This Is Traditional Catholicism?

Credit:  cheezburger.com

Mark Shea had a very interesting post today [HERE] concerning an article from The Remnant Newspaper, an ultra orthodox traditional newspaper whose main goal seems to be to warn "faithful Catholics" about the "dangers" of the "Post Vatican II Church."  Mark quotes from Karl Keating regarding an article from the Remnant which tries to prove that Pope Benedict XVI is still pope and therefore, we don't have to listen to Pope Francis because he is not the real pope.  

Quoting Karl Keating:

“THAT WAY MADNESS LIES” — King Lear

In the current issue of “The Remnant” there is another article that never should have seen print. It is an article that will lead many readers into confusion and may lead some right out of the Church.

And it’s an article that suggests that “The Remnant” is heading over a cliff.

The article is titled “In a Papal ‘Diarchy’ Which Half Is Infallible?” The writer is Robert J. Siscoe. His topic is a study by Stefano Violi, a professor of canon law, who argues that Pope Benedict did not intend to renounce the whole papal office but only its administrative aspects. Benedict’s intent “was essentially to split the papacy in two, thereby transforming the papal monarchy into a papal diarchy.”

Siscoe quotes Italian journalist Vittorio Messori’s take on Violi’s argument: “Benedict did not intend to renounce the munus petrinus, or the office, or the duties. . . . The Pope intended to renounce only the ministerium, which is the exercise and concrete administration of that office.”

After all, Benedict explained that he was tired and no longer felt he had the strength to fulfill his papal duties well.

Siscoe says that, if Violi “is correct, Pope Benedict did not intend to fully renounce the papal office, but only a portion of the exercise thereof. . . . This novel act of Pope Benedict would explain why he has retained the papal coat of arms, continues to wear the white cassock, and, rather than returning to his pre-papal name Cardinal Ratzinger, has chosen the title ‘His Holiness Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus.’”

Siscoe then quotes another Italian journalist, Antonio Socci, who says: “Ratzinger dresses like a pope because ‘he is’ pope.”

The consequence of all this, speculates Siscoe, is that Benedict “retains the charism of infallibility.” Such a charism can’t be divided between two men. Thus, if Benedict still has it, Francis doesn’t have it. This allows Siscoe and his colleagues at “The Remnant” to get around what for them has been an awkward situation: the recent canonizations.

Siscoe asks, “How could God have permitted the canonization of John XXIII and John Paul II (whose public sins against the First Commandment are too many to list) when so many theologians have held that the canonization of saints is protected by infallibility?”

Not to worry, folks. If Francis doesn’t have the charism of infallibility, one can argue that his canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II didn’t “take.” They aren’t to be counted as saints but simply as two dead popes.

Of course, there are difficulties with the theory that “The Remnant” is pushing:

1. No theologian ever asserted that the papal office could be cut in two in this way.

2. No cardinal in the conclave understood himself to be giving only half the papal office to Francis.

3. If Benedict felt too tired to perform administrative duties and wanted to relieve himself of them and only of them, the logical thing would have been for him to devolve more of those duties onto the curia–which is precisely what the curia is for. There was no need for a “half pope.”

4. Benedict attended the canonization ceremony. He clearly endorsed what Francis was doing. He must have known that Francis had the charism of infallibility.

5. If the charism of infallibility lies with Benedict, what happens when he dies? If Francis doesn’t have the charism now, he won’t inherit it automatically on Benedict’s death. Will there have to be another conclave, to hand over to him (or to some other cardinal) the powers that Benedict retained?

The position argued by Siscoe and endorsed by “The Remnant” is madness. The chief reason it’s being pushed is that the staff members of that newspaper didn’t and don’t approve of John Paul II, against whom they wrote for years.

Their antipathy to that pope is leading them into theological nonsense, and it will lead some of their readers, and perhaps some of them, into further error.

As Karl Keating says, "That way lies madness."

Here is a really great Youtube from Tim Haines of Vericast, a Catholic internet media company which comes right here from Brooklyn, about the dangers of Traditionalism. I highly suggest listening to this. Speaking as one who was deeply into this movement, I can say that Tim Haines is completely on target.

Karl Rahner Was Right: The Changing Face of Catholicism

There is an interesting psychological phenomenon that was identified in 1972 called "Groupthink". Wikipedia [HERE] gives us the definition:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Social Psychologist Irving Janis is responsible for identifying groupthink.  Janis gave eight symptoms of groupthink, as follows:

Type I: Over estimations of the group — its power and morality

• Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

• Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness

• Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.

• Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

• Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

• Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

• Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"

• Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Reform the Mass? Or Reform Ourselves?

Pat Archbold at Creative Minority Report did a post listing "7 Things To Restore Sense of Sacred Your Pastor Could Do Tomorrow"  [HERE].  The list is as follows:

1.  "Ad Orientum" - "the priest and the faithful face the same direction, (liturgical) east", or as some people see it, the priest says the Mass with his back to the people.

2.  "Restore chant and polyphony" - "Ditch the lame hymnal and its happy-clappy anthropocentrism and bring back chant and polyphony."

3. "Latin, yes Latin!!" - Archbold is okay with the readings in the vernacular, "but the parts of the mass that are the same every week could be in Latin".

4.  "Proper Reception of Communion, Kneeling and On The Tongue" - I think that pretty much says it all.

6. "No More Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion" - 'Nuff said.

