On the Birthday of Blessed Mary

On today’s feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Augustine writes in the old Divine Office: “Dearly beloved brethren, the day for which we have longed, the Feast-day of the Blessed and venerable and Ever-Virgin Mary, that day is come. Let our land laugh and sing with merriment, bathed in the glory of this great Virgin’s rising. She is the flower of the fields on which the priceless lily of the valleys hath blossomed. This is she whose delivery changed the nature that we draw from our first parents, and cleansed away their offense.”—St. Augustine.

It is interesting that St. Augustine writes that it was from Mary’s “birth that the nature that we draw from our first parents changed,” (per cuius partum mutatur natura protoplastorum.) Wouldn’t this be better ascribed to Jesus? Even better: How can we call Mary the Mother of God if she was not pre-existent? The answer is simple: Mary is the mother of Jesus’ human nature, but not his divine nature. But Jesus’ center of responsibility, his personhood is divine. And you can’t be the mother of a nature, only the mother of a Person. And this Person is Divine. Thus, Mary is the Mother of God. Christ did not derive His Divinity from her, but He did derive 100% of his genetic make up, his flesh and his blood—His humanity— from Mary alone, since Joseph had no part in this. Jesus’ humanity came from Mary!  And Mary’s humanity came from the most perfect male-female union on earth ever, that of St. Joachim and St. Anne.

When we are baptized, we drown to the family of Adam and we rise in the family line of Jesus. This is why the Apostle Paul writes so much about death and life in his chapter on baptism, Romans 6. But notice who he is writing to: The Romans. In the Roman Empire, to adopt a son or daughter required a process of death certificate granted to the child by the old family. This death certificate was necessary to have in hand before the new family would have the rights and paperwork to the new child. In short, the child would be dead to the first family, and alive to the second family.

So also, we die to Eve and become alive to Mary, above all on her birthday! The birthday of Mary is in some way the birthday of a new humanity since Jesus got His humanity from her and since we are adopted into his family through baptism. The waters of St. Anne breaking were in some since a prefigurement of the waters of our baptism, our new family.  These graces of new life do not originate in Mary, but they flow through her, as Christ came through her once. When we are baptized, we are divinized by God Himself transforming us into tabernacles of the Blessed Trinity. But we also enter a new humanity that Jesus took from Mary, even though He—God— created her most perfect soul, celebrated on the Immaculate Conception (8th of December.) But 9 months later, we have the full flowering of this conception on her birthday, on the 8th of September, today.

This birthday is therefore the birthday of our Mother! This begins not only Mary’s life outside the womb, but a prefigurement of our birth unto eternal life and a new family line prepared for us. So “let our land laugh and sing with merriment, bathed in the glory of this great Virgin’s rising. She is the flower of the fields on which the priceless lily of the valleys hath blossomed. This is she whose delivery changed the nature that we draw from our first parents, and cleansed away their offense.”—St. Augustine

stained-glass-07-e1356025575211

—Fr. David Nix, www.padreperegrino.org

Father Nix – How To Pray For The Synod

Here is a good post on how to pray for the upcoming Synod by Father Nix on his blog at Padreperegrino


synodThe best way to pray for the upcoming Synod is to pray that it be stopped, since Pope Francis specifically called a Synod to debate closed topics found in Scripture, like gay-marriage.

Remember, a synod does not enjoy infallibility.

I have 12 years of Jesuit education, so I love a good debate.  I also have a tremendous love and compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality in spiritual direction and the confessional.  There’s a great article titled I am Not Gay, I am David.  No it’s not me who wrote that.  I’ve never struggled with same-sex attraction, but I do have a deep and real love for those who have struggled.

A “pastoral synod on the family” should have nothing to do with same-sex attraction.  A “pastoral synod on the family” would mean the Roman Catholic Church is about to rejoice in a bishop pow-wow which will inform young Christian families on how to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a world that is so hostile to anyone with more than two children.

But the “Synod on the Family” is anything but that.  On the docket are forums to debate whether we should have some exceptions for gay “marriage” and some exceptions for the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion of Our Lord’s Body and Blood.

