This just in form ND Professor of Theology

On his blog and in a few articles, Fr. Richard McBrian stated "Notwithstanding Pope Benedict XVI's personal endorsement of eucharistic adoration and the sporadic restoration of the practice in the archdiocese of Boston and elsewhere, it is difficult to speak favorably about the devotion today.

Now that most Catholics are literate and even well-educated, the Mass is in the language of the people (i.e, the vernacular), and its rituals are relatively easy to understand and follow, there is little or no need for extraneous eucharistic devotions. The Mass itself provides all that a Catholic needs sacramentally and spiritually.

Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward."

Here is three paragraphs is is the problem with the Church. I am stunned to the point of not having the words to explain HOW wrong this is other than to say THIS is ANOTHER reason why my son can NEVER attend Notre Dame....WOW

Fisheaters and Headcoverings

Great question....Here it is for those who are not following the question I was asked....

"I was reading that "fisheaters.com' site tonight. I know nothing about the site at all, so I have no idea where it's loyalties lie. There was a section devoted to women wearing headcoverings during Mass. It was very compelling. I really don't know what the Church's stand on that is. This website seems to imply that we're really SUPPOSED to be wearing them still, but due to some political hand-waving, the issue went away. I'm confused. Know anything?"

Fisheaters hmm?--well, it's pretty Traditional in it's viewpoint. Most liberals would say very VERY right wing arch-conservative. It is a good resource if you get past some of the long-harbored anger and bad feelings the Traditionalists have for being shut out of the mainstream of the Church for the last 50 years. I personally use it and I find it helpful.

Headcoverings-Oh boy--I'll catch it here...First, this came from the Jewish Temple worship. In the old Testament, Jewish women were to wear headcoverings in the Temple, no exceptions. Since most of the early Christians were Jews, headcoverings were a tradition that was maintained in the early Church.

All that said, there are three Theological basic reasons why women should cover their heads in Church:
(See I Corinthians 11:2-16--showing Paul's instructons to the Church)


1)It is a outward sign of the recognition of the Headship of God--see vs. 3

2) Paul tells us that is is an outward sign or recogintion of the order of Creation -vs. 7-9

3) Paul additionally teaches us that it is because of the presence of angels when we pray together. v 10

Additionally, it has been the tradition of Holy Mother Church for over 1900 years. We have changed this for what reason other than fashion and convenience? Ooops. did I say that out loud?

Do you ever?

Feel like you have been dropped here from another planet? 94% of the news has been devoted to a pop stars death/funeral/discussions of the same/rehash with hangers-on...whatever. ..... In the meantime life intrudes on all of us. My cousin got married in Chicago (in a Catholic church no less-He's not Catholic, so this was a shock)at St. Alphonsus and I got to attend St. John's Cantius just before they appeared on EWTN. Awesome place and very neat to see. Confessional LINES--wow! Both Churches are so old that they had the clips for men's hats on the back of the pews.

A friend almost lost a child this week-all we could do was to pray. Thankfully, God mercifully answered the firestorm of prayer and she is fine.

It is time to be very thankful and rest in the Lord.

Bishop's Statement

Here's a great statement by the Bishop of Scranton about how Catholics should judge themselves worthy or unworthy to receive Holy Communion. (Sen. Casey, have you read this yet?) Perhaps we should ALL read this and be reminded of our own obligations.

http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/News/OfficialNoticeOnCommunionFebruary26,2009.asp

AND now we have THIS...

Readers are probably looking at the last post and freaking out--not to worry--I haven't lost a screw. Ok--well, maybe only a few....I am pleased that the SSPX bishops have been brought back into the Church just as I would be for anyone who was previously excommunicated. Excommunication is a severe discipline of the Church designed to get people to change and come back to the teachings of the Church. The SSPX and the Vatican have been working on this for a while and it finally happened. This will be a good thing--now for the bad.