6.  "Appropriate Attire" - this is not just about the laity dressing in a more proper manner, but about the attire of the servers:  "ditch the altar server's potato sack robes and replace them with cassocks and surplices."  Also, "Priest's [sic] could teach about the sacredness of women and encourage use of the veil."

7.  "General Reverence and Sacredness" - Archbold gives these specifics:

• Eliminating the Sign of Peace by the Faithful. It is only an option and not mandatory and often very disruptive.
• More Incense.
• Great attention to reverence and precision by the Priests and servers.
• Priestly ad libs banished!
• The priest avoid wandering around during the homily.

What is Pat Archbold really saying in all of this?  It's quite simple.  He wants to replace the Ordinary Form of the Mass with the Extraordinary Form.  He obviously has no use for the Ordinary Form as it has evolved, and for all intents and purposes, Archbold wants it abolished.

There are a couple of problems with this.  First and foremost, - it ain't never gonna happen! 

Secondly, Pope Benedict XVI gave us Summorum Pontificum so that those who want the TLM would no longer need to ask permission.  Summorum Pontificum was not about replacing the Ordinary Form with the TLM.   In fact, His Holiness told us that the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form can be mutually enriching.  However, as can be seen in this post from Pat Archbold, traditionalists feel the extraordinary form is, without question, the superior Mass, and more to the point, as one person commented on Archbold's post, "the real Mass."

I have a rather unique perspective on this subject because until recent months, I was a strong adherent to the Traditional Latin Mass for several years, attending almost daily.  The reasons for my exclusive adherence to the TLM included all the reasons stated by Pat Archbold.   I, like most traditionalists, felt that the TLM was the "real" Mass and the Ordinary Form of the Mass was just downright painful.  

But in the past few months I have done a 180 degree turn.  I now exclusively attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass.  I still love the TLM as much as I ever did, but I have come to find the Ordinary Form of the Mass as much of a prayerful and spiritual experience as the TLM ever was.  I did not change the Mass, as Pat Arcbhold suggests.  I changed myself, and that has made all the difference.

All of the suggestions from Pat Arcbhold on restoring sacredness to the Mass involve changing the Mass.  Since that is not going to happen, I think it is much wiser to work on our attitude and prayerfulness and seeing what we can bring to the Mass.  Following are my suggestions on "restoring a sense of the sacred" to the Mass.

1. If it is at all possible, try to arrive early and stay for a while after Mass. This is not as easy to do on a weekday when most of us are working, going to school, etc. We are on tight schedules then. But even if you are married with several kids, you should still be able to invest extra time at Mass on a Sunday. My Sunday Mass starts at 8:45 a.m., and I try to get there by 8:00. It's not necessary to be that early, but try to be in front of the Blessed Sacrament at least 15 minutes before the beginning of Mass. If you can, say a Rosary. Read and meditate on the readings for the Mass. Or just be in prayer, asking for the right attitude to open your mind and heart to Our Lord. This is a time to quiet your thoughts and center your mind on the fact that you are about to participate in the re-presentation of Our Lord's Sacrifice on Calvary.

2. Use the song books. You may not like the music, but force yourself to look up the hymns and sing along. It has been my experience that the words to the hymns are usually very moving and draw me closer to the meaning of the Mass. The hymns are part of the prayers. To refuse to sing is the same as refusing to pray. This is one of the advantages the Ordinary Form has over the TLM. The music at a TLM is all in Latin and only the choir can sing. But at the Ordinary Form, you are part of the choir. Sing out in praise! Chant and polyphony sound great, but I really appreciate understanding the words, and that is what we are given in the Ordinary Form. Take advantage of this!

Magnificat Magazine

2. Read along with the prayers and readings in the Mass. I find the best tool for this is one of the most beautiful monthly Catholic publications in history: the Magnificat magazine [HERE]. This publication contains daily Mass readings with evening and morning prayer, wonderful articles and artwork and more. Even though everything is in the vernacular, it has been my experience that just listening at Mass is not enough. I find I get much more of the meaning when I read along with what is being said at the altar, and it keeps my mind from wandering off. Again, I believe this is an advantage the Ordinary Form has over the TLM. You can hear and understand the prayers of the priest, and pray right along with him. Done correctly, this closely unites celebrant and laity before the throne of God.

Praying the Mass

3.  To quote from Father Z, "Say the black, do the red."  I would add, don't just attend Mass, but "Pray the Mass."  Follow the rubrics.  Stand, sit and kneel as directed in the Mass.  Try to this all of this as prayerfully as you can.  If your hands are free, fold them in prayer.  And say ALL of the responses.  Listen to (and hopefully read along with) the priest as he says the prayers of the Mass, and respond with "Amen."  As much as possible, be one with the celebrant of the Mass.

Sign of Peace

4.  Participate reverently and lovingly in giving the sign of peace to those around you. The sign of peace has a couple of different meanings. First of all, it is done as a symbolic response to Christ's command found in Matthew 5:23-24

Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

As I wrote in a previous post, for me it is also a time to recognize Jesus Christ in the people around us, and realize that if we cannot love them, then we cannot love Our Lord.  We will be judged on how we treat others. We have just adored Our Lord in the transubstantiated bread and wine.  Now we must give the peace we have received from Him to others.   Once again, as in all other parts of the Mass, approach this in a prayerful, reverent manner.  You will be amazed at how this one little action can change you.

