Annibale Bugnini (a suspected freemason) with the approval of Pope Paul VI, reformed and presented the Church with a new liturgy whose rubrics (directions) were so minimal and loose that it allowed for experimentation. This left the door open for the emergence of an egalitarian and social justice element to flourish within the Church. And now after 50 years of experimentation we have a novel (and very fluid) liturgy which aligns itself more with the spirit of ecclesial anarchy than it does with the obedience to faith: no two Masses need ever be the same . . . each can and probably will be unique to the parish and the priest who celebrates the Mass. What the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, (the Eucharistic Feast, understood as the Source and Summit of our entire faith), had been, is now in most instances unrecognizable. We have a largely manufactured Mass for the first time in our history (with only the slightest pretense of organic development from the previous liturgies) and what it has quickly morphed into over the last 50 years would be difficult to defend . . . even by Pope Paul VI. But we can find myriads of defenses for everything that is contained therein even though it was never promulgated as we now experience it. Every aberration is fervently defended or conveniently overlooked in an effort to explain away the obvious loss of virility, vitality and effectiveness that once was the Catholic’s mainstay and fortress of the faith. It proves difficult to approve, accept and support many of these ‘popular changes’ on an intellectual or even a spiritual basis as there is no Ecclesial approval or mandate for them. And yet these same novelties are the hill upon which many a Catholic would choose to die. We must remind ourselves that legitimacy (validity is not being questioned) is not the same as good taste or a reverent treatment of what is purportedly Holy: a baptism performed by a clown with a squirt gun could be valid but certainly irreverent and severely lacking of the dignity that the sacrament deserves.
This most sublime and essential element of the Faith and well-being of the Catholic Church as well as the spiritual development of each individual has been put to the test for many a worldly desire. And the promoters of these changes are often those who are not in a true sense Catholic as many reject much of the Church’s defined teachings. in extreme cases there are even those who are desirous to destroy the faith as we have known it. These same destructive forces have gained increasing strength whilst the faithful have become weak; some losing their faith entirely. Many faithful Catholics are also disillusioned and are quickly falling into a malaise of sorts; feeling utterly helpless, hopeless and impotent in their inadequate efforts to confront the leadership (or lack thereof) to restore what is rightfully theirs by Canon Law. For it is the progressive activists who claim leadership roles in many dioceses’ and seem to think it is more important that their vision of the New and better Church is superior than that which the Holy Spirit guides to its appointed end. They believe that their goal is inspired by the Holy Spirit and should be more properly accepted and valued within both the collective social and religious movements of the world. Thereby they readily utilize many secular ideals which arose from the social justice and social activism prevalent in our day; at the peril of the real Gospel. These activists claim victimhood (as they make claim that they are disenfranchised) and desire to lead the Church into a new Springtime. This secular influence seems rooted in our worldly notions of egalitarianism . . . the new unassailable, undeclared doctrine to which every practice and belief must now bow lest it be sacrificed upon the altar of inclusiveness, tolerance to sin and the principles of secular social justice and attendant ideologies. Sadly, many well-meaning Catholics, who simply wish to follow the Church have fallen for their activism and march in-step with these facilitators for a reformed Church.
To listen to the defenders of the Novus Ordo is to hear that we are overly attached to this little thing or that little thing and that each change is simply a personal preference and is of no real importance: these are just window dressing; and the people seem to like these changes. They will then tell you that the centrality of the Eucharist, to which we fully assent, is the most important part of the Mass and that these little things are not important enough to be of any consequence. That would be true if these small things did not jeopardize and weaken our beliefs and redirect our minds from Christ to the world; thus we are being cajoled and led toward more important issues; chief amongst them is heresy and apostasy which can be seen quite openly amongst many of our laity today. Our self-serving attitudes have allowed many to pick and choose (by their own ‘inner light’) what they wish to hold as beliefs that must be accepted. Same sex marriage and contraception are two such teachings that are routinely rejected by the ‘faithful’ within this new Church brought up and fed by the Novus Ordo Rite.