The "idiot uncle" of the group, bishop Williamson, shows up on camera with his odd ideas on the Holocaust, denying what happened/how many and how-against the stated position of the Church , so he could appear educated and sophisticated. He wound up looking like a sad crackpot and gives the media a fantastic target (He gave the interview in November and the lifting of the excommunication took place in late January). No plan here was there? (Hmmmm?)

Regardless of ANY conspiracy theories that may put forth in defending the indefensable comments, + Williamson sets the whole cause back AND makes His Holiness and the Vatican AND Bp. Fellay look inept in the process. They are NOT. + Williamson has made himself a pariah by his comments and better prepare himself for a major kick in the fanny from Bishop Fellay and just about EVERYBODY else and it is richly deserved.

Meanwhile, Tradition must continue to move forward. It has a place of honor in the Church and no one person(s) should cause this restoration to fail. This has caused a person to fall from favor, but we are not a group that should be attached to any person except Christ. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but for all our sakes Bp. Fellay, please drain and clean the tub.

Deo Gratias! SSPX Excommunications lifted!

Thanks be to God! Our common sense has been regained and we have restored what was lost and hidden from us. No better gift could be had than the healing of this division WITHOUT recrimination or blame.

It's REAL--Here' the Vatican press release in Italian--http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/23235.php?index=23235&po_date=23.01.2009&lang=en

and Vatican Radio in English--http://www.radiovaticana.org/en1/index.asp

Welcome back Brothers and Sisters and thank you for your witness to the Truth!

follow up to Pastoral letter from Little Rock

and he labored and brought forth this....

http://www.dolr.org/bishop/pastoralimmigration_english.pdf

Wow! I cannot believe this...advocating this position is madness. I am not for depriving anyone of their human rights BUT THIS solution is nonsense. I am in favor of the Church being humane and treating everyone with respect, but I AM for enforcing the laws of the land. This has nothing to do with bringing Jesus to these immigrants, it is an economic circumstance that must be resolved in their own countries. If we fail to care for our own, we cannot help anyone beyond our borders. Even the Apostles were charged with taking the Gospel locally and then to the ends of the earth.

To quote the Bishop...."We do support them being here illegally. They have a right to be here," he said. "We are here to serve everybody. Not just Catholics. We are not a country club. We are here to bring the love of Jesus to everybody. They are here because there is no way to get documents, not because they don't want documents. They do not want to immigrate without documents. ... You can't be obliged to do what you can't do. Immigration laws should correspond to the reality."

Wow!!!

Lessee here Mr. Obama....

We are broke as a nation. Every single financial institution in the country is wailing like a banshee and bleeding red ink to the point that they might not survive and YOU want to make sure that Madonna does not adopt any more African Babies by sending US tax dollars to provide abortion to the Third World Countries? HMMMMM--to paraphrase SNL--"That don't sound good to me". Must have missed how we are going to PAY for this one without my taxes going up. Forget the immorality of the whole thing--uh--wait, that IS the point....anyway...BUT where do we get the $$$$???

West TN Catholic article

I read an interesting article today in the West TN Catholic regarding the Bishop of Little Rock, Bishop Anthony Taylor. He is issuing a Pastoral letter about the human rights of "undocumented immigrants". The article says that he "believes that being able to migrate to another country is an intrinsic human right." He says that because it's virtually impossible for immigrants, predominantly from Mexico, to come to the United States legally, "You can't be obligated to do what you can't do". (I beg your pardon???)

I will be VERY interested to see this document when it's released. Advocating breaking the law of the United States is an interesting interpretation of the Gospel. Don't get me wrong, it's important to be compassionate. That said, I have to obey the laws of Mexico if I go there--why should the people who want to come here not obey OUR laws. I'm not sure that's what Jesus meant when he said"render unto Caesar what is Caesar's....

Well, right after my October 28th comment/rant many individual bishops came out and said clearly that Catholics cannot continue to support politicians that support a culture of death. You cannot profess with your mouth one thing and VOTE another way.

