Hard Truths

Hard truths.

In one of his last homilies, Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador, said: "A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death. A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."

We've had enough of a preaching which leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death.  We've had enough of a Cotton-Candy Catholicism which offers Chicken-Soup Homilies and asinine theatrics rather than the solid meat of sound preaching and liturgical reverence.  Sadly, so many of our priests haven't caught on to this.  And so they continue to spoon-feed us the unsatisfying pablum.

The time for lying is over.  I have been saying this for years.  Back in 2009, Archbishop Charles Chaput noted that, "40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected...We can't talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we've allowed ourselves to become.  We need to stop lying to each other..." 

The lying must stop.  For this to happen, we need priests and Bishops who fear God more than they do men.  Cowards will not lead us out of the valley of death.  Only shepherds who have the spiritual strength, the Cardinal Gift of Fortitude, to brave the risk of worldly criticism, will be able to lead the American Catholic Church out of the valley of the Culture of Death and back on the road to the Civilization of Love which Pope John Paul II spoke of so often.

Why have so many priests succumbed to fear?  Why is it that their preaching no longer points out sin?  Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange provides us with an answer:

"The reason for this is not difficult to find.  A sermon is the result of the combined effort of all the priest's powers; it reveals his entire person; it is his struggle against the vices of the surrounding world."  In other words, if the preaching is unsound, it is because the priest's spiritual life is unsound.  Fr. Lagrange continues, "Everything in the priest cooperates in his preaching - study, reflection, his powers to compose and revise, the activity of his intellect, his imagination, his memory, his feelings, his voice.  Therefore, when he preaches, the priest stands exposed for all to study; some will be attracted, others will not.  Some will accept what he says, others will simply criticize.  So if the priest approaches his task from the human angle, he will say to himself: 'I cannot afford to lose my reputation; people of weight in the parish who take offense easily must be spared their feelings and not provoked; I must proceed warily so as not to incur criticism.'  In that way Christian eloquence is invaded by a profane eloquence in which the preacher looks after his own interests, not the glory of God or the saving of souls." (The Priest In Union With Christ, p. 156).

I've never been a fan of lying.  And this because Our Lord tells us that the Devil is the Father of all lies (John 8:44),  If it's lying you want, this Blog is not for you.  Forty years of lying [over 50 years now] has wrought so much damage to the American Catholic Church.  Archbishop Chaput is right, we are merely reaping the fruit of what we've planted.  St. Paul tells us that, "...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.." (Galatians 5: 22).  But what fruit have we witnessed in the American Catholic Church?  The Church has been infected with dry-rot as so many Catholics have succumbed to the works of the flesh.

We need heroic shepherds.  Men who, like Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., are willing to give their very lives for the Catholic Church and her teaching.

This is not a time for cowards.  We need men of holy stubborness which, in spiritual terms, is called perseverance.

Related reading here

How the Democrats stole the election

 

Church Militant on how the Democratic Party stole the election here.

“And they adored the beast, saying, who is like to the beast? And who shall be able to fight with him?” (Revelation 13:4).

As Rev. P. Huchede explains in his book History of Antichrist, “All vile parasites of fortune, astonished at the rapidity with which Antichrist achieves his conquests and also at the unlimited sway of his power, deceived by his prodigies, will prostrate themselves before him and adore him as their god. As soon as he believes himself master of the bodies and souls of all peoples, he will decree and proclaim his divinity and establish a new religion. According to the Apostle, he will lift himself up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). He will command all peoples to place his statue in the public places to be worshipped, the image of the beast whose wound was healed (Revelation 13: 13-15)…..Then he shall think himself able to change times and laws – religious, political, and sacred – by which the world had been governed up to his advent (Daniel 7: 25)…None but adorers of this new god can enjoy the possession of riches or honors. This god shall increase their glory and shall give them power over many and shall divide the land for nothing (Revelation 13: 7)….Those who will refuse to obey his impious orders shall be the object of a terrible and universal persecution….No language can give an adequate idea of the atrocity and effects of this frightful persecution. “I beheld and lo that horn made war against the saints, and prevailed over them” (Daniel 7: 21). The beast shall make war against the saints and shall overcome them and kill them (Revelation 11: 7). And he “shall crush the saints of the Most High” (Daniel 7: 25). And he will put to death all those who will not adore the image of the beast (Revelation 13: 15). Then the truth shall be oppressed. The Church shall see her children apostatize in vast numbers, and in the agony of her heart-rending grief, she will cry out in the words of her divine spouse, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mark 15: 34). Then by order of the tyrant the continual sacrifice shall be abolished (Daniel 9: 27). The holy sacrifice of the Mass shall no longer be offered up publicly on the altars. The Church shall be devastated; the sacred vessels desecrated; the priests shall be scattered and separated from their flocks and put to death….The Church has taken up her abode in the catacombs.” (History of Antichrist, pp. 23-26, Tan Books).