So where are the rubrics for the Novus Ordo coming from or do they even exist? Nobody in Rome said to say Mass ad populum, nor did they say to stop saying Mass in Latin or to purge the music of Gregorian and sacred polyphony . . . quite the opposite. No one ordered the altar rails removed, the kneelers removed or the tabernacle veil to be removed. Who said that we ‘must’ offer Communion under both kinds? The Vatican II documents said that it was a more complete sign but did not make it a rule. Nobody wrote a rubric that said it is now OK to speak before, during and after Mass or to clap for the choirs latest rendition of Lord of the Dance. Though the Vatican did say that they could find no reason to prevent girls from serving at the altar (done while Pope Saint John Paul II was recovering in the hospital from a broken hip) there is no mandate to allow them to do such. Extraordinary ministers and lectors were not forced upon us by Rome but they showed up anyway: first as men, then as women. Who started the holding of hands for the Our Father? Who started the people raising their hands like priests to bless things and at the epiclesis etc.? Thank God a bishop in Coventry, KY put a stop to this within his diocese; the first one as far as I know. See this link: http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011-Pastoral-Letter-with-Decree-Bulletin-Insert.pdf Why is it that most parishes only teach the children and the converts to receive in their hands when this method of reception is only an indult and not the ordinary method of reception? It seems that the activists and the compliant priests and theologians have foisted these changes upon us. Is that really how the development of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is supposed to be done; by the people who attend or those who are the celebrants?
I know, I know . . . little things . . . nothing to see here. A hand full of dirt from enough people will create a mountain or turn a mountain into a plain. The lines, once clear and distinct, between the priest and the people has almost disappeared. A blurring of the roles between the priest and the laity is so complete that women think they should be able to be priestesses. We commune ourselves from the consecrated chalice . . . once the private reserve of the priest with His consecrated hands (of no importance now) and the Altar Boys who assisted him with great reverence. We commune ourselves with the Eucharistic bread placed in our hands as though we are worthy to ‘take’ communion rather than to ‘receive’ communion because Christ has deigned to invite us sinners (absolved from serious sin) to this Heavenly Banquet. The polls show that all these little things have amounted to a laity that largely does not believe in the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation and a large number think it only symbolic. It is no longer a privilege to receive the Blessed Body and Blood of our Lord but a right and an entitlement: reminiscent to what charity to the poor has become once the secular world took over the ministry of ‘helping’ the poor . . . who’s misery index has risen ever since. And the retreat from saying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ad orientem has reinforced the laities inclination to see themselves as the center of attention rather than Our Lord. Is there any wonder why we no longer recognize the Kingship of Christ and never hesitate to heap laud and honor upon ourselves?
The use of inclusive language and the egalitarian push for equal roles for women in the Church was only the beginning. We are already beginning to see that we will be invaded by every self-proclaimed ‘victim’ group who wants to cry foul. Many men now feel that there is no place for them in the Novus Ordo Mass and it is why they have largely abandoned the pews for the football games on Sunday. If the women are now able to be ushers, lectors, extraordinary ministers and such then men are not going to participate in this coed Rite; for men respond to needs, duty, honor and the like. That is the clarion call for men . . . not to ‘participate’ as a cheerleader for the equality of women as in a social experiment. The altar boys will take after their dads and feel no obligation to serve at Mass unless the parish makes it a requirement to get Confirmed; and after Confirmation they will stay at home with dad and watch football. Gone are the old, cherished and manly Knights of the Altar as founded by St. John Bosco. However, there is a new guild of Our Lady’s Knights of the Altar which was begun by Cardinal Burke in 2008 and it is spreading. But without the support of a traditional Latin Mass which has strict controls on the ‘little things’ within the rubrics it will not be enough for the faith to return nor will there be a draw for men and the boys who might want to consider a vocation to the priesthood or to a religious order. The manliness, prestige, honor and duty of such a life is quickly disappearing. See the following article for a deeper discussion of this: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-devirilization-of-liturgy-in-novus.html We can say all the prayers we want at Mass for priestly vocations and they will not produce fruit unless one actually provides an avenue that attracts young men to serve in such a lofty role. But then again, if we can’t get boys who want to be priests there are plenty of feminist activists who are eager to oblige and are praying for the men and boys to flee. And if you look at things from their modernist, progressivist, activist position . . . it all makes complete sense in its own diabolical way. The Church has largely stopped dictating Her morality and teachings to the world and now it is the intention of these novelty seekers to dictate their activist ideology within the Church. We once received the worldly to transform them in Christ and now it seems that the world, having entered our house, is transforming us.