Most notably, Bishop Emeritus Rene H. Gracida of Corpus Chrisi and the words of Bishop Martino of Scranton Pennsylvania-Bishop Martino arrived unannounced in the midst of a panel discussion on faith issues and the presidential campaign at St. John’s Catholic Church on Sunday. According to people who attended the event, the bishop chastised the group for holding the forum and particularly took issue with the discussion and distribution of excerpts from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ position on voting issues. The document defines abortion and euthanasia, as well as racism, torture and genocide, as among the most important issues for Catholic voters to consider.“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,” he was quoted as saying in the Wayne County Independent, a Honesdale-based newspaper. “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.” “The only relevant document ... is my letter,” he said at the forum, according to the Independent. “There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”

According to participants, Bishop Martino expressed dismay that the panelists did not discuss the pastoral letter he directed all priests in the Diocese to read in place of their homilies on Oct. 4 and 5. In that letter, he called on Catholic voters to consider abortion above all other issues, except those he defined as having equal moral weight, like euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research.

Pray for the bishops. Pray they have the spine to put the real truth before us and make us face the reality of what we do. Pray that we form men worth of thier calling-willing to make a statement to the faithful-and to the community at large-to instruct us on PRACTICAL matters of faith.

The abotion issue and comments

The problem with the current statements on abortion and other current discussions within the Church is very simple-as plain as the nose on your face. The Church has an already stated and communicated position on these matters. The issue then becomes one of clarity. We have all seen these various “clarification” statements from our priests and bishops. Most fill complete pages to validate themselves or their political patronage. Very few address the issue at hand cleanly and honestly. When an average person reads what should be a simple, lucid statement of Catholic teaching, they are left wondering what the bishop (or priest) actually said, much less what he MEANT.

The problem is that both the Church and her princes are verbose when clarity is needed. It appears that social welfare has replaced the Gospel of Christ. They want to appear educated and refined, sufficiently grave and reserved. They cover too many topics at once (particularly when a single issue is raised) and wind up saying nothing at all. The faithful then spend an inordinate amount of time trying to debate “What the Bishop/priest MEANT was….” and calling each other “heretic.”

The faithful and society in general have placed the proverbial golf ball on the tee, given the bishops a driver the size of a shoebox and they have collectively “whiffed.” A small remnant imitates Tiger Woods but the majority has just plain missed the ball entirely. They must DO something more than stand in the tee box and sheepishly grin at us. We deserve better. We must begin to demand it.

Good Question

This is about the Declaration on Euthanasia, written by Pope John Paul in 1980 I think.

It's a little complicated, and I don't want to use names of course, in case someone reading this knows the family.

I have a friend, a nurse, who's relative, a 96 yr old widow, had a stroke a couple of weeks ago. They called it a storm, meaning most of her brain has been affected. She is paralyzed on her left side and cannot talk, though she seems to be aware of her surroundings, responds to them and can make noises. She also "fusses" when they move her or change her clothes, so she is very much "with us" though she cannot communicate clearly.She is stable enough; so that they were able to bring her home last week. The woman's daughter lives with her, and they have home health help.

The problem is this: the hospital personnel and doctors involved with her in the beginning, even the home health nurse who was with her at the time of the stroke, said that since she has a DNR in place, and has signed a living will, that they would recommend that she not receive care. They even felt that she should not receive nourishment.

My friend, being an in-law, and not the blood kin, had kept her mouth shut until this point. She insisted that the Church requires that a patient receive basic care and that would include nourishment, even if that involved a feeding tube. She was surprised at the response she got from the hospital personnel and even from her own family members, one of whom is a hospital administrator. She was told that the lady was old and it would be unfair to force her to live when she was in such a state. They said her "quality of life" would be poor, and besides it was not her decision anyway. My friend said she felt that they were being pressured to let the woman die.

So she encouraged her husband to consult their priest, before making a decision. Apparently the lady's daughter agreed with her, and said she had no intention of starving her mother to death, and requested they insert the feeding tube. Which they did. The lady is holding her own and seems happy to be in her own home. The next day they spoke with their priest (and this is the clincher) Father said the feeding tube could be considered "extraordinary measures" and it would not have been wrong to decline it. He is saying the feeding tube is "invasive" .

