Communion on the tongue safer than Communion in the hand

 

I've been saying this right along: Communion on the tongue is safer than Communion in the hand.  Another study confirms this.  See here.

And yet, the former Bishop of the Springfield Massachusetts Diocese (Bishop Mitchell Rozanski) used the pandemic to crush reverence for the Holy Eucharist throughout his sodomite-ridden local Church.  See here.

Communion on the tongue has always been, and continues to be, the norm.  See here.

The filth of the Springfield Diocese and it's legacy here.

Springfield Massachusetts Diocese: Marginalizing men

"Today’s radical feminism was born from Marxism. And its disciples believe that, in order to establish a Marxist society, men need to be marginalized." - Sharon Ambrose, from her essay entitled "Man Down."

And the marginalization of men continues unabated throughout our sin-sick culture. And this includes the Church.

Only effeminate, emasculated "men" are deemed acceptable in the New Church. Men who have a backbone or who act like men are deemed a threat by radical feminists who demand absolute control of a church made in their image and likeness.

While on a retreat several years ago, a Religious Sister (a Presentation Sister) told me that she hates men. Presumably this would include Jesus and His Apostles as well as Saint Joseph and every single Pope and male saint since the Church's founding.

Imagine if a priest gave a homily and proclaimed that he hated women. How would such a statement be received?

The Church is sick with a virus my friends. The virus of anti-masculinity. I have witnessed this misandry firsthand as I attempted to volunteer at my parish only to be turned down so that a woman could serve instead.  My Diocese won't even let me APPLY to the priesthood.  The fact that I'm a military veteran who refuses to embrace the homosexual agenda is most likely a major factor in this discrimination.

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke has said that, "the radical feminism which has assaulted the Church and society since the 1960s has left men very marginalized...Unfortunately, the radical feminist movement strongly influenced the Church, leading the Church to constantly address women’s issues at the expense of addressing critical issues important to men; the importance of the father, whether in the union of marriage or not; the importance of a father to children; the importance of fatherhood for priests; the critical impact of a manly character; the emphasis on the particular gifts that God gives to men for the good of the whole society.

The goodness and importance of men became very obscured, and for all practical purposes, were not emphasized at all. This is despite the fact that it was a long tradition in the Church, especially through the devotion of St. Joseph, to stress the manly character of the man who sacrifices his life for the sake of the home, who prepares with chivalry to defend his wife and his children and who works to provide the livelihood for the family. So much of this tradition of heralding the heroic nature of manhood has been lost in the Church today."

Lost because of a demonic movement which seeks to effeminize the Church and render it impotent before the Devil.

It comes as no surprise that the Springfield Diocese's Men's Conference has been cancelled this year.  While the Diocese extends a hearty welcome to active homosexuals (without calling them to repentance - see here), masculine men who have concerns are told to shove off, see here.


Bishop Mitchell Rozanski calls for "listening sessions" in preparation for the Diocesan 'Pastoral' Synod: But who will the Diocese actually listen to?

In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI explains that, "Dialogue..is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.

3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost. As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

It was Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, No. 36, who said, "There must be charity toward one's partner in dialogue, and humility with regard to the truth which comes to light and which might require a review of assertions and attitudes."

This is what Catholics are called to. Sadly, the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, under the "leadership" of Bishop Mitchell Rozanski, has failed to embrace these fundamental characteristics of dialogue.  Catholics who adhere to the perennial teaching of the Church or who refuse to accept liberal Democratic policies advanced by Bishop Rozanski are routinely excluded from any meaningful participation in parish or diocesan life.

Readers of this Blog know how the Bishop deleted comments I left at his Facebook page regarding his partisan posturing on immigration and how he blocked me from commenting in the future simply because I politely disagreed with him and refuted his arguments with sound logic.  See here.

Now Bishop Rozanski, presiding over a Diocese which is crumbling from within, "..is encouraging the faithful to take part in listening sessions" in preparation for a Diocesan Pastoral Synod.

But who exactly will the Diocese be listening to?  From past experience, it will not not be "the faithful," but only those who embrace dissent from Church teaching or far-left Democratic policies.  See here

Related reading here.

.