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Servus, a great rant especially from someone like myself who were altar boys and in my case even a 360 Thurifer.
The Genie is out of the bottle. Bishops and Priests of today couldn’t say a Latin Mass as they don’t know Latin…it’s not taught in seminaries any more.
OK, so what’s to be done. Over time the excesses will be reined in…yeah, yeah, I know, you’ve got to get conservative Cardinals and Bishes. Certainly not in my time or yours but it will come. I see small changes here. The proclamation of the gospel that used to be done in the middle of the sanctuary is now done where it should have been done from the Ambo.
My father had it for a saying,”Softly,softly, catchee monkey.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Yes the politics of religion has made this present situation such that it will take a miracle to reign them in. But it was ‘somebody’s intent’ that the new priests should not be taught Latin. I wonder who allowed that and why? It is purely political. This article by George Wiegel on the “Bernardin Machine” is pretty telling as to what goes on behind the veneer. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/02/the-end-of-the-bernardin-era
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
hOW COME I CANT FIND rABITS POST? iT SAY IT DOESNT EXIST. wELL, IM GLAD HE DIDNT MENTION ME AS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HARASSES GOOD SISTER JESS, BECAUSE I NEVER WA MEAN TO HER IN dAMIENS BLOG BECAUSE SHE WASNT MEAN TO ANYONE ELSE. sIMPLE AS THAT.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. If this makes sense to somebody, please help the poor soul out.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
I got Rabits post in my mail but its not here.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
Ive been in LA for 2 days. Things change on the internet in that time.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I just did. Gareth – frererabit – is joining us from tomorrow and will have a post up which will, I think, be of great interest. Unfamiliar with the system, he posted instead of scheduling!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It will be up tomorrow. You are quite correct, you were always a perfect gentleman to her, and she sends her love.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
Say hi to good sister jess for me. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I shall, Bosco. You will be pleased to hear she is much recovered.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
I am more than pleased.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It really was a miracle.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
The prayer of the faithful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed – and thank you and all the other faithful.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
Ah, a nice pic of Hitlers Pope. A guy who gave the green light to kill all the jews of Europe, and then helped the rats escape to south America. I bet you cathols have a pic of him on your walls. May you wind up where he winds up in eternity.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No doubt that is why the Jews admire him for helping save so many of them. Do keep up with history Bosco.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusdef.html
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
The Roman State religion saw the war was over for Hitler and saved a few jews for show. Since when was the Roman State religion ever a friend of the Jews? Never. Do keep up on history good brother Chalcedon.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
As the link showed, it is more complex than you allow. Like Luther, the RCC has some apologising to do on this issue – and has done so.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
have you thought about finding a religion that doesn’t have to apologize every other day for its demonic behavior?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
A religion not being attacked by Satan is one which he does not fear, so no, I haven’t thought of leaving the Church founded by Jesus for another one.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
Hitler had come to the conclusion that Bismarck’s Kulturkampf in the late 1800’s had failed to defeat the Catholic Church because its direct assault on the clergy had only made martyrs of them. He once said, “One doesn’t attack petticoats or cassocks.” Thanks to his intimate acquaintance with the church, Hitler was wildly successful with his more subtle and diplomatic approach :
“We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years’ reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. Matters will never come to a head. They will recognize a firm will, and we need only show them once or twice who is master. They will know which way the wind blows.” [ Lewy, pp. 25-26]
Some things never change
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
Hitler then touched upon the Jewish question and, again stressing the fundamental agreement between National Socialism and Catholicism, pointed out that the Church always had regarded the Jews as parasites and had banished them into the ghetto. He was merely going to do what the Church had done for 1,500 years.. Hitler suggests that his anti-Jewish actions are “doing Christianity a great service.”
http://www.catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/1933Concordat.html
Ask the Jews how much they are in love with the Roman State run religion. They should be. The Roman religion just recently allowed jews to got to heaven.