In order for the new religion of humanitarianism to succeed, all dissenting voices will have to be either converted, silenced or removed. The Reign of Antichrist, which will be presented as an age of “love and harmony” will have to be brutally violent in order to achieve world unity. There are already many voices which have called or are calling for such a “global purge” or “cleansing action.” Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, in the July-August 1995 edition of Foreign Affairs, said that, “We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” Likewise, David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative at the United Nations, has said, “Lucifer comes to give us the final Luciferic initiation…that many people now and in the days ahead, will be facing – for it is an initiation into the New Age…No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian initiation.” Benjamin Crème, another prominent New Age “prophet,” on page 128 of “Maitreya’s mission,” insists that those who refuse to join in this World Initiation will find themselves in the minority and will have to “withdraw from this life.” Creme exhorts his followers to, “Be not afraid, therefore, when the ‘men of cloth’ raise their voices against the Great Lord, naming Him anti-Christ and arch-deceiver, for they know little of the laws which underlie their faiths and act and speak from ignorance and fear.” (April, 1997).

In the New Order, a Police State will employ the use of various technologies to keep the citizenry in line. In the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Technocratic Age is slowly designing an every day more controlled society. The society will be dominated by an elite of persons free from traditional values who will have no doubt in fulfilling their objectives by means of purged techniques with which they will influence the behavior of people and will control and watch society in all details…it will become possible to exert a practically permanent watch on each citizen of the world.” Mr. Brzezinski was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations who has attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group.

With the help of Big Tech and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, Conservatives and Christians who actually adhere to Gospel Teaching are being censored or banned outright in preparation for the Democratic Socialist Party and its Luciferic agenda.

The liberal mainstream media, through its silence, promotes anti-white racism

Further evidence not only of media bias in the mainstream media, but of a reverse racism here.

The MSM refuses to look at stories such as this or to acknowledge certain facts, such as the fact that white police officers are 8 times more likely to be assaulted or killed by a black man than a black man is likely to be assaulted or killed by a white police officer.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, a sure norm for teaching the faith, in paragraph 1931, explains that:


"Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as 'another self,' above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity." No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a 'neighbor,' a brother."

Everyone should look upon his neighbor WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION as another self.  The liberal mainstream media rejects this truth.  For those who produce these sham media, only black lives matter and only whites are capable of racism.

But watch the video from Ben Shapiro.  Watch as that black man smashes his fist into the face of the white man.

This isn't hatred?  This isn't racism?  What then is it?  Love?

More racial hatred here

Francis knew McCarrick was a serial predator...

Archbishop Vigano told the truth about Francis and members of the Church's hierarchy who protected Cardinal McCarrick.

The National Catholic Register reports that: "Aboard the papal plane, the Holy Father declined to confirm or deny that he knew about the U.S. archbishop’s sexual misconduct in 2013, yet reinstated him in ministry."

Such comes as no surprise.  Writing for The Spectator, Damian Thompson notes that, "Pope Francis stands accused this morning of covering up the crimes of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, one of the most senior and sinister sex abusers in the history of the Catholic Church.

The allegation comes from the Vatican’s former apostolic nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 77, who has called on the Pope to resign.

In a devastating 11-page written testament, Viganò says Francis lifted severe sanctions imposed on McCarrick for sexual wrongdoing by Pope Benedict XVI, the existence of which has not been made public until now.

Viganò writes that he told Francis in person in 2013 that McCarrick ‘had corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance’.

But, says the former nuncio, the new Pope decided instead to cover up for the retired Archbishop of Washington – and made him one of his most trusted advisers.

‘He knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator,’ writes Archbishop Viganò. ‘He knew that he was a corrupt man, [but] he covered for him to the bitter end.’

Only when the media revealed last month that McCarrick was suspected of the abuse of a minor did Francis take action ‘to save his image in the media.'"

Bishop Shawn McKnight: A change of culture among the clergy is needed

The Catholic Herald reports:

"The new Bishop of Jefferson City, Missouri has expressed his shock at the McCarrick scandal and 'the silence of so many bishops who knew about him.'

Writing on the diocesan website, Bishop Shawn McKnight said the reports were 'almost unbearable', adding: 'How could a brother bishop disrespect with such callousness the dignity of young boys, seminarians and priests over decades and no one called him on the carpet?'

'It is inexplicable to me. This cannot continue, and I hope with God’s grace there will be a change of culture among the clergy.'

The bishop, who was installed just six months ago, also urged any victim who has not yet come forward to do so now 'so that justice may be served and healing can take place.'

Bishop McKnight was ordained in 1994 for Diocese of Wichita, Kansas and has held teaching posts at Newman University and at the Pontifical College Josephinum Seminary in Columbus, Ohio. From 2010 to 2015 he was a member of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations.