5. When the time comes to receive communion, again do so in a prayerful attitude. Walk with your hands folded in prayer, and actually be in prayer, asking the Blessed Mother to make your heart and mind humble and submissive.  Think of the greatness of the gift you are about to receive: the Body and Blood of your Creator, the One who died for you on Calvary and rose again to give you life eternal. Once more, I think our physical actions can add to the sacredness. Holding your hands in prayer as you walk up to receive will put you in a prayerful attitude. The United States bishops have asked that we receive standing, but that doesn't stop you, if physically possible, from genuflecting right before you receive.

And here I can agree with Pat Archbold - receive on the tongue. This definitely does instill a sense of the sacredness.

When I receive on the tongue, I am reminded that this is different from everything else in my life. This is not just a piece of bread that I am consuming. This is my Lord and Savior who is giving himself wholly and entirely to me. Receiving on the tongue truly instills the sense of sacredness while receiving in the hand makes receiving communion no different from anything else in my life.

Here are a couple of readings from the early fathers of the Church:

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23:21:

In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

John Chrysostom Homily 3 on Ephesians:

Tell me, would you choose to come to the Sacrifice with unwashen hands? No, I suppose, not. But you would rather choose not to come at all, than come with soiled hands. And then, thus scrupulous as you are in this little matter, do you come with soiled soul, and thus dare to touch it? And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into the soul it is dissolved entirely.

When we receive on the tongue, we do not have to worry about fragments that we may drop or that are left on our hands. We don't have to worry about desecrating the consecrated host in any way. Remember, receiving on the hand is an indult. The Church prefers that we receive on the tongue. Just do it and you will be amazed at how it will change your life.

These suggestions come down to one thing: be in a prayerful, humble attitude. That is what will make the Mass sacred. Traditionalists tell us that the Latin Mass is what makes it sacred. If that is so, please explain why all sedevancatist groups are devoted to the Latin Mass, and yet they still remain separated from the Church.  

The First Mass, celebrated by Our Lord in the upper room the night before He was crucified, was filled with those who were clueless as to the deep, profound meaning of Our Lord's actions.  One man was actually plotting on how he was going to betray Christ.  The others had no idea what Christ was talking about.  This is His Body and Blood?  We have to wash each other's feet?   Christ is going away to the Father and they can't come?  

The apostles' lack of understanding took nothing away from the sacredness of that first Mass.  Maybe those around you don't understand what is going on.  They don't realize the great mystery that is the Mass.  But that doesn't change what is happening.  By putting yourself in the right prayerful attitude, you can be a part of the sacredness.  And just maybe, you will lead others to this same sacredness that you have discovered.  

The Mass doesn't have to change.  It is already sacred.  It is we who must change.  Let it begin with you.

Credit: forcatholicholymass.blogspot.com

Slaughter of Innocents in Iraq

Credit:  http://allenbwest.com/

If this picture does not tear you apart inside, then you are made of stone.  The events in Iraq are beyond my comprehension.  I feel that we should all be in constant prayer and mortification about the unspeakable evils that are occurring not only in Iraq, but in many other parts of the world.  I also hang my head in shame as an American, knowing that this is happening as a direct result of our invasion into Iraq.  Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but the evil that has erupted since we invaded and "liberated" that country makes Saddam look like a boy scout.  

I took the picture of this child from former Rep. Allen West's website.  In his article, which you can read HERE, Allen West unfortunately uses this horror to make a political statement, as can be seen in his title, "ISIS Is Beheading Children, and Obama Drops Two Bombs."  Yes, I agree Obama is a total incompetent who is in so far over his head that he can't see straight.  

But that is besides the point.  We could bomb Iraq into oblivion, but that is not going to stop the evil.  Is it just a coincidence that everywhere America goes, Christians are persecuted?  Our beloved land has become an evil country as we have turned our back on our Creator.  We no longer allow Him into "polite society."  We kill our own children in "legal abortions" at the rate of almost 1 million every year.  We want religion to be, at best, a private action, not interfering with our lives.  This is far more than politics.  This is a crisis of the spirit.

The answer to the evil that is happening in Iraq and around the world will not be found in politics. There is no human being who can make things right. The only answer is to go on our knees before Our Creator and beg His mercy and forgiveness for our sins.

Back in 2003, I remember St. John Paul II pleading with President George Bush not to go into Iraq. There is an interesting account of this written by Gerard O'Connell on a website called Kaldaya.net.  

On March 5, 2003 [interestingly, this was Ash Wednesday], Pope John Paul II sent the Italian Cardinal, Pio Laghi, to intervene with President George W. Bush and ask him not to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, but the US leader rejected the appeal claiming he was “convinced it was God’s will”.

A source close to the situation at that time, but who does not wish to be named because of the position he holds, has given me an account of what happened then based on what the cardinal told him in private.

He recalled how the Polish pope had already referred to this planned military intervention as an “adventure” and had warned that war would have serious consequences for both nations and the world. He said the pope chose Laghi for this delicate mission, because he was a friend of the Bush family and might have stood a better chance of being listened to.

The day before the scheduled meeting with the President, the cardinal was asked to meet with officials from the US State Department, as the President wanted to know the agenda of the meeting in advance. Cardinal Laghi was “interrogated” by the National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice, the source said; they spoke “with great clarity and great frankness”.

Condoleeza Rice was also present at the meeting next day when the cardinal met the President. So too were two other members of the National Security Council, as well as General Peter Pace, Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Jim Nicholson, the US Ambassador to the Holy See, and Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, the papal nuncio.

