As I proceed to quote the catechism for a bunch of times...join me after the citations

CCC 1897 Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."¹⁵ 
By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

CCC 1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.¹⁶ The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

CCC 1903-04 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."²³ "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the 'rule of law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."

CCC 1880: A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them. As an assembly that is at once visible and spiritual, a society endures through time: it gathers up the past and prepares for the future. By means of society, each man is established as an "heir" and receives certain "talents" that enrich his identity and whose fruits he must develop.³He rightly owes loyalty to the communities of which he is part and respect to those in authority who have charge of the common good.

CCC 1881: Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but "the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions."⁴

CCC 1882: Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."⁵ This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.⁶

CCC 1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. the teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."⁷

CCC 1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

CCC 1886: Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which "subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:"⁸

Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed.⁹

Virtually no one would argue that a government is not necessary for the basic functioning of society. Where people disagree is how said government should function.

The sense from the Catechism, is that the role of government is to preserve the order of society, for the sake of the common good...and in this context we can understand why there are regulations of particular goods and services and why certain laws are on the books.

Most certainly drugs fall into this category as well and I'm going to preface the next part by making a distinction. Decriminalization in my context would mean removing the jail portion of the punishment of an activity. Delegalization would be to take the laws off the books entirely. 

I would say the responsibility primarily belongs to the individual to cooperate with the Holy Spirit to use temperance in the use of drugs for good or for ill. In other words, know your limit and don't go beyond it. It is NOT the role of government to ensure that you stay within your limit. It's a violation of the misuse of free will. It is however the responsibility for the government to keep order in society, thus if one acts out of line or does something wrong, the government should step in with this particular situation. 

I would be for the removal of jail sentences for the possession of drugs. As I think jail should be used for real crimes (rape, murder, things like that). It's a complicated scenario to me...I'd rather see the resources for law enforcement be used appropriately (on say illegal immigration) rather than the drug war, but this is my opinion.

Pope Francis is right by saying we should say no to illegal drugs, but perhaps we should place responsibility on the individual first?

What are your thoughts?

Pax Vobis

Pictures say 1000 words

How do we explain this? (And before anyone mentions it, it was wrong for JPII to be blessed by the pagan priestess)....

Items that are apparently worthy to make the news

• Considering all the problems that we have in the states' and the wonderful, competent, think they know better than us geniuses better known as Congress/US Patent Office, they're worrying about the nickname of the Washington football franchise? Honestly, if we base things based on our "offendedness" would we even be able to accomplish anything? Virtually anything can be found "offensive" if we really try. As it's said in the Bill of No Rights, we don't have a right to not be offended. Maybe we ought to have the Bill of No Rights enshrined somewhere. 
• Pope Francis is finally taking a vacation....I pray he comes back refreshed, and puts the insults to an end. 
• So it's often advisable to not read the comments in various media...I hear the intelligence is often lacking from these things. Something to bear in mind, we don't wish to be the thought police, and should allow multiple viewpoints to take place, always in the light of Truth, and with respect and civility. I'd rather someone express something "hurtful" or hateful and it be seen in the open, than play the role of censor, but it is also true that lines need to be drawn somewhere.
• I find it a bit becoming of some to solicit "likes" on a facebook page. Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel that everything I personally "like" in real life needs to be acknowledged, or shown on facebook, I could be wrong...but I find the intrusion into personal privacy to be a bit much. 
• Cardinal Dolan is up to his old antics again...whether it be allowing this, or kicking this priest out. I must say, I've never really been a fan of his...He can use some prayers. 
• There's an icon exhibit at the Getty, for those of you local, I recommend that you go. 
• There some personal intentions, in your charity, I'd love if you could pray for them. 

Pax Vobis

Phone calls/canonizations and such

Last week we had Mandatumgate, this week we have the phone call and the supposed clarification

Whether what's being reported in the phone call as being true or not is not even the point. It's been over a year, and if by now the Pope hasn't learned that what he says and what he does will be under a microscope and more than likely leak out to the media (whether intentionally or unintentionally)...God have mercy on him.

None of us, myself included have any clue as to what was said (and I really don't wish to know what was said it's a private conversation)....some points that need to be said.

• It IS possible someone to proclaim the teachings of the Church in public, but not in private. It applies to everyone in the Church. need a reminder? Pope Honorius' letter was a private letter to a Bishop. 
• I'm pretty sure the Pope was NOT expecting this conversation to go public**(see 1st paragraph)
• The fact that this would even be plausible is shown by the fact that he HAS made various phone calls to different people at random (the traditionalist attorney suffering from cancer, nuns in a convent, and back home to Argentina)
• The fact that he talks so ambiguously could mean that he would speak in such a manner as in bullet point one. 