His comments come as bishops call for an inquiry into the allegations surrounding Archbishop Theodore McCarrick.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl suggested on Monday that a panel of bishops could investigate claims and rumours against their fellow prelates and report the findings to Rome.

However, two bishops have said any investigation must be independent. Bishop Timothy Doherty of Lafayette said the US Conference of Catholic Bishops could hire an outside investigator to find out 'who knew what, and when' over the McCarrick affair.

Bishop Edward Scharfenberger of Albany also said any investigative panel 'would have to be separated from any source of power whose trustworthiness might potentially be compromised.'

'While I am heartened by my brother bishops proposing ways for our Church to take action in light of recent revelations – and I agree that a national panel should be commissioned, duly approved by the Holy See – I think we have reached a point where bishops alone investigating bishops is not the answer,' Bishop Scharfenberger said."

A change in clerical culture is indeed sorely needed.  We need priests and Bishops who are capable of being outraged at sexual abuse and perversion.  See my post here.

It's time to fashion a whip and drive the filth out of the Church.  Something Pope Benedict XVI called for years ago.

Islam supporting Bishops have a death wish for the Church

From New Oxford Review:

"Why is it that Catholic bishops seem to be plumping for Muslims? Why do they issue statements about Islam that are dishonest and misleading? Why do they appear to be so intent on protecting the image of Islam? If you’ve asked yourself these questions, you’re not alone. Given current events and the historical record of Islam’s aggressive campaigns against the Christian West, the rational thinker could be forgiven for believing that the leaders of the Christian world might just want to pay a bit more attention to contemporary anti-Christian violence — thousands of terror attacks, beheadings, stabbings, kidnappings, rapes, torching of churches and Christian-owned businesses — committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam.

Instead, most of the world’s Catholic bishops (with some heroic exceptions, such as Ignatius Joseph III Younan, patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Church of Antioch, and Jean-Clément Jeanbart, Melkite Greek Catholic archbishop of Aleppo), when they’re not extolling the virtues of Islam as a “religion of peace,” can be found counseling their flocks against so-called Islamophobia — anti-Islam sentiment, bias, or violence — typically in the immediate aftermath of a Muslim-perpetrated act of terror or instance of anti-Christian persecution.

For example, in May, after Muslim militants in the Philippines burned down the Cathedral of Mary Help of Christians, murdered more than a hundred Catholics, and held a dozen others hostage, Bishop Edwin de la Peña y Angot of the Marawi prelature worried out loud that the ensuing anti-Muslim sentiments might damage interreligious dialogue. “Some of the natural biases that Christians have against Muslims will be stirred up again,” he said in an interview (Zenit, June 9). “Interfaith dialogue is a very fragile process and these incidents can destroy the foundation that we have built.” About anti-Christian sentiments among Muslims, the bishop was silent.

While Christians in Muslim countries are being slaughtered, exiled, subjugated, or forced to convert in numbers never before seen, some U.S. bishops and those who work for them have actually moved to demonize priests and Catholic teachers who speak out against Islam — in many cases, for merely stating facts about anti-Christian persecution. They have accused those who point out such inconvenient truths of spreading hate."

Writing for the Canada Free Press some years ago, Daniel Greenfield noted how, "Obama [and the U.S. Bishops are largely following his example] has made the case for Islam in America, on the grounds that America’s religious diversity promotes the religious freedom of all. Islam no less than any other belief system. Yet if introducing Islam into America promotes religious freedom, then why is there no religious freedom in the Muslim world? Why are churches firebombed in Malaysia because Christians presumed to use the word Allah? Why are non-Muslims forbidden to enter the city of Mecca, from which Jews and Christians were ethnically cleansed by Mohammed? Why are Coptic Christians being oppressed and humiliated by the Egyptian government? Why are Muslims murdering Buddhist teachers in Thailand? There are a thousand examples, all of which add up to a single conclusion—Muslims demand religious freedom, yet are not willing to give it to others.

Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo’s 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.

Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that “It can’t happen here.” But the fate of Europe’s Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.

Religious freedom requires that the religions which enjoy it, agree to tolerate each other. If they do not, instead of religious freedom, there is a religious war.

Looking at the religious map of the world today, Islam has grown in non-Muslim countries, while non-Muslims continue to dwindle in Muslim countries. And even the number of non-Muslim religious believers in non-Muslim countries dwindles, when Muslims are introduced into the equation. If Islam were a fish in a fish tank, it’s clear that it would be a piranha. If you put it into the fish tank, very soon you have a lot of Islamic piranhas and only a handful of other fish that survive, only because the piranhas need to keep some of them alive in order to feed on them. If you don’t like that picture, take an honest look at the Muslim world, with its dominant Muslim caste and inferior non-Muslims living in the cracks of their walls, and draw a better one.

Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom The question is do we want to import this into the United States? Because history and current events show that there is no better way to insure the end of religious freedom in the United States, than to introduce Islam into the picture. Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom. And those who fail to learn from that past, will be doomed to repeat it.

Obama attempted to position his remarks as being against religious intolerance, but yet he spoke in defense of religious intolerance. Because what greater act of religious intolerance could there than building a mosque in a place where Muslims had previously murdered 3000 Americans? Nor are such actions unique on the part of Muslims, who have routinely hijacked other people’s sacred areas and structures to make a statement about Islamic supremacism. If Islam were truly as tolerant as Obama claims, its adherents would not attempt to build a massive mosque complex that they do not actually need in this place." (Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom, Canada Free Press, August 15, 2010).

The Bishops who issue dishonest statements about Islam have a death wish for the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism.  They desire a false irenicism in pursuit of a perverse religious amalgam: Chrislam.

See here.

Related reading here.

Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol, Massachusetts: A circus-like atmosphere inspired by lukewarm clerics

Father Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.L., in "The Catholic Answer, Book 2" says that,"Socializing is inappropriate in the body of the Church; that is for the vestibule and parish hall." (p. 195).  Monsignor Peter J. Elliott, in his book entitled Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, has this to say: "The Church should be open well before the liturgy for those who wish to pray privately.  Silence is the best preparation for the celebration of the liturgy.  Apart from suitable music, no intrusion on the people's right to tranquility before the Eucharist should be tolerated, for example, musical or choral rehearsals, announcements which could be given later, or distractions in the sanctuary or elsewhere.  People may meet and talk before Mass, but in an area set well apart from the place where the liturgy is about to be celebrated." (Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, No. 233, p. 87).

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal has this to say: "Sacred silence also, as part of the celebration, is to be observed at the designated times....Its purpose, however, depends on the time it occurs in each part of the celebration. Thus within the Act of Penitence and again after the invitation to pray, all recollect themselves; but at the conclusion of a reading or the homily, all meditate briefly on what they have heard; then after Communion, they praise and pray to God in their hearts. Even before the celebration itself, it is commendable that silence be observed in the church, in the sacristy, in the vesting room, and in adjacent areas, so that all may dispose themselves to carry out the sacred action in a devout and fitting manner."  (GIRM, No. 45).

Silence should also be observed after Mass until one is outside the Church building, both for respect toward the Blessed Sacrament, and toward those members of the faithful who wish to prolong their thanksgiving after Mass.

At Our Lady Immaculate parish in Athol, Massachusetts, there is no silence before Holy Mass, no reverence.  This because there is no real leadership or holy example there.  It is routine practice for Catholics to disrespect Jesus' Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament while keeping other Catholics from their prayer.  See the above video taken this past Saturday at the parish's 4 PM Vigil Mass.

In the Church, everyone has a duty to be salt and light and to work for the renewal of society.  Deacons are no exception.  The Constitution on the Church [Lumen Gentium] of the Second Vatican Council had this to say: "At a lower level of the hierarchy are deacons, upon whom hands are imposed 'not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service.'  For strengthened in sacramental grace, in communion with the bishop and his group of priests they serve in the diaconate of the liturgy, of the Word, and of charity to the People of God...Dedicated to duties of charity and administration, let deacons be mindful of the admonition of Blessed Polycarp: 'Be merciful, diligent, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all.'" (Lumen Gentium, No. 29).  Later in the same document we read, "Ministers of lesser rank are also sharers in the mission and grace of the supreme priest" and that Deacons are "dispensers of Christ's mysteries and servants of the Church" who should in holiness "stand before men as personifications of goodness and friends of God." (Lumen Gentium, No. 41).

But the Deacons who "serve" at Our Lady Immaculate are not "personifications of goodness" or "charity to the People of God."  Neither Deacon Scott Colley [who has displayed hatred toward me for defending reverence at Mass, see here] nor Deacon James Linderman serve as models for prayer.  In fact, Deacon Linderman spent his time before Mass (as usual) engaging in loud conversation with several people in the congregation, and especially with two women who sing in the choir. It was Deacon Linderman who interrupted my Rosary before a Christmas Eve Mass several years ago - his attitude seems to be "If I'm not going to pray, neither are you."

Father Vincent Miceli, S.J., reminded us some years back, "Rampant immorality is [an] obstacle opposing the work of evangelization.  Since conduct follows from convictions, once Catholics cancel their creed from their lives, their conduct inevitably becomes depraved....The decay on all sides of Christian morals makes it not only difficult to bring in those outside the Church, but even to stay in themselves and hold their fellow Catholics within the Church." (Essay entitled The Evangelization of the United States).

It is no surprise that OLI has succumbed to a circus-like atmosphere.  The Deacons do not pray.  And the people are following their bad example.