When the Cardinal arrived, the source said, he handed Pope John Paul II’s letter to the President, “who immediately put it on a side table without opening or reading it.”

The President then launched into an argument for war, the source added. He told the cardinal that he, the president, “was convinced it was God’s will”, and sought to convince the papal envoy that it was the right thing to do.

“After a few minutes of what the Cardinal termed ‘a sermon’ ”, the source said Laghi interrupted President Bush and said, “Mr. President, I came here in order to speak to you and to give you a message from the Holy Father and I would like you to listen to me.”

Cardinal Laghi told Bush that three things would happen if the United States went to war, the source recalled. First, it would cause many deaths and injuries on both sides. Secondly, it would result in civil war. And, thirdly, the United States might know how to get into a war, but it would have great difficulty getting out of one.

He told the president that with peace nothing is lost, but with war great turmoil would be created, especially in the Arab world.

He also told President Bush that “the most important issue” in the Middle East is the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That has to be dealt with if there is to be peace, the source stated.

As the forty-minute meeting came to a conclusion the President told Laghi, “We are not in agreement on Iraq but we are in agreement on other positions important to the Catholic Church and the Holy Father.”

According to the source, the Cardinal responded, “Yes, the values of promoting life and the family are very important, as they are based on the principles of natural law, human rights and the Gospel. But, Mr. President, I came here to ask you not to go to war, which is another value based on these same principles.”

Cardinal Laghi realized from this exchange that the President had already made up his mind, the source said. This was confirmed shortly afterwards by General Pace, as he accompanied the Cardinal to his car. He shook hands with the Cardinal and told him, “Your Eminence, don’t be afraid. We’ll do it quickly and we will do it in the best way.”

“Laghi knew his mission had failed, but he also realized that the Bush administration was very naïve about the consequences of war “, the source said

He recalled how the press corps was waiting outside the White House after the meeting to interview the cardinal, but administration officials did not allow him to speak to them at the White House. Arrangements to talk to the media had to be hastily made elsewhere.

The next day, March 4, when it was reported that the administration had blocked the Cardinal from speaking to the media at the White house, a person from the State Department called Laghi at the Nunciature in Washington and asked him to clarify with the media that he was not prohibited from giving an interview at the White House. Cardinal Laghi replied, “It is for you to make the clarification as you made the decision.”

Looking at this in hindsight, we can see the great wisdom of St. John Paul II. He had lived through the horror of World War II. He knew that war is never an answer. But President Bush refused to listen to him, and now evil has been unleashed upon the innocents. At the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq. In 2013, that number had dropped to 450,000, the drop coming from those who fled the country and those who had been killed. And now the remaining Christians are faced with genocide while the world watches.

We live in the most serious of times. But there is a verse in the Bible that gives me hope: Romans 5:20 - "But where sin increased, grace increased all the more." As the world descends more and more into darkness, we who have been given the grace of forgiveness from Jesus Christ are obligated to rise up in prayerful intervention. We must throw ourselves into prayer as we never have before. The evil we see is going to get worse, and it will eventually come to our land, just as we saw on September 11, 2001. We must be willing to join with the Cross of Jesus Christ as we see exemplified by those in Iraq, Africa and other places of the world giving their lives for their faith.

Revelation 6:9-11:

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.

Credit:  bishoysblog.com

The Sign of Peace: Greeting Jesus

Pat Archbold of Creative Minority Report recently did a post entitled, "Ditch The Sign of Peace or 'Take your stinking paws off me you darn dirty ape!'" [HERE]  Mr. Archbold, if you haven't already surmised from his title, doesn't have a lot of use for the Sign of Peace.  Mr. Archbold writes:

I note with no small sense of irony The Congregation for Divine Worship's recent circular letter announcing that the placement of the sign of peace within Mass will not change, though it could be performed with greater dignity, lesser dignity being unavailable, of course.

Mr. Archbold related one incident to illustrate his dislike of the sign of peace:

Last year I went to mass while travelling on business and this lady, before my Kung Fu training could kick in, hugged me. Sensing my profound discomfort, she said, "That is how we do it here!" This left me channeling Chuck Heston for my inner dialogue at the unruly and distracting anthropocentric mauling, "Take your stinking paws off me you darn dirty ape! That is Jesus up there!" But hey, that's just me.

Credit:  www.slightlyawkwardshelly.com

I have to admit that until recently, I would have been in complete sympathy with this sentiment.

Not anymore.

After many years of primarily attending the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, I have now started exclusively attending the Ordinary Form.  Like any good Traditionalist, I struggled with the OF, and at the top of my list of struggles was the Sign of Peace.  My argument was the same as that given by Pat Archbold:

All joking aside, it is almost always a terrible interruption to the mass and a distraction from where our collective focus should be at that moment.

However, I have now done a complete 180 on this and feel that the sign of peace is one of the most profound moments in the Mass.

What?!

There is no doubt that any traditionalists reading this will think I have gone completely off the rails and am in serious danger of losing my salvation.  I am not sure that anything I write will convince a Traditionalist of the value of the Sign of Peace, and most especially the value of placing it right after the consecration.

But I am a hopeless optimist and will attempt to do so anyway.

For a long time, my reaction to the Sign of Peace was to keep my head down and refuse to even look at people.  But I slowly began to see that this was nothing more than snobbery, so I decided to at least acknowledge those who were right next to me.  I found myself unexpectedly touched by the kind and welcoming smiles on people's faces.  Then I began turning around and acknowledging those both in front and in back of me.