Many have cried about the Holy Father being misquoted, or misrepresented...which to be fair, several times has happened, but at what point does he (Pope Francis) take responsibility for the things he says? At what point does he take responsibility for the scandal that is caused by his actions? I most certainly understand the need to give the benefit of the doubt, but this continuous explanation/wussification, whatever you wish to call it is getting beyond tiring, when does it stop?

Also, on Sunday, are the canonizations of Bl JPII and Bl John XXIII...I'll say that I'm not every excited about it. For what it seems the canonizations are more politically motivated than holiness motivated. Certainly in the case of Bl JPII, there hasn't been enough time to objectively measure his life, and much of the cult of personality still remains....(and is returning with Francis). Considering Bl John XXIII is well before my time, I have no comment on him other than, he started Vatican II....and while the council may have been necessary, one could argue it was one of the worst times to call a council...(the time to call it would have been in the 50's or the 40's to address Communism)...as for the abuses of the Liturgy, that could have been stopped via synod and didn't need a council per se to stop them. (Don't misunderstand, Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council of the Church)...Other than that, I know little about him. :p...Let us pray.

Let us pray for some clarity, and charity. 

Pax Vobis

Pope Francis: a year in review

It was a year ago...where we saw the election of Pope Francis, and my words were "who" at his election, I had zero clue as to who he was....And now a year's gone by, so time to reflect...

As I have said often, and I'll say again, my approach is neither doom and gloom, nor sunshine and rainbows. There have been times where Pope Francis has said wonderful things, there have been times where Pope Francis has been misinterpreted by the media, there are times when the words of Pope Francis have been the problem. While I make no secret that I'm not number one on the papal cheer team, I most certainly pray for him everyday because he needs it.

I really feel for the Papal Apologetics team (aka the Vatican press office) for always having to issue corrections....

I suppose that if we can't laugh about things, that we could go into despair mode about certain things.

1. The Pope Francis little book of Insults....

2. The Top 5 moments of Pope Francis' Papacy, from Eye of the Tiber

I have seen the Internet meme where it shows Pope Francis not changing doctrine. Well, guess what, he doesn't have that kind of power, so it should be no surprise to liberals or conservatives that nothing has changed. Of course, something I should mention is that the perception that something can change arguably does more damage than any actual changing itself.

Most definitely, let us pray for Pope Francis as he's asked us to do, he needs it....and while I could easily spend this entry going through every single thing wrong....there are other blogs that do that much better. Let us pray for Pope Francis!

Let us pray for Francis, Pope of Rome, Lord have mercy

And here also is a good perspective

some comments on CMTV manifesto

Here, CMTV gives a manifesto on their own criticism (or lack their of) of Pope Francis

minor point that they get wrong; that said, I agree with the substance of what they're trying to say

• The SSPX are not sedevacantists (the SSPV however, are)
• I would not say that the Remnant, and Catholic Family News are allegedly faithful

The thing about reading the traditional blogs, they are 99% of time on the point substantially about the points that they bring up. The vast majority aren't in-tune with the problems in the church (at least to this level) and I would agree that those with weak faith could very well lose their faith over reading the traditional blogs (and I comment on some frequently, and often times than not agree with them)

I must say it is rather addicting to tune into what will Pope Francis say next, often times these words have an unintended humor to them (at least the comments on the words do). In this sense while certainly no where near as evil as pornography....I can totally see the reference. Perhaps it would have been better to make an analogy to marble cake...too much probably a bad thing...but I wouldn't say the traditional blogs are an intrinsic evil which necessarily in of themselves need to be avoided, but I get the point....those with weak faith should avoid these...I absolutely agree.

They are most certainly not saying that the Pope isn't above criticism (he isn't....insofar as these things are done in charity, and not focused upon the person of Pope Francis, and rather focused upon objective criticisms, by no means is the Pope God, nor should he ever be exalted to that point). The point is that this is not the mission of CMTV...there are the rest of us that can do the criticizing...(always in charity of course)

Yes, I do sometimes think mountains are made out of molehills (the charism of infallibility is specific for a reason), and sometimes the media is to blame for the situation of Pope Francis, but there are times when the words themselves are a problem. Yes we can point them out, but always in charity, but it's not always necessary for every single thing that Pope Francis says. (The converse of everything being all sunshine and rainbows also holds true). As I've said before I'm not doom and gloom, but also not sunshine and rainbows on this pontificate either. 

We each have our mission, and CMTV has theirs, and for their mission they are doing a good job. They don't have to criticize Pope Francis to accomplish this....I've certainly tried here to keep the criticisms to a minimal...(hasn't always been successful)

Let us pray for Pope Francis (he needs it) and for all of us trying to be faithful to Holy Mother Church (it's not easy in these stormy times)

Pax Vobis

No, it's not a fad, it's a matter of being fed.

Over at Rorate....Our dear friend Pope Francis does not understand why the young wish to go back to the Traditional Liturgy.