An Open Letter to His Eminence Antonio Cardinal Canizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

His Eminence Antonio Cardinal Canizares Llovera, Prefect

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Piazza Pio XII 10

00193, Rome Italy

 

Your Eminence;

I am a Catholic in good standing and a member of the faithful in the Diocese of Worcester in the state of Massachusetts, U.S.A. I bring to you a serious concern that I and others have been unable to have properly addressed by His Excellency, The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, Bishop of the Worcester Diocese

There is an extensive lack of respect and devotion toward Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Indeed, it might be characterized by an attitude of antipathy toward the Eucharistic Presence among the faithful which appears to be abetted or at least tolerated by many of the clergy, not least by His Excellency.

A major source of proof is the overall lack of silence in the presence of Our Lord reserved in the tabernacles of the churches in the diocese. It is a common and routine occurrence for people to chat, joke, and otherwise carry on as if in a social hall prior to and after the celebrations of Masses.

My own personal efforts, and I know of others who have also made a concerted effort to address
this scandalous sacrilege, have been of no avail in my communications with pastors and with
Bishop McManus. Indeed, I have been met with ridicule, intimidation or, in the Bishop's case – a silence of his own. In my most recent efforts I made a respectful approach to a number
of congregants of St. Vincent de Paul parish in the town of Balwinville, Massachusetts to prayerfully consider Our Lord’s Eucharistic presence as they chatted animatedly only a few meters from the tabernacle. Unfortunately I was unsuccessful and the pastor has done nothing to return peace and quiet to the church.  In fact, the pastor indicated that I would be ostracized for my efforts.  See here.

It seems to me that the remedy might be achieved when the clergy of the Diocese, led by His Excellency McManus, reach out to the faithful, of all ages, and instruct and renew true devotion so that the reality of God’s Presence among us is realized and a wonder-filled awe replaces the casualness of peoples’ attitude in church. I respectfully, ask Your Eminence to exhort Bishop McManus to guide his priests and flock in such an effort.

Respectfully,

Paul Anthony Melanson



Act of Reparation to the Blessed Sacrament
By St. Louis de Montfort


"Soupirons, gemissons, pleurons amerement"


Let me cry, let me weep bitter tears to God above,
For Jesus is abandoned in his Sacrament of love;
Forgotten and insulted in the dwelling of the Lord,
Derided and rejected where once he was adored.


The mansions of the nobles are all clean and set with care,
Yet the house of God's forgotten, its altars standing bare;
The floor is all broken, the roof lets in the rain,
The crumbling walls are marked with holes and every kind of stain.


The crucifix is broken, the pictures green with damp,
The altar cloths are rotting, no light burns in the lamp,
The missals torn and battered, the brasswork stained with rust,
The things of God are thrown about and scattered in the dust.


The ciborium is tarnished, the chalice turning black,
The monstrance, which is made of tin, is mouldy at the back;
From font right up to sacristy the picture is the same,
Such disorder in the house of God is our reproach and shame.


The pagans in their temples dare not spit upon the floor,
But in our church a crowd of dogs run in and out the door;
They bark and fight continually and fill the place with slime,
But no one cares enough of this to avenge the dreadful crime.


There is just one exception in all this sorry scene:
My Lord and Lady's special pew is always neat and clean;
And standing out in bright new paint upon the dingy wall
Their gaily-colored coat-of-arms looks down upon it all.


Above the Lord's own altar, instead of the Lord's own name,
The banners of his Lordship, a place of honor claim;
Both priest and mule are flaunting the badges of their thrall,
The former at the altar, the latter in his stall.


The houses of the nobles are so crowded and gay,
And fashionable young ladies are courted night and day;
But the Church of God's deserted, unless they condescend
To go to church for one short Mass they think will never end.


Behold the worldly cleric coming in with haughty face
How his lady friends admire him as he bows with courtly grace!
He bobs a genuflection, then seeks whom he should greet;
He strolls about and chatters as though walking in the street


Still worse, he has a snuff-box, which he opens with a jest,
And delicately takes a pinch, then passes around the rest
Puffed up with self-importance and with his graceful ways,
He squirms about and poses, making faces as he prays


Alas, it's often happened, the way to church he's trod
To pay reverence to Venus, to a goddess not to God;
Every thought and aspiration, every word and loving glance
Are but homage to a creature, a prayer to find romance


Behold upon the other side a sorry scene is played,
A shameless hussy sitting in all her fine brocade;
In her dainty little slippers and head-dress trimmed with lace,
Come simply to parade herself within the holy place


This empty-headed madam, with an impudence unknown,
Up to the very altar ostentatiously is shown,
And poses on a bench in front, so to be seen by all,
To captivate the eyes of men and hold their hearts in thrall


To think this devil's agent, while her knee to Jesus bends,
Must rob him of his glory and lead astray his friends!
The splendor of her finery the thought of Jesus harms,
Forgotten is the altar in the presence of her charms.