Now, believe it or not, the Sign of Peace can often move me to tears, and not out of anger, but out of joy and a true feeling of the presence of Jesus Christ.

Trust me, there was a time when I could not have ever imagined voicing such a sentiment.  But, unlike many traditionalists who wail and complain about this part of the Mass, I have begun to understand the wisdom of Holy Mother Church in placing the sign of peace directly after the Consecration.  I, for one, am very grateful that it is not going to be changed.

Allow me to explain.

At the Consecration, we see the great miracle of transubstantiation, when ordinary bread and wine are literally turned into the Body and Blood of Our Savior, Jesus Christ.  It is always, by far, the most dramatic moment of the Mass and quite frankly, it is the most dramatic moment of any day in which I attend Mass.  How amazing it is that the One who created the earth, the planets, our sun, the entire universe is now before me under the appearance of bread and wine.  It is unfathomable that the One who gave up His place in heaven to take on humanity and pour out His Life on the Cross to save mankind from certain eternal damnation is now before me in the Blessed Sacrament.

At the moment of transubstantiation, there is no great visible display of the greatness of Almighty God. Our omnipotent and unfathomable Creator allows an ordinary man to grasp Him with his fingers and hold Him up for all to see. All we see with our physical eyes, of course, is a piece of bread and a cup. In fact, an observer with no understanding would surely think that people bowing and worshiping a piece of bread and a cup of wine must have completely lost their minds.

After a few more prayers are said by the priest at the Consecration, the congregation then recites the Our Father, using the words given directly to us by the One who is now hidden under the appearance of bread and wine.  Truly it is the greatest most perfect prayer in the history of mankind, containing in a few simple words praise, thanksgiving and petition to The Father.

Immediately following the recitation of the perfect Lord's Prayer, we are told to turn and give one another a sign of peace.

This is where the howls of protestation come from the Traditionalists.  As Julie of Connecticut Catholic Corner [HERE] stated on her blog:

I don't like the "Sign of Peace" at Mass.

I just don't.

First, it seems like an interruption of the Mass to me. Secondly, it appears to me to be completely out of hand and not at all what it was/is supposed to be. And third...well I am not a touchy-feely type person who wants to be subjected to shaking strangers hands and/or getting hugs or kisses by strangers.

I don't like it.

That is a very typical reaction of most traditionalists, almost word-for-word.  It certainly reflects the feelings of Pat Archbold in his post when he wanted to say to the person who hugged him, "Take your stinking paws off me you darn dirty ape! That is Jesus up there!"

Yes, that is Jesus up on the altar.  But who is the person next to you, the "darn dirty ape" with the "stinking paws"?

Well, you say, that is a human being.  Yes, you are looking at a human being who is the very reason Our Lord is on the altar.  That human being reaching out to you in greeting is there because the One on the altar spilled His Precious Blood on the Cross.  That "darn dirty ape" is the reason for the Mass.

We can declare our love for Our Lord by showing great reverence at Mass, refusing to handle the Blessed Sacrament with our hands and receiving on the tongue.  I applaud these things.  Reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is absolutely vital and necessary.

But as important as reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is, this is not the standard by which we will be judged.  In Matthew 25, Jesus says He will judge us in accordance with how we treat others. Think about the words of Our Lord in verse 40:  "Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brethren, you do to me."  Jesus is telling us that He basically sees no difference between our treatment of the Blessed Sacrament and the way we treat "the least of these my brethren".  

The reason I love the sign of peace and its placement in the Mass is that, just moments after seeing Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine, we now look at our neighbor and see Jesus Christ under a multitude of appearances: young and old, rich and poor, major athlete and sick and handicapped, brilliant minds and simple minds, sinner and saint, black, brown, yellow and white, male and female. These are the ones for whom Jesus gave His Life. He is in all of them. In some ways, it is even more important to see Jesus in the people around us than to see Him in the Blessed Sacrament.

Mother Teresa, in her acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize said,

“It is not enough for us to say: ‘I love God, but I do not love my neighbor.’ Saint John says that you are a liar if you say you love God and you don’t love your neighbor. (1 John 4:20) How can you love God whom you do not see, if you do not love your neighbor whom you see, whom you touch, with whom you live? And so this is very important for us to realize that love, to be true, has to hurt.”

This is the lesson I feel I am learning each time I give the sign of peace to others at Mass. I am greeting them, but through them, I am giving the sign of peace to Jesus Christ.

Mother Teresa lived Matthew 25 every moment of her life, as can be seen in this statement from her:

“I see Jesus in every human being. I say to myself, this is hungry Jesus, I must feed him. This is sick Jesus. This one has leprosy or gangrene; I must wash him and tend to him. I serve because I love Jesus.”

We are told by those who oppose it that the sign of peace is a "distraction", a "disruption" in the Mass. I say that this attitude is missing a great lesson that we can take with us after we leave Mass. When the priest (or deacon) tell us to offer a sign of peace, look at the other person, and as Mother Teresa did, see Jesus in that person.

Yes, there are valid arguments that the sign of peace could be done in a more dignified way. Certainly people should not start running around the church, as I have seen many times. But that does not take away from the value of the sign of peace. And it does not take away from the fact that we are greeting Jesus as much as we are greeting human beings.

As Mother Teresa said:

“If now we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten how to see God in one another. If each person saw God in his neighbor, do you think we would need guns and bombs?”