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
Although informed of the massive Nazi attacks of synagogues and Jewish business in on Kristallnacht 1938-NOV, Pope Pius XII issued no public criticism.
bullet Although informed during 1940 to 1943 of Nazi atrocities in at least Austria, Lithuania, Poland, Spain, and the Ukraine, (including deportations to death camps) he made no public comments. 4
bullet Pope Pius XII “…never explicitly spoke out against Hitler.” Actually, this is in error. He did condemn Hitler in a speech to the College of Cardinals, one month after the war ended. 2
bullet “He refused to join a resolution of the Allies condemning the Nazi crimes.” 2
bullet “He never excommunicated any Nazi,” 7 although he did excommunicate some German Catholics who supported cremation as an alternative to burial.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm
Let all the Jews raise a glass and toast to the catholic church…Lechiam..to life
LikeLike
bozoboy87 said:
I have to qualify the writer of my above post. It mentions atrocities in Spain. As somewhat of an authority on Nazi Germany, Canaris kept Spain out of the ruckus. Im not aware of any deportations from Spain.
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
Time would have been better spent worshipping and obeying and serving God.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Thanks for the comment Francis but unfortunately you do not say ‘time’ (doing what) would have been better spent . . . etc.
As to worshipping and obeying and serving God I think we can all agree with . . . but then you do not say what that consists of . . . the liturgy, obedience to priest, bishop regardless of their own obedience to the faith and service to God doing what? Prayer, worship and service to God and our fellow man are always foremost (or should be) in the practice of our faith.
I may totally agree with you but your comment is so pithy and hazy that I cannot make heads or tails out of what you are trying to say. Would you like to expand your comment? It would be appreciated.
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
The words mean what they mean without limit for what is right and just.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Sort of like the sound of one hand clapping I suppose. Way too deep for me. 🙂
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
Many who rant forget God and serve themselves. They don’t know it at the time. But this happens. Many atheists rant; it is their calling card.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
St Athanasius, St Catherine, St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avila seem to come to mind as ‘ranters’ who were not indifferent to the desacralizing of the Holy or the corruption of Truth. Thanks for your great spiritual direction, Francis, as God must have told you that I forget God and serve myself . . . just imitating atheists. I should practice indifference like you do.
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
Perhaps it would be good to pray to God for a better attitude as do and as did the Saints. And I do the same. Humility is better.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Ah, the old humility card trumps all others. Stand by and watch the destruction of the souls of the Catholic laity who are no longer being nourished and taught the faith because we are afraid to say anything due to the fact that somebody will point out that fighting agains this trend is a sign of pride and a lack of humility. I pray for humility and don’t claim sainthood but I will not ignore the fact that over 80 percent of our ‘faithful’ do not accept much of what the Church teaches concerning moral issues. I suppose the proper Catholic stance is to mimick the three monkeys; see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil . . . except, of course, when we spot someone who does not remain silent about abuses or irregularities that are damaging the Faith. Then you should lecture them on their pride and arrogance for being concerned. I wonder why the Code of Canon Law even exists if people do not or should not use it to demand the Rite of the Liturgy that Rome gave them instead of the one that was modified by anyone who wants to. What prideful shame for me to think that the Church has a responsibility in keeping with what is written in Canon Law itself and what has been mandated by Rome and the Council.
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
How is demanding a rite or particular rubric going to save those who you have not convinced, personally, to believe and trust in God? By your words, you don’t trust that the Holy Spirit guides and directs the Church. You think you know better, but you appear to be ruled more by emotion than by knowledge or virtue in this particular case. That’s my observation, and don’t mean any harm by it. I have been subject to the same error.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Did you actually read the post? I accept the Mass as delivered from Rome and the direction of the Council Fathers . . . which is directed by the Holy Spirit. Do you really think that the Holy Spirit is behind the ‘spirit of VII’ crowd and the Saul Alinsky followers who have modified and deconstructed that which the Church provided. Latin was to be preserved and it has not been . . . this is the work of the Holy Spirit according to you? The same with Gregorian and Sacred Polyphony? Do you even question why greatest defense of the Holy Eucharist is not even in our Lectionaries anymore . . . even in a 3 year cycle? If this is the Holy Spirit at work then I converted to another protestant faith and not the Catholic Faith that I submitted to.