And if the time seems tedious, she always has her fan,
Her dog and gloves, to pass the time, and often her young man;
She'll read a bit, and roll her eyes, and fix her hat with care,
Then look around the chapel to see who's watching her


O strike them, God almighty, strike this ungrateful lot!
At least let them respect thee, if they will love thee not
Too long hast thou been patient; thy justice let them see;
Let fear replace that insolence with which they now mock thee


Thy glory has been ravished, dishonored is thy name,
Such sinners against thy majesty must bow their heads in shame
And yet restrain thy anger, at least a while I pray;
The greatness of their wickedness with greater good repay


Forgive them, dearest Jesus, for they know not what they do;
Remember thy great Passion, and have mercy on us too
And if we are unable to atone for all our guilt,
Accept our feeble homage, and treat us as thou wilt


We confess before thy altar that we are sinners still;
Thou canst punish us or spare us according to thy will
But remember thy great mercy and the tears that we have shed,
And hear our cries for pardon, for our hearts are full of dread.

 



From the Catholic Herald






 

"The Liturgy, with its different moments and symbols, cannot ignore silence.."

The following Instruction is taken from the Vatican website:

OFFICE FOR THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

Periods of Silence within the Eucharistic Celebration

 

Number 45 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (Third and Emended Typical Edition, 2008) prescribes:

Sacred silence also, as part of the celebration, is to be observed at the designated times. Its purpose, however, depends on the time it occurs in each part of the celebration. Thus within the Act of Penitence and again after the invitation to pray, all recollect themselves; but at the conclusion of a reading or the homily, all meditate briefly on what they have heard; then after Communion, they praise and pray to God in their hearts. Even before the celebration itself, it is commendable that silence be observed in the church, in the sacristy, in the vesting room, and in adjacent areas, so that all may dispose themselves to carry out the sacred action in a devout and fitting manner.

Paragraph 30 of the Liturgy Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, likewise prescribes: “And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.”

Number 56 of the General Instruction specifies better the importance of silence within the Liturgy of the Word, while number 78 makes the same clear for the Liturgy of the Eucharist: “The Eucharistic Prayer demands that all listen to it with reverence and in silence.” Number 84 then underscores the importance of the observance of silence as a means of good preparation for the reception of Holy Communion: “The priest prepares himself by a prayer, said quietly, that he may fruitfully receive Christ’s Body and Blood. The faithful do the same, praying silently.” Finally, the same attitude is proposed for the period of thanksgiving after Communion: When the distribution of Communion is finished, as circumstances suggest, the priest and faithful spend some time praying privately.¹ If desired, a psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the entire congregation. (n. 88)

In several other paragraphs of the General Instruction similar directives concerning silence are repeated, such that silence is an integral part of the liturgical celebration.

The Servant of God John Paul II had recognized that, in actual practice, the directive of the Second Vatican Council concerning sacred silence, a directive later included in the General Instruction, was not always faithfully observed. He writes: “One aspect that we must foster in our communities with greater commitment is the experience of silence. . . . The Liturgy, with its different moments and symbols, cannot ignore silence.” (Spiritus et Sponsa, n. 13, emphasis in original)

 

Here we can recall a text of the then-theologian and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

We are realizing more and more clearly that silence is part of the liturgy. We respond, by singing and praying, to the God who addresses us, but the greater mystery, surpassing all words, summons us to silence. It must, of course, be a silence with content, not just the absence of speech and action. We should expect the liturgy to give us a positive stillness that will restore us.²

 

Consequently, the observance of the moments of silence envisioned by the liturgy is of great importance. These moments of silence are as much an integral part of the ars celebrandi (art of celebrating) of the ministers as is participatio actuosa (active participation) on the part of the faithful. Silence in the liturgy is the moment in which one listens with greater attention to the voice of God and internalizes His word, so that it bears the fruit of sanctity in daily life.

---

¹It is worth noting that the original Latin text which the English renders as “privately” is actually “secreto,” better translated as “quietly” or “in silence.”²The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 209.

Recently, I noted how Saint Vincent de Paul Parish in Baldwinville, Massachusetts [Diocese ofWorcester, Mass], will not provide silence to devout Catholics who wish to pray and prepare before Mass - so that they may be properly disposed to receive the Blessed Sacrament . 

The "pastor" of St. Vincent de Paul Parish, Father Francis Roberge, apparently left a comment at this Blog in which he asserted that I will be "ostracized" for politely reminding a group of women who were talking loudly in front of the tabernacle that silence should be observed before Mass.  Father Roberge also implied that my fraternal correction [and it was certainly fraternal and respectful] "crosses a line" and "is also illegal."