The Enemy of My Enemy?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the Manhattan Church of Holy Innocents, which is on the potential list of Catholic church closings to be announced in September. In a move to combat the potential closure, some of the parishioners cooperated with the New York Times in an article in which they aired their complaints against the Archdiocese of New York [HERE]. I brought up the fact that the New York Times is notorious in their animosity towards the Catholic Church. Father John Zuholsdorf long ago labeled the Times as "Hell's Bible." As I wrote, I felt that it just wasn't good judgment to be partnering with an enemy of the Church against the hierarchy of the Church.

Several people from Holy Innocents took me to task and said in no uncertain terms in the com box that I was wrong and didn't know what I was talking about.  I found it rather ironic that just a few days later, the Times ran an ad which Father Z wrote about in a post entitled, "Hell’s Bible Full-Page Anti-Catholic Ad" [HERE].  Even Cardinal Dolan commented on it [HERE].  

Anti-Catholic Ad from New York Times

Cardinal Dolan wrote:

Please, please, please…don’t let us down, I daydreamed after Monday’s decision of the Supreme Court defending freedom of religion from government intrusion.

I prayed, I hoped, that the notoriously anti-Catholic firebrands of the nebulous and anonymous “Freedom From Religion Foundation” (FFRF) in Madison, Wisconsin, would once again, as they predictably had in the past, print a full-page, drippingly bigoted blast in the hospitable pages of the New York Times.

So I smiled in relief as a friend called to ask me—ironically, on the day before Independence Day, celebrating what is most noble and freedom-loving in our beloved country—if I had seen the anticipated ad in the New York Times. I had not, since I stopped reading that paper years ago, on the advice of so many New Yorkers who warned me that the Church rarely gets a fair shake in those pages. But, that day, I went to find the issue, and, there it was, on page A13, a whole-page sneer at “dogma,” and an “all male Roman Catholic majority.”

Some of the parishioners at Holy Innocents have now partnered with another enemy of the Catholic Church  - the Federal Government of the United States.  Yes, that same government which has sanctioned abortion, same sex marriage and contraception for all.  Holy Innocents has joined with the Federal Government against the Archdiocese of New York through the Internet arm of Voice of America, the propaganda machine of the Government.

Voice of America

Type	International public broadcaster
Country	United States (for external consumption only)
Founded	1942
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.
Owner	Federal government of the United States
Official website	www.voanews.com

The result is an article entitled, "Manhattan's Catholic Churches Face Consolidation, Possible Closure" which can be found on the Voice of America website [HERE].  However, even though the title of the article mentions "churches", only one church is discussed: the Church of Holy Innocents.

I have to ask the same question here that I asked in my previous post concerning the New York Times: why would the Federal Government, which opposes the Catholic Church at almost every turn, be suddenly interested in the fate of a small Catholic church in Manhattan?

The answer is the same as in my previous post: it is a chance to stick it to Timothy Cardinal Dolan.

Here is a quote from one Holy Innocents parishioner: "It seems to me almost like someone is intentionally dismantling the Catholic patrimony of this city." Another quote: "The financial condition of the Archdiocese somehow may be corrupting decisions to make decisions to sell churches."

According to the article: "[S]ome Manhattan Catholics fear that their historic, city churches - built on valuable real estate - are only on the chopping block to improve the Archdiocese’s finances."

Once again, as with the article from the New York Times, the theme is the big bad New York Archdiocese is so big and bad and uncaring that it is actually trampling over its own faithful.

Again I must ask, what good can possibly come from once again attacking the Archdiocese of New York?  How does it help the cause of keeping Holy Innocents open by partnering with an enemy of the Catholic Church in an effort to demonize Cardinal Dolan?  Do the people of Holy Innocents really feel that such a tactic is the work of the Holy Spirit?

Holy Innocents is far from being the only Church in danger of being closed.  The rumor is that there are up to 50 or more churches facing closure and consolidation in the New York Archdiocese, which covers several counties in the State.

Further, Holy Innocents Church is also not the only affected church to take to the media to make their case.

St. John Baptist, Piermont

St. John the Baptist in Piermont, established in 1852 and serving over 700 families, is on the potential list and was the subject of a new story [HERE]. As you will notice in the video accompanying the article, although these people desperately want to save their church, they do not resort to demonizing the hierarchy of the Archdiocese. The reporter finishes the newscast with the statement, "The final say is a few months off. Meantime, St. John's is confident in the power of prayer." This is followed by a parishioner, who says, "You know it's in God's hands. We hope and pray that we stay just as we are."

It is also interesting to note what is said in the official Church bulletin [HERE] from St. John the Baptist Church in Piermont. Here is an exact quote from the church bulletin:

False Rumors

Rumors have been circulating that our church is definitely closing. There is no validity to these rumors. No decision has been made or will be made except by the Cardinal, and only by the Cardinal, in early September.

If you hear these false rumors, please do not repeat them and remind the persons they are 100% wrong.

Another church, Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Mount Vernon, also took to the airways [HERE]. They too expressed their displeasure and even anger that they may lose their church. But again, nowhere does anyone try to demonize the Archdiocese.

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Mount Vernon, New York

HERE is a news story about another possible closing, Most Holy Trinity Church in Mamaroneck. Again, there is no demonizing of the Archdiocese.