If Pope Francis really wanted the bishops to have access to radically new pastoral explanations of marriage and sex for the salvation of real families, he would have proposed a Church-wide study of St. John Paul II’s Wednesday audiences titled Man and Woman He created Them, popularly known as Theology of the Body.  I personally love St. JPII’s work on marriage and sexually, for I have seen it affect numerous conversions in young people when I was involved in campus ministry at two Universities in Colorado.

Now that I’m in the Latin Mass world, I understand that not everybody appreciates St. JPII’s Theology of the Body, for they find it too progressive.  That’s okay, but that is all the more reason for traditionalists to ask:  If synod bishops wanted new pastoral ways of explaining old sexual truths, why isn’t the Synod preparing with the “progressive” work of St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? There’s only one explanation: Pope Francis himself called the synod to open up doctrinally-closed topics: gay marriage and heterosexual divorce and re-marriage.

Why are people calling for prayer for this synod on “the family”? They speak as if mild guidance were needed from “on high.” This pollyanna attitude has us miss the enormous reality that full conversion is needed for a group of loosey-goosey European bishops who are going to finagle brother bishops’ group-discussions for the redefinition of family.  With everything that needs to change in the world today, why has Pope Francis hand-picked ultra-liberals to discuss if a family should remain rooted in one man and one woman?

Satan must be laughing so hard at naïve Catholics who think this is a synod on “the family,” when the topics on the docket are anything but “family.”  Even the Catholic blogosphere seems deceived, for they are praying that Pope Francis stay strong against the liberal synod…that he called into being! In fact, I don’t think the USA has a single bishop as heretical as the Cardinals whom Pope Francis has put in charge of this synod (See far below.)

In defense of Pope Francis, the most well-educated priest friend I know recently told me he believes that the liberal Cardinal Daneels was put on the synod-team to be “heard” by everyone…before Pope Francis triumphantly re-iterate the Church’s classic teaching on marriage and sex at the end of the synod!  I hope he’s right, but I answer my priest friend:  Thatwould take a supernatural miracle because the natural reality is again this: The Pope himself is starting a synod to open up items of closed Divine Revelation.

By what authority?  Even the papacy has limits in Canon Law and in the Gospel.  Re-instating Cardinal Burke was nice, but it doesn’t pacify me.  I was ordained to protect my bride, the Catholic Church, and there’s still a problem.  If the synod really had pastoral goals (not dogmatic-redefinitional-goals) then all of the work of St. JPII would be intellectually devoured by bishops equally hungry to populate heaven with pure souls.  But I don’t hear anyone —conservative or liberal —mention JPII’s Theology of the Body. Has anyone else? Please email me and tell me I’m wrong. Does anyone really know what Pope Francis thinks? No. But we do know that his own hand-picked architects have an agenda for the destruction of the family in mind, and this is where we must pray that evil simply be stopped.

The elevations of the Synod of the “Family” as again found on LifeSite News:

Bishop Heiner Koch: Bishop Koch was appointed June 8, 2015 by Pope Francis as the new Archbishop of Berlin, and selected as one of the three delegates of the German Bishops’ Conference to participate in the upcoming October 2015 Synod of Bishops on the Family. Koch has said, “Any bond that strengthens and holds people is in my eyes good; that applies also to same-sex relationships.” In another public interview he said: “To present homosexuality as sin is wounding. … I know homosexual pairs that live values such as reliability and responsibility in an exemplary way.”

Cardinal Godfried Danneels: The retired former archbishop of Brussels was a special appointment by Pope Francis to the 2014 Synod of Bishops. In addition to wearing rainbow liturgical vestments and being caught on tape concealing sexual abuse, Danneels said in 2013 of the passage of gay “marriage”: “I think it’s a positive development that states are free to open up civil marriage for gays if they want.”

Cardinal Walter Kasper: A few days into his pontificate Pope Francis praised one of Cardinal Kasper’s books, and then selected the cardinal to deliver the controversial keynote address to the consistory of cardinals advocating his proposal to allow divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive communion in some circumstances. This proposal led to the high-profile debate at the first Synod of Bishops on the Family. Cardinal Kasper has again been selected as a personal appointee of the pope to the second Synod and regularly meets with Pope Francis. Kasper defended the vote of the Irish in favor of homosexual “marriages”, saying: “A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.”

Archbishop Bruno Forte: The archbishop of Chieti-Vasto was appointed Special Secretary to the 2014 Synod by Pope Francis. He is the Italian theologian who was credited with drafting the controversial homosexuality section of the infamous midterm report of the Synod which spoke of “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation.” When questioned about the language, Forte said homosexual unions have “rights that should be protected,” calling it an “issue of civilization and respect of those people.”

Father Timothy Radcliffe: In May, Pope Francis appointed the former Master of the Dominican Order as a consultor for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace despite his well-known support for homosexuality. Writing on homosexuality in 2013, he said: “We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift.” In a 2006 lecture he advocated “accompanying” homosexuals, which he defined as “watching ‘Brokeback Mountain,’ reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord.”

Bishop Johan Bonny: The bishop of Antwerp in Belgium has just been named as one of the delegates to the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the Family despite open dissent on homosexual unions. While being named as a delegate to the synod may not in itself constitute a major promotion, what is unique about Bonny is the extremity and clarity of his dissent. “Inside the Church, we must look for a formal recognition of the relational dimension that is also present in many homosexual, lesbian and bisexual couples,” he said in a December 2014 interview. “In the same way that in society there exists a diversity of legal frameworks for partners, there must be a diversity of forms of recognition in the Church.”

 

Traditional Catholic Defend Marriage 2

MARRIAGE DEFENDERS: PART 2 OF 2

 

A friend of mine who is a beautiful wife and mother of seven children was in a supermarket this week.  A 50 year old man stopped her and then sarcastically asked her if she knew what “caused” having seven kids. She texted me about this and then added her and her husband’s thoughts on this:

Some days the world just wears you down and a part of you starts to feel like maybe you are a freak. Not just about having a lot of kids, but about everything. And then you realize you need to spend some time in adoration and start to once again see life through Jesus’ eyes and not the world’s. The world is so blind and hard-hearted that what is beautiful and sacred just can’t be comprehended by it.

Why is the world so hard-hearted to Christians today?

As I said earlier, it’s not because we’re being hateful on issues of sexuality.  So why do Catholics constantly get mocked for following Christ and His Church in the silence of their homes?  Is it because they’re secretly judging their neighbors and everyone feels it?  Maybe…but I think today’s feast of the Beheading of John the Baptist can shed light on the psychology of the conviction of conscience.

Now, there’s a lot of Herods in the Bible but I want to consider Herod Antipas (20 BC-AD 40), the tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea.  He’s the one who mocked Jesus before His execution. He’s also the one who ordered John the Baptist’s death for having spoken out against his adulterous relationship.

Now, most Bible movies do a pretty good job at capturing the love/hate relationship between Herod and the Baptist because of this one very rich line in the Gospel: “Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly.”—Mark 6:20

I believe it was Earnest Hemingway, an unbeliever, who liked to travel the Deep South of the USA and listen to fire and brimstone homilies in Baptist Churches. Apparently it made him feel alive, or at least he heard these homilies “gladly.”  This curiosity was also found in Herod.

But of the 2.5 million people populating first century Palestine, why would a somewhat-powerful governor like Herod move beyond curiosity towards the murder of a homeless man who had been calling him out for living with his brother’s wife?   I mean, really—2.5 million people are silent about his adultery, and then one guy who is half-dressed in skins and eating crickets calls this magistrate out for a sexual sin many miles away on the Jordan River and Herod panics? What exactly got under Herod’s skin? Or better, what gets under Herodias‘ skin? The answer is that they secretly recognize John the Baptist as the mouthpiece of the one, true God they are running from.

As I wrote in a post called Mercy Killing of Consciences:
You see, if the final exterior agent of traditional Judeo-Christian belief (the Catholic Church) reflects the interior-but-objective, flickering, dying pilot light of your conscience that you’re trying to kill, then the Catholic Church is the one thing that is keeping your conscience alive…and you hate it. This is because long before rules were found in the catechism, they were found in your heart.

I know John the Baptist wasn’t a baptized Catholic, but killing John the Baptist was Herod trying to kill his own conscience, for Herod’s conscience was not created by Herod-himself in a relativistic way, but by God-Himself in an objective way.

That’s why Obama wants to stop the Little Sisters of the Poor in the HHS mandate .  That’s why a 50 year old man in a supermarket harasses a young mother of seven.  Both bullies know that that’s how they should have lived.  If  you think this is an exaggeration, then what other explanation would there be for them to go out of their way?  It has to be personal conviction of conscience at how others silently live their lives for God:

Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us, and opposes our actions…the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange.”—Wisdom 2:12a, 15

I don’t know that supermarket stalker’s past, but statistically an American man of his age has already paid for one to two abortions, not to mention one or two dozen dead children from several decades of abortifacient-pills-induced sex.  I don’t know this guy’s conscience, heart or past, but I’m just saying statistically this is the truth for an American male of his age.  (Do the math if you want.)  Of course he’s going to feel convicted by a Catholic woman who lived the way he should have.  His conviction came out as sarcasm.  Herodias’ came out as murder.

There’s only one truth of how humans should live, and it’s entirely found in the Catholic Church, so we should probably stop apologizing so much.  Yes, it’s true that we Catholics lost a lot of credibility in the priest scandals of the past 50 years that destroyed so many lives, and for that we do need to keep apologizing.  But the Truth remains on walking billboards like my friend in the supermarket.  She and many others are heroes and white martyrs of marriage, like John the Baptist was a hero of marriage carrying his red martyrdom in the picture above.  They’re both formidable Marriage Defenders:  one married, and one celibate.

I wasn’t so clear on this at first.  Yesterday, I texted my friend back that I would have punched that a** in the face if I had been there in King Soopers.  Later, I realized that creeping behind that broken old creeper’s sarcasm was probably a hunger and even sadness for the family he had contracepted away.

In the face of such brokenness and/or hostility (only God knows) it can still make us wonder how to act.  Here’s my suggestion: Catholics are not called to act like weird-o-cult people who act strange in order to appear holy.  But we are called to live normal, fun lives in a way that seeks Christ fully, especially in the Eucharist and in the daily Rosary.  Doing simply that may make others say of us:  “The very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others.”

Once we boldly but humbly accept the fact that our manner of life is unlike that of others, then it’s easy “to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”—Titus 3:2-5

Traditional Catholics Defend Marriage 1

MARRIAGE DEFENDERS: PART 1 OF 2

The_Ladder_of_Divine_Ascent_Monastery_of_St_Catherine_Sinai_12th_century

The reason why the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox hesitantly accept divorce and remarriage today can be traced back to a 9th century synod, where Greece had a pre-emptive episode of England’s Henry VIII’s libido issues. In fact, the Greek bishops of the 9th century held a synod to recognize the legitimacy of the emperor Constantine’s second marriage. A Greek monk, St. Theodore, stood alone in the breach, calling this synod the “Adultery-Synod,” moecho-synodus in Greek. Like history that would be repeated seven hundred years later in England with Henry VIII versus St. Thomas More, the Greek bishops and the emperor stood behind the synod of adultery, not behind the saint.

St. Theodore the Studite was also a champion in speaking against slavery and iconoclasm (removing pictures from Churches.) But in upholding traditional marriage, he suffered the most. He was whipped, imprisoned and exiled away from his monastery. The saint not only blew the whistle on the emperor, but also on those priests who gave silent consent to his sin. St. Theodore said that in “crowning adultery, the priest, Giuseppe, is in opposition to the teachings of Christ and has violated the law of God.”  Roberto de Mattei remarks that “for Theodore, the Patriarch Tarasios had likewise to be condemned, since, even if not approving the new marriage, he showed himself tolerant of it, thus avoiding the Emperor’s excommunication and the priest Giuseppe’s punishment.”

St. Theodore simply stood by Jesus Christ who said:  “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”—Luke 16:18

Before applying this to the upcoming synod, I want to consider an important question of Catholic morality:  When a monk-saint quotes Scripture against his own bishops, how is this different from Martin Luther? If both used the Bible-alone for morality, then how could it be true that one died a heretic and the other a saint? Indeed, even the 1983 Code of Canon Law says “Christ’s faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.”—Can 753.  Where do we draw the line as Catholics?