Just how does one respond to an individual who presents himself as mentally unbalanced?  I did what I thought best.  I contacted the Saint Joseph Foundation to address this matter of liturgical abuse.

Please pray for Father Roberge and Saint Vincent de Paul Parish.  The atmosphere there will never be spiritually sound as long as there is no silence and reverence in the House of God and as long as those who insist on sound doctrine or liturgical rubrics are treated as criminals.

The faithful deserve better!

 

Saint Vincent de Paul Parish in Baldwinville and silence before Mass

Those who are bent on making their own unauthorized changes to the liturgy or who otherwise promote or tolerate various liturgical abuses often fail to appreciate how such an endeavor can constitute grave sin.  I know this because some have accused me of making a mountain out of a molehill for my opposition to various liturgical abuses.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains: "There are many reasons why it is wrong for priests intentionally to make unauthorized liturgical changes.  Two are especially important.  First, such changes sometimes embody or imply deviations from Catholic faith; even when they do not, they often omit (see here for example) or obscure something of the liturgy's expression of faith.  Thus, the Church teaches: 'The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays.  Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition' (cf. DV 8).  For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community.  Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.' (CCC, 1124-1125).

Dr. Grisez continues, "..in the Eucharist, a priest acts in the person of Christ, who joins humankind to the Father; but in making unauthorized changes, a priest obscures Jesus' action, focuses attention on himself, and becomes an obstacle to the relationship between God and His People that priests are ordained to serve...Priests are agents ordained to deliver God's gifts to His People.  If they deliver some substitute for what Jesus has entrusted to them, they interpose themselves between - and defraud - both God and His People...

There are five additional reasons why unauthorized changes should not be made in the liturgy.  First, the liturgy is the worship of the Church as a body, and those who are ordained act as Church officials in performing liturgical roles.  So, insofar as a priest makes unauthorized changes, he misrepresents as the Church's what is in fact only his or some limited group's.  Even if this misrepresentation deceives no one and is intended for some good end, it is at odds with the reverence necessary for true worship.  Second, this essential irreverence and the obvious arbitrariness of intentional unauthorized changes strongly suggest that the Eucharist is not sacred, and this suggestion tends to undermine not only faith in Jesus' bodily presence in the consecrated elements, but faith that the Eucharist is Jesus' sacrifice made present for the faithful to share in.  Third, a priest who makes intentional, unauthorized changes acts with deplorable clericalism by imposing his personal preferences on the laity and violating the rights of those who quite reasonably wish only to participate in the Church's worship.  Fourth, intentionally making unauthorized changes sets a bad example of serious disobedience to the Church's norms, and this bad example is likely to encourage some people to think and do as they please not only in liturgical and canonical matters, but in matters of faith and morals.  Fifth...unauthorized liturgical changes often become a needless, divisive issue for the faithful, thus impeding the charity that the Eucharist should express and foster."

Still think that liturgical abuse is a small matter of little significance?  If so, this reflects on your own immaturity and not the objective truth that liturgical abuse constitutes grave matter.  How grave?  Again, Dr. Grisez:

"The reasons why priests should not make unauthorized liturgical changes also make it clear..that a priest's intentionally doing so is of itself matter of grave sin.  Of course, many changes are in themselves very minor, and a few perhaps even are real improvements.  But though this kind of sin admits  parvity, such small changes also are scandalous, not only because they give the faithful a bad example of disobedience but because they contribute to a clerical culture in which liturgical abuse is widely tolerated and sometimes even expected, so that some are encouraged to engage in far graver abuses.  Now, even a sin venial in itself becomes grave scandal when one foresees that it is likely to lead others to commit grave sin; thus, the element of scandal makes grave matter of even minor liturgical abuses likely to encourage more serious abuses by other priests.  Due to widespread confusion and negligence of some bishops, many priests undoubtedly lack sufficient reflection regarding this sin."


This past Sunday and the previous Sunday at Saint Vincent de Paul Parish in Baldwinville, Massachusetts, devout Catholics attempting to prepare for Holy Mass through prayer (including myself - I was attempting to pray my Rosary) were subjected to loud conversation and riotous laughter from a group of women who were taking part in some sort of support group.  The group sat in church - in front of the tabernacle no less - and engaged in inappropriate socializing without any regard for Jesus truly present in the Eucharist within the tabernacle Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

And this with the blessing of the "pastor" Father Francis Roberge.  At every Vigil Mass on Saturday afternoons, the choir and band will rehearse without any regard for the faithful who are trying to prepare for Mass.