Holy Trinity Church

HERE is an article from Capital New York about church closings in which St. John the Baptist in Manhattan, just a few blocks from Holy Innocents, is mentioned:

St. John the Baptist's pastor, Rev. Thomas Franks, said last week that he was saddened by the recommendation. The parish was formed in 1840 and its current building constructed in 1871. It has few parishioners but offers a home away from home to commuters, attracting 500 worshipers for Masses each day, he said. Franks said Thursday that he had not had a chance to speak to others about how to respond. He could not be reached on Friday.

I was at St. John the Baptist Church a few weeks ago.  The priest at that time told us that the final decisions have not been made and we should pray for the Will of God.  Again, as you can see, there is no demonizing the Archdiocese.

Also, contrary to the statements of the parishioners from Holy Innocents, the Capital New York article states that the Archdiocese will not financially profit from any church closings.

[Joseph Zwilling, the spokesman for the archdiocese] said the question of real estate has been considered from a broad perspective. Should the church sell some of the property, the archdiocese would not be able to use the proceeds for operational expenses. The money would need to be given to the parish where that congregation went, or to other parishes nearby.

“Church law states that the money that is realized through the sale of property—of church property—must go, must follow the people, must go to the continue to care for the people,” Zwilling said.

I am sure that anyone from Holy Innocents reading this post will feel that I am just piling on them. But as I stated in my previous post, I am truly concerned about what is happening there. There seems to be a tremendous amount of anger and bitterness and a strong victimhood mentality developing among Holy Innocents parishioners and those supporting them.  They seem ready to resort to whatever they feel is necessary to keep their church open.

Michael Voris interviewed a parishioner of Holy Innocents, Paul McGregor, who seems to be making the rounds in various media.  McGregor read a prayer to St. Michael which is being recited after each Latin Mass at the church, as follows:

O Glorious prince of the heavenly host, St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. These crafty enemies of mankind have filled to overflowing with gall and wormwood the Church which is the bride of the spotless lamb. They have laid profane hands upon her most sacred treasures. Make haste, therefore, O most invincible prince, to help the people of God against the lost spirits and grant us victory. Amen.

This is a shortened version of the prayer composed by Pope Leo XIII which is used in the exorcism rite, as shown in an article from a website called Exorcismrites.com, which you can read HERE.

There is certainly nothing wrong with saying the St. Michael's Prayer.  I try to say it at least once a day, and it is certainly needed in our world which is so filled with evil.

But why is Holy Innocents Church using an exorcism prayer to save their church? Who are these "crafty enemies" who are trying to destroy the Church? Is it the secular media? Is it those who openly oppose the Gospel and are forcing God out of society? Is it those who support such abominations as abortion and same sex marriage? No. The "crafty enemies" who have "laid profane hands" upon the "Church's most sacred treasures" and against whom Holy Innocents is defending itself by use of an exorcism prayer is none other than the hierarchy of the Archdiocese of New York.

What is this doing to the hearts and attitudes of the people who recite this prayer every day? How much incalculable spiritual harm is being done to Holy Innocent parishioners as they ingrain into their minds that those who are in authority over them are actually their enemies who want to destroy them? The articles from the New York Times and the Voice of America are, tragically, Exhibits A and B.

The effects of saying the St. Michael exorcism prayer against Church hierarchy every day can also be seen in this excerpt from an interview of the same Paul McGregor by Christine Niles, a rabid Michael Voris supporter and now one of his employees:

Your listeners will have seen on their TV screens how in China, Syria and Nigeria churches are being bulldozed, and we expect that of virulent atheists and Islamists. But we don't expect it from our own Catholic hierarchy.

But on the positive side we have also seen on our TV screens how unaccountable, anonymous elites around the world are being challenged and brought to account for their misdeeds. Recently there was the Cardinal's Annual Appeal, and I had a check for $500 ready to send off, and I must say that I tore that check up when I learned that they wanted to close Holy Innocents.

And if Holy Innocents closes, I won't put another cent in the collection box of any church in the New York Archdiocese. And if they do make the decision to close Holy Innocents, may it weigh on their consciences with the weight of a demolition ball.

McGregor says that he will stop financially supporting the Archdiocese if Holy Innocents is closed. The reason for closing all of these churches is because of the lack of financial support. McGregor's tactics will only cause the closing of even more churches. Is his ultimate goal to shut down the entire Archdiocese so that there are no Catholic churches in this area? Again I ask, is this the work of the Holy Spirit?

The articles in the New York Times and Voice Of America represent two of the secular media that Holy Innocents has used in their attempts to defeat their supposed enemy, the Archdiocese of New York. In addition, there are probably hundreds of Internet posts on Traditional Catholic websites which demonize the actions of the Archdiocese in regard to Holy Innocents. As shown here, Michael Voris and his cohorts, aided by Holy Innocents parishioners such as Paul McGregor, wasted no time getting into this fight. Voris never lets a chance slip by to take a slap at Cardinal Dolan, and he certainly wasn't going to let a golden opportunity like this one get away from him.

In my previous post on this subject, I urged those at Holy Innocents to look at figures from the Bible and Catholic saints down through the centuries who have suffered persecution and to follow their examples. Now I am saying, look to the other churches in the archdiocese. Take note that none of them are running to such anti-Catholic media as the New York Times or the Federal Government to help their cause. Certainly none of them are going to blowhards such as Michael Voris and Christine Niles.