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
Yes, I read it. You complain. Your complaint reveals your own struggle with faith. I understand the struggle. But what you perceive to be, and what really is, may not be the same. The Mass is for the whole Body of Christ, with all of its diversity, and to God Who is the God of diversity. Also, true worship is in the heart. Order and discipline are necessary in the Mass, and it could be that your gripe is more with the local pastor and staff and their opinions and direction and license rather than the NO as a whole. The battle is really at the parish level, not at the Vatican level. That is where I see the challenges…surrounding an individual priest or music director and their personalities and faults and talents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
You make it sound like the Mass is not the Mass of the entire Church and not a problem with Rome or the Bishop or the priest who was taught in a particular seminary. JPII was aghast as was BXVI with the way Mass was being said . . . it is a problem for Rome. How long did it take Rome to rid us of the Dynamic Equivalent Translation of the Mass . . . nearly 50 years though Rome argued with the ICEL for most of that time and finally threatened to write the English translation for them.
In the post did I not say that no two Masses are alike except perhaps with the same priest in the same parish. I understand the diversity of the DIvine Liturgy as you travel from parish to parish. Some few are actually done correctly. I was a traveling salesman and attended Mass all over the country and there is little continuity between the Masses that you might run across. No, the battle should be in Rome . . . that is where the Divine Liturgy has always been preserved and changes promulgated and also where those who would not adhere were disciplined. It is a lack of discipline that is now accepted for granted under the guise of diversity and any other social justice title that has been drilled into Catholics over the last 50 years. I am of another generation it seems and not compliant with the turning of the Church into a band of social workers and psychologists. I expect, probably due to my age, things to be spelled out and then acted upon. I expect the Pope to be obedient to the faith and tradition; the bishop to be obedient to the pope, the faith and tradition; and the priests to be obedient to the pope, the faith and tradition. There is always some that don’t but today there is no agreement of bishops on issues of great importance much less the priests. And when it comes to the Mass why should there be any deviation from the rubrics? Where is their obedience? Or why shouldn’t the rubrics be as particular as they are in the old Latin Mass? Why should their be so many choices in the Novus Ordo that there is over 2500 ways that it can be said?
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
I think the real battle is in the hearts of the individual priests and the laity gathered. A particular choice of rite or language will not change that in my opinion. More changes and waffling over the liturgy will allow more chaos to enter in, and that is not the Will of God. If we are doubting, that is not the Will of God. If we are contributing with our hearts and beautifying the liturgy with souls prepared for worship and then actively engaging in worship in line with what St. John XXIII put into motion and ST. John Paul II promulgated, we are doing the Will of God, in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Well, I can’t read the movement of the Spirit of VII through such rose tinted glasses . . . and that same Spirit of acrivism is still rampant today. Ever read The Devastated Vineyard by Dietrich von Hildebrand? Ever read the revulsion of Saint Pio to the New Mass, the changes to his Franciscan Order and even the Council itself? Ever read the condemnations of much of what I wrote here in this Instruction, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html
or this from Benedict XVI: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100526_communion_en.html
I’m not just thowing stones here, Francis. We have a problem whether you want to believe it or not.
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
I am very familiar with change, with how life on earth has constantly changed and renewed, how it is in God’s Nature to cause change (or reform) to come about…for life to continue to become. I think that, considering how often the liturgy has changed and how new it all is now (compared to the history of Mankind), it is a little short-sighted for us to despair over authoritative changes to the liturgy as if those changes are or will be the cause of the loss of everyone’s salvation. The liturgy may change again, and again I think, maybe even as a chastisement to those who doubt God’s active presence in the Church. We should embrace and help perfect the works which God sets in motion through Popes and ecumenical councils. We should not doubt that these actions were meant to be. If we doubt one e. council, we doubt them all and we even doubt God’s presence and guidance and corrective action (or punishment) through them.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
What authoritative changes? Did you hear me condemn even one authoritative change? Did I say that I doubted the Council? I doubt the hermeneutic of the Spirit of VII but not the Council through the hermeneutic of continuity.
As far as doubting the Holy Spirit . . . where do you get that from? It is my understanding that the Holy Spirit works through people not simply ‘in spite’ of what people believe or do. If you think that unauthorized change is the work of the Holy Spirit then we simply disagree and never will agree.
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
I speak of what was promulgated by the hand and practice of the Popes as Christ’s Vicar on Earth.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Such would seem a bit dicey if you consider the practices of a Pope like Alexander VI wouldn’t it. I would rather a document signed off on by the Pope as a true and official promulgation of that which demands our obedience not simply what a Pope is found doing on his own authority and volition outside of an ex cathedra pronouncement.
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
I understand, and agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Thanks for the dialogue, Francis. Hope to do so again in the future. 🙂
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
Maybe we are writing past each other. 😊
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Perhaps so. 🙂
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Lest I forget, your Rx is incorrect. I am not emotional and rarely am . . . but I am passionate and there is a world of difference between the two.
LikeLike
Francis Philip said:
Okay. Thank you for that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
And thank you for expanding your original comment. Now at least I know more of what you were thinking. 🙂
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Servus, sounds like the self described “minor Catholic theologian” may have not liked your post. He seems to be saying that he wasted his precious soul saving time by taking the time to read your thoughts.
Now I must admit that if we are meant to be saints, we all should be spending more of our day striving for that goal. Hair shirts and sack cloth, on our knees in front of blessed sacrament 22 hours of the day, comes to mind. The awesomeness of our Lord demands nothing less.
But, most of us choose to live our lives otherwise. Many of us struggle with the first commandment. As Francis Philip brings to mind, what is right and just? Should I spend any time mourning the death of a friend? Should I ever read a novel, or go out to eat, or call a friend, or read and respond on 2 or 10 blogs, or watch the tube, or listen to the radio? We all have to answer for ourselves how much of our time we spend worshiping Our Lord, and hope He will have mercy on us.
How should we respond if and when we disapprove of someones efforts. Should we even say so, and if we do, should we have the courtesy to explain why? What is right and just? Should we just slap and run? Should we answer the question, before we open our mouths, do I have anything to add? Francis Philip, how would the major Catholic theologians answer?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Well if that is so . . . there wouldn’t be a single book in the Vatican archives or the local Catholic Bookstore. No, I think that he thinks that because he went to the fine school of Christendom College (one that I send monetary support to) that he is capable of writing memorable quotations that awe the spiritually poor who haven’t had such a priviledged experience themselves. I want you to copy that comment and put it on your wall Steve and contemplate what it ‘really’ means for the rest of your life. I think Fred does this already.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Just a quick one – Francis is in fact female 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Thanks, C. that would make some sense then. Had I thought that Christendom was promoting inclusive language and feminization of the liturgy I would never have sent them a dime. 🙂
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Are you sure? If so she has a wife according to her About page. I guess in these times you can’t make assumptions based on the old meanings and understandings of words such as wife or husband or you will be considered a hater and intolerant.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I stand corrected – it is someone with a remarkably similar name!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
I thought so. 🙂
LikeLike
William said:
Francis Phillips of the Catholic Herald is female. I don’t think Francis Philip is the same person.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Thank you . . . that clarifies things a bit, I think.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you, and apologies for the mistake.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Steve Brown said:
Servus, who is this Dave Smith character that stole your picture?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Schtevie, I have decided to coax Bosco out of hiding behind the clown mask and put up a real picture of himself along with his real name and stop being a sock puppet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
No I wasn’t and thank you for that. It does echo the prophecies from Quito and Akita as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Servus Fidelis said:
Judging simply from what I have witnessed from the 60’s to our present day it seems that would be the case.
LikeLike