Bishop Mitchell Rozanski wants to pay respect to the Reformation which was against the Holy Spirit

From Lifesite News:

Cardinal Gerhard Müller has rebuked the secretary-general of the Italian Episcopal Conference for claiming that the Protestant Reformation was an 'event of the Holy Spirit.'

It is "unacceptable to assert that Luther's reform ‘was an event of the Holy Spirit,’" wrote Cardinal Müller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a recent article published in the Italian newspaper La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana. 

"On the contrary, it was against the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit helps the Church to maintain her continuity through the Church’s magisterium, above all in the service of the Petrine ministry: on Peter has Jesus founded His Church (Mt 16:18), which is 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15)," the cardinal wrote.

“The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself,” added Müller.

Müller’s rebuke was directed to a verbatim quote of the secretary-general of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Bishop Nunzio Galantino, who spoke on the topic October 19 at the Pontifical University of the Lateran.

During his address on the topic of “the spirituality of the Reformation in ecclesial practice,” Galantino reportedly said, “The Reformation was, is, and will be in the future, an event of the Spirit,” and “The Reformation carried out by Martin Luther 500 years ago was an event of the Holy Spirit,” according to various Italian media.

Exactly.  The "Reformation" was against the Holy Spirit.  Which probably explains why Bishop Mitchell Rozanski wants to pay respect to it.  See here.

Our sad time.

Bishop Mitchell Rozanski wants to pay respect to an excommunicated heretic and the tragedy of his heretical movement...

Over at RadTrad Thomist we read:

"Lest we forget the other anniversary we have this month --- soon after the 100th Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun performed by the Mother of God in front of 70,000 people at precisely the exact time as announced in order to confirm the people who believed in their Catholic Faith and to prove to the unbelievers that her messages and secrets which she gave to the three children were true --- the second anniversary is that of October 31, 2017 which will be the 500th anniversary of the "nailing of the 95 theses to the church doors at Wittenberg Cathedral" by Fr. Martin Luther.

The reason that we have put up a picture of Luther's toilet, fairly recently discovered in Wittenberg, is because of Luther's own statements that he came up with his 95 theses while suffering from chronic constipation. It is also while resting on the facilities that he was enlightened by his revolutionary theological idea of "faith without works" according to which you cannot do anything to contribute to your own salvation, in fact, to strive for holiness is itself a grave sin..."

For an adequate understanding of the so-called "Reformation" and the excommunicated heretic Martin Luther, See here.

Why was Martin Luther excommunicated by the Catholic Church?  Here are fifty reasons from The National Catholic Register.  See here.

And now a question.  Why is Bishop Mitchell Rozanski commemorating the "Reformation" and why is Saint Mary's Parish in Orange, Massachusetts promoting this event?  See here.

As Henri Daniel-Rops explains: "Protestantism marks a complete break in the history of Christendom, the most grievous and most tragic there has ever been.."

And Bishop Rozanski wants to pay respect to this tragedy?

com·mem·o·rate
kəˈmeməˌrāt/
verb
recall and show respect for (someone or something).


I'm beginning to understand more and more why Bishop Rozanski and Saint Mary's Parish have blocked me from being able to comment on their respective Facebook pages.  They don't want their distorted views to be questioned or challenged.

Some prefer living in a bubble where they can all the more easily maintain their fantasy world.

Bishop Mitchell Rozanski: More concerned with one attack against a mosque than 174 attacks perpetrated by Islamic extremists

Once again, Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski and members of the USCCB are revealing just how out of touch they are with reality.

Bishop Rozanski has been strangely quiet with regard to the daily carnage perpetrated by violent Islamic extremists, but on his Facebook Page he is denouncing the London Mosque attack:

But, as documented here:

Got that?  During Ramadan, extremists who operate in the name of a cult which is a manifestation of Antichrist murdered 1,595 people and injured 1,960 others.

But Bishop Rozanski and his liberal confreres are more concerned with the one attack on a London Mosque which resulted in one death and which was carried out by a lone individual who was intoxicated and who suffers from mental health issues.

Isn't it gratifying to know that Bishop Rozanski possesses such  a firm grasp on reality as well as the ability to see the big picture?

Dear God, preserve us from "shepherds" such as this!

Related reading here.