Who gets to decide what are extraordinary means? We have read this Declaration as part of our biology class and it IS vague to me. Do we leave these decisions up to the doctors? I hope not. How can the mere act of feeding a person be considered extraordinary?

We need to read those "living wills" carefully; so that we do not give someone too much choice over our own lives. Or we need to be clear, so that our families don't have to make these kinds of decisions, or have these kinds of disagreements.(emphasis Adam's)

This is so important, I would love to hear other opinions.

And the 3rd Question...

third, in reading the ligorian it discusses how the 6th commandment says not to commit adultery but that does not mean premaritial sex is wrong. since i also found that odd, i would like some other opinion on it too please.

2nd Question

second question, on one(true faith) podcast it discussed how the rapture as most people know it is not what the bible really says will happen. it discussed how wrong the left behind notion is. i was wondering everyones opinion on it.

New question-first of 3

In a discussion with someone they wanted to know why attending mass (or church) every week was required. the commandment only says keep it holy. what is the argument on that?

Vatican Councils Question

Anonymous said...
I had a discussion with a friend about the Church and he is convinced "some" of the Vatican Councils are flawed. I don;t know enough to know the difference. Can you help with this question?thanks!
April 21, 2008 7:19 AM

I find it impossible to address this. Many holy people have spent their entire lives researching and commenting on these Councils of the Church and this small space and my feeble thoughts and words are insufficient to the task.

2nd Question

I have a question-Help me explain to my Protestant friends/family why Good Friday can't just be glossed over "in favor of" (for lack of a better phrase) Easter.Thanks!

1st Question--a biggie

I'm struggling with the concept that there is some disparity in how reverent you are if you choose to receive Holy Communion in your hands. I think if it's okay with Rome, it shouldn't be identified as you being irreverent.

• this is an issue being widely discussed. Reverence is required in either case. I think this is a tradition rather than a cause for division. The early Church did not have communion hosts and used hands. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 390) indicated that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand. Later, communion was received on the tongue ONLY. Now we are under an indult that ALLOWS either.
  
• This instruction is from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord

41. Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words "The Body of Christ." The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost." (51)

51. Cf. GIRM, no. 73(GIRM-General Instructions of the Roman Missal 2002)

Personally, I see the importance of being reverent in either case, but according to the Church, the issue is being careful with the Body of Christ and proper care and reverence means that nothing should be lost to your fingers or the floor. Not many observe this level of care due mainly to lack of instruction. People that promote receiving communion on the tongue are also required to use the same care although receiving on the tongue combined with the use of a paten seems to minimize the chance of loss of any fragments (provided they consume the host with the mouth closed and yes....--don't ask).

All this said, I was trained to receive by hand. I have received on my tongue as well. I am reverent in either case. Avery (who is also reverent IMO) had a problem with the host as some of you know. He COULDN'T receive it without almost gagging when he was smaller--drove the wife NUTS! He got over it and now feels more comfortable taking it in his hands. He's gone to a TLM at Blessed Sacrament and did just fine.

I think we have to be careful to make sure we have the right motive of true Charity when we talk about all these topics. We also have to resist becoming overly scrupulous. We must be open to discuss but be gentle in our fervor to persuade. Hope this helps> I'll also try to get a TLM response to this question since I have less experience in that form.

Getting Started

This was suggested by a few friends to have a "safe place" to ask and discuss issues and questions that we run across or want to know more about.

It seems we always talk about our faith whenever we get together and have several questions raised before we have to leave and go home. This gives us a way to continue our discussion so we all can benefit and grow. Hopefully, we can discuss these topics and thoughts and make sure we all have a proper understanding. Many of us have lots of resources and can contribute greatly.

We have a number of resources in the background and several experts who have agreed to help us when we get stuck. Our goal here is to know more than we did when we asked the question originally and to increase our knowledge of our faith in the process. We all have much to learn so let's be practical and remember that not everyone holds the same perspective or is in the same place in their spiritual growth. (Nice for be kind--nobody understands this all-grin).