As one of those young people, I'm gladly able to help in the misunderstandings that may occur.

a. It's not a nostalgia, and it's most certainly not a fashion, or a fad.

It's impossible to be nostalgic to something that we don't memories of. Bear in mind that all of us young people were born well after the 2nd Vatican Council (the blogger 1985, a full 20 years some odd well after the conclusion of the Council). All of us have grown up with the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) since our birth. Many of us have experienced Liturgies that were "lacking" (and that's being rather kind). Between inviting all of us to the altar, surrounding priests for the Consecration, to "altar calls" with some subjective, how has the Lord affected my life that sounded like it came straight out of a self help book, to the Pouring of Jesus after the Consecration, and added on top of an attempted Catholic attempt at rock music which sounded as pathetic as the modern Justin Bieber, but didn't quite get that low. The youth were the subjects of Liturgical experiment after experiment...(Yes, everything I mentioned actually did happen at my parish growing up). And while emotionally "filling" (or epically lame depending on your point of view), none of these things substantially dwelled or edifies our souls. Why? Because it was exactly what we knew from our everyday culture, and we didn't need to come to church to find this. As much as I mock pop culture at times, there are good things within it....Everyone has the desire for Truth within them, and they're going to go where this desire can be substantially filled. The OF as celebrated in average everyday parish at St Liturgical Abuse, while most certainly Jesus is there because the OF is a valid Catholic rite, I can't really say at least from my own experience that it takes people out of the ordinary.

b. It's not the ordinary everyday experience, the reverence, the order and beauty all fill our crying hearts.

As alluded to earlier, if we wanted to go to a rock concert, jazz concert, tango dance, etc, those things are easily within access, and the Church does not need to provide those things to be found. We go to Mass (or Divine Liturgy) to adore God, to beg pardon for our sins, to thank Him for our needs, and to pray for others and ourselves. While most certainly these things can be done outside of Mass context, in justice by the virtue of religion, we do these things because of our love for God and His Holy Church.

The chanting (whether Gregorian or Byzantine) lifts our hearts and minds towards our Heavenly Father, and takes us away from reality and towards the Divine in ways that contemporary or modern music can't even attempt to achieve. Though rest assured if you want emotional, sappy, feeling stuff, contemporary music does that quite well. (Although believe me, a good Dies Irae can definitely be very moving)

While most certainly the NO can be done very reverently and absolutely beautifully (need we look at the examples of our beloved Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI for this)...I don't think it can be said that the reverence is built into the Mass itself. How can that be said? The variety in which the NO is celebrated, from clown Masses, to beautiful Gregorian Masses, shows that the degree of reverence that is shown is subject to the person celebrating, and this is indeed a problem. When subjectivity becomes our basis, that only leads down painful roads in which to some degree we're living out the consequences of such. In the EF (TLM) or Divine Liturgy, the person of the priest is gone....all of the rubrics point to the person of Christ. (Again, not to say that these things can't occur in the NO, they do, but to a lesser degree)....there's a rigidity to the forms, we know exactly what to expect. Every bow (genuflection) is for a reason, always pointing us to something higher. The precision in which the rubrics are done gives an order to an often disordered world.

Quite to the contrary, beautiful vestments are not a distraction (nor should they be donated to the poor) they lift us up because God is Beauty itself. The beauty shows how much we love God in the sense that we give back to God the most beautiful, because He in His mercy created us to love Him. The vestments that are plain are actually a distraction because they point to the ordinary, the cheapness in which somethings are done, believe me are noticed, even if in the subconscious, and often the question is asked "Is this how much we love God?" If we treat Him like this, what's the point. Again, it's the point about dragging us out of the ordinary and into the Divine.

Things like this are edifying to the soul

Things like this, not so much:

The times of today, there's not rushing through prayers, there is a love, and a beauty which is not there for the most part in the OF as practiced in everyday parishes. We youth do notice these things, and while this is not meant to be an exhaustive post on why the traditional Liturgies are attracting, it's meant to help those that don't know, see, appreciate and love the Traditional forms of Liturgy.

Oh, but I'm not quite done, lest anyone think otherwise. Of course we must certainly be careful that the Liturgy does not become a form of idolatry, and while it's not the "Liturgical form" that saves us per se, Christ DOES act through the Liturgy, and it is He that redeems us through the Cross, and saves us, so far as we persevere in the end....so in that sense, one can say the Liturgy can indeed save the world. If my memory serves right, one of our presidents, I think it was John Adams, once went to a Catholic Mass, and saw it sloppily celebrated, and didn't convert because of that. So I thus think that it indeed quite important that Liturgy be celebrated well, and why I'm in support of the Liturgical movement. 

So yes, do pay attention, and see where we're heading. The ugly will not attract, beauty will. And while certainly we youth still struggle with various sins, we're certainly trying...and for this, we'd rather not appreciate being mocked, whether intentionally or unintentionally. 

Pax Vobis