As Father Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.L., says in his book The Catholic Answer, Book 2: "Socializing is inappropriate in the body of the Church; that is for the vestibule and parish hall." (p. 195).  Monsignor Peter J. Elliott, in his book entitled Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, has this to say: "The Church should be open well before the liturgy for those who wish to pray privately.  Silence is the best preparation for the celebration of the liturgy.  Apart from suitable music, no intrusion on the people's right to tranquility before the Eucharist should be tolerated, for example, musical or choral rehearsals, announcements which could be given later, or distractions in the sanctuary or elsewhere.  People may meet and talk before Mass, but in an area set well apart from the place where the liturgy is about to be celebrated." (Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, No. 233, p. 87).

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal has this to say: "Sacred silence also, as part of the celebration, is to be observed at the designated times....Its purpose, however, depends on the time it occurs in each part of the celebration. Thus within the Act of Penitence and again after the invitation to pray, all recollect themselves; but at the conclusion of a reading or the homily, all meditate briefly on what they have heard; then after Communion, they praise and pray to God in their hearts. Even before the celebration itself, it is commendable that silence be observed in the church, in the sacristy, in the vesting room, and in adjacent areas, so that all may dispose themselves to carry out the sacred action in a devout and fitting manner."  (GIRM, No. 45).  

Silence should also be observed after Mass until one is outside the Church building, both for respect toward the Blessed Sacrament, and toward those members of the faithful who wish to prolong their thanksgiving after Mass.

When I politely informed the women who were engaging in inappropriate and loud conversation and laughter of this and that perhaps they could meet downstairs in the parish hall, I was told there was no room there.  I was also subjected to hate-filled glares and angry commentary from a small group of unhappy souls who obviously have a problem with the Church's teaching and liturgical rubrics.

As Father Vincent Miceli, S.J., reminded us some years back, "Rampant immorality is [an] obstacle opposing the work of evangelization.  Since conduct follows from convictions, once Catholics cancel their creed from their lives, their conduct inevitably becomes depraved....The decay on all sides of Christian morals makes it not only difficult to bring in those outside the Church, but even to stay in themselves and hold their fellow Catholics within the Church." (Essay entitled The Evangelization of the United States).

Small wonder parishes are not thriving.  Indeed many are in crisis as the pews continue to empty.  Conduct flows from convictions.  What then shall we make of the conduct of Catholics who disrespect Jesus' Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament while keeping other Catholics from their prayer?  What shall we make of a "pastor" who permits such a situation?

At no time have I witnessed either the "pastor" of St. Vincent de Paul Parish or its deacon preparing for Mass through prayer.  I have witnessed both of them engaging in conversation and running to and fro in the church.  But I have not witnessed a spirit of prayer.

 

What a shame!


Because I tell the truth about the dissent and liturgical abuse which has been part and parcel of the Worcester Diocese, I will, no doubt, continue to be ostracized.  But I will be in good company:  See here: http://protectthepope.com/?p=10315

Ontario panel discusses how to silence religious opposition to LGBT propaganda in schools

Secular Humanism has all the characteristics of a religion. The Secular Humanist places man at the center of things. In the Humanist Manifesto II, which was released in 1973, humanists called for a new faith: "...traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Responsible minds look to other means for survival." (Humanist Manifesto II, The Humanist; September/October 1973, p. 4). Humanism is, therefore, fundamentally at odds with Christianity which regards God and not man as the supreme value of the universe.


Because Humanists recognize the importance of the public schools in advancing their man-centered religion, they do everything in their power to ensure that children are indoctrinated into the tenets of Humanism even as they attack faith-based schools. It was Paul Blanshard, writing in The Humanist, who said, "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lead toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all the other myths of alleged history." (The Humanist State, March/April 1976, p. 17).

Humanist John Dumphy, also writing for The Humanist, said "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preacher, for they will be ministers of another servant, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subjects they teach regardless of the educational level - preschool daycare or large state university. The classroom must and will become and area of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of humanism resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never realized Christian idea of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved." (The Humanist, January/February 1983, p. 26).

Humanists have a right to believe as they do. But so do people of faith. Tolerance of different beliefs is an essential ingredient of a free society. But Humanists do not embrace such tolerance. They are, in fact, the most intolerant as they seek to indoctrinate and coerce others into their belief system.

While the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."

This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, our Holy Father explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."

In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.

Homosexual propaganda aimed at children in the public schools.

Happy Birthday Padre Pio

"I have often raised my hand in the silence of the night and in my solitary cell, blessing you all and presenting you to Jesus and to our father, St. Francis of Assisi." - Padre Pio of Pietrelcina

Novena to St. Padre Pio.

I am blessed to share a birthday with Padre Pio. And I pray to him often. Pio used to say, "Pray, hope and don't worry." We all need to heed his advice. Especially in our troubled times.

Meditation: Matthew 6: 25-34.

State of Connecticut trying to take control of parishes?

Statement of the Diocese of Bridgeport Connecticut relative to proposed legislative bill # 1098/2009:

This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.

The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.

For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.
We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church.