Our Lord warned us in Matthew 12:15, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand." Our world has become virulently anti-Christian. We do face an enemy whose sole goal is to destroy the Catholic Church. But contrary to the statements we have seen coming from the parishioners at Holy Innocents, that enemy is NOT the Catholic hierarchy. The real enemy is the evil one who wants to separate brethren and turn them against each other. Instead of fighting against the evil we see in the world, he wants us to be fighting with and destroying one another.

I know that the good people from Holy Innocents are very sincere in what they are saying, but they must realize that such negativity against and condemnation of the hierarchy of the Church could never come from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Cardinal Dolan is not lying when he says that the realities of our world are forcing him to make these terrible decisions. The sad truth is the majority of Catholics no longer attend or support the Church.

The reality of the state of the Catholic Church in New York is laid out in this article from the Wall Street Journal entitled, "Archdiocese Moves to Close Parishes" from November 2013 [HERE]. According to the article,

Attendance has shrunk in many parishes, making them no longer financially viable, with the archdiocese spending about $40 million a year to help parishes that can't pay bills, an archdiocese spokesman said. Cardinal Dolan has vowed to reduce those subsidies.

. . .

The changes are taking place in an archdiocese often called the spiritual heart of American Catholicism. The archdiocese has between 2.5 million and 3 million self-identifying members and between 750,000 and a million parishioners attend Mass on a given Sunday. 

Demographic shifts in that population are partially driving the move. Parishes built generations ago were often designed to serve large immigrant communities, with pastors speaking the language of the parishioners. Now, people travel widely to attend church, and communities largely mix inside the church, leaving "no need" for ethnic parishes, a church spokesman said. 

Some areas of New York are oversaturated with parishes, officials said. About 25% of the archdiocese's parishes are in Manhattan, with a glut below 14th Street. Only about 12% of the diocese's population now lives in the borough. The church says the Bronx and Lower Westchester could also stand fewer parishes.

Those at Holy Innocents Church who are publicly fighting against the Church hierarchy are convinced that they are being targeted for one reason only: they support the Latin Mass. However, I think it might be helpful to look at other possible factors. Only 200 to 300 people at most visit Holy Innocents Church each day, with maybe about 100 more on Sunday (this includes the Ordinary Form of the Mass which is also offered). Low Masses at Holy Innocents rarely attract more than about 50 people.

Holy Innocents is in the middle of New York's garment district, which is all businesses with little to no residential buildings. I doubt if there is one person attending Holy Innocents who actually lives in that area. I know of only one who lives a few blocks away, just across the street from St. Michael's Church, which is also listed for potential closure.

This means that no one can actually call Holy Innocents their "home" parish, at least not in a physical sense.  Look at the situation for St. John the Baptist in Piermont.  The closing of this church will affect 700 families who actually live within the parish district.  That is several times the number of people who attend Holy Innocents on a regular basis. 

As reported above, about 500 people attend Mass every day at St. John the Baptist Church in Manhattan, only a few blocks from Holy Innocents.   St. John's offers five Masses every day compared to three for Holy Innocents.  St. John the Baptist Church is also in much better shape physically than Holy Innocents. Despite these facts, St. John the Baptist Church is also on the potential hit list.  

The Archdiocese of New York is strapped for cash because a lot of Catholics refuse to support them, as we heard from Paul McGregor who has added himself to that list.  The plain and simple truth is that the Archdiocese can no longer afford to have so many churches not because there are no Catholics but because there are so few faithful Catholics.  It is a tragic, tragic situation.  Instead of condemning Church hierarchy and trying to "exorcise" them, we should be praying very hard that they will be able to save churches.  Those affected should be praying not only for that last minute miracle which will save their own church but other churches as well.  

But if the worse does come about and dozens of churches are closed, including Holy Innocents, then it is vitally important that people do not allow themselves to become bitter and angry but instead look to the Holy Spirit to see where He wishes us to go next.  Our goal in this life is not to find a nice comfortable situation in life and just settle in until we die.  We have been given the great commission by Jesus Christ Himself to go into all the world and preach the good news of salvation.  It is quite obvious here in New York that those around us are in dire need of this message.  Maybe closing the churches is the only way Our Lord can get us out of our comfortable ruts and into the world which needs what we have been given.  

The story of Job in the Old Testament has many lessons for us. Job was a very righteous man and also very wealthy. Satan asked to tempt Job to see if Job would still love the Lord even after losing all of his physical blessings. The Lord agreed and Satan destroyed everything Job had including his family and even his health. When Job found out that his ten children had been killed,

Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing. [Job 1:20-22]

Satan was proven wrong. Job still loved and worshiped God even in the midst of calamity. He did not blame anyone for what had happened. He accepted it as the Will of God.

Job, who had been the wealthiest of men, was literally reduced to sitting on a pile of ashes and scrapping the sores and boils with which he had been afflicted. His wife told him to curse God and die. Job's response was:

You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said. [Job 2:10]

However, Job, understandably, did start feeling sorry for himself and at one point wished he had never been born. He had three friends who basically told him he must have done something really terrible to deserve such punishment. But then God appeared to them and without answering any of their questions, showed them, through His Words, His brilliance and omnipotence. Job realized what was really important and his final answer to God was,

"I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. [You asked,] 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. ["You said,] 'Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes. [Job 42:1-6]

This is the point we all must reach in our lives: we must see the greatness of God and realize that we are nothing. After Job came to this realization, we are told "The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first" [Job 42:12]

This is a time of great trial and testing in the Archdiocese of New York. Do we trust the Lord to bring us through it?