Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Inspired by a comment in the ComBox of the last cartoon, here's the Pope doing what he can to rebuild some Tradition into the Church. Of course, every time that he does, you see the uproar and disdain from those committed to a "new Church", which claims a history only as far back as 1968.
Recently we saw the uproar over the whole SSPX/Holocaust issue. As though someone who thinks a certain way on a particular issue can't possibly be allowed in the Church. And, to be clear, I certainly wouldn't deny the Holocaust. But if someone wants to deny it, or take issue with the # of people lost, I figure, hey, it's a free world.
But the uproar that it created, both on the theological Left and Right, was just too over the top, when you consider that we have things like this =====> http://www.stbernadette.org/teenhaven.htm going on in parishes that are considered more "in communion" with Rome than an SSPX parish.
There are parishes like this all over the country, but I don't see anything being done about it. The silence, or in some cases, outright endorsement of this sort of thing by dioceses and Archdioceses (in this case, Baltimore), makes the uproar over Bishop Williamson seem hollow.
Parishes like this St. Bernadette's are "in communion". But an SSPX isn't. Wow.
Monday, July 20, 2009
I've read in a couple of places (most recently Portugal), that some dioceses or individual parishes are mandating communion in the hand, to combat the spread of the Swine Flu. In some areas, to me, that sounds reasonable, especially if they also suspend the Sign of Peace (Portugal). I know in my own parish, during flu season, the priest will invite us to give one another a "nod" instead of pressing the flesh and back slapping one another.
Maybe it's just the cynical side of me, but doesn't it seem like (yet) another backdoor way to mandate communion in the hand altogether?
This is how the destroyers of the Faith work. They seize on any opportunity to make it work towards their ends.
First, communion in the hand was introduced. Then, after the horses were out of the barn, it was approved.
Then, when Tradition begins to push back, they mandate standing as the "norm" to receive communion. Was there really some need to mandate standing? Other than spite?
Will communion in the hand be mandated soon, based on some backdoor "need"? Naturally, they'd say "Well, we understand those who like to receive on the tongue, but due to (insert excuse here), we need to have everyone receive in the hand.
Here's a link to an article (I don't know anything about the writer, so don't take this as some sort of endorsement. It appears to be just a general Catholic column):
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Luke Coppen over at the Catholic Herald (UK) has a good article on the "pruning" that the Pope is getting started in the Church.
He has some interesting points and it's worth taking a look at:
My own opinion is that rather than prune back the overgrowth from Vatican II, he should cut the whole tree down and start over. Of course, that could never happen, even if the Pope wanted to, because the enemies within the Church walls outnumber the ones outside.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Angel Queen links to a recent NY Times article on the investigation that's underway into women religious orders here in the U.S.
Mother Mary Clare Millea, who is heading up the visitation, looks very much like the good sisters who taught me back in the 70's. They were Immaculate Heart of Mary sisters (the good branch), who wore the habits, kept order, and didn't teach us any mumbo-jumbo.
Naturally, the Femi-Nuns are up in arms about this visitation. Perhaps because they realize the Vatican is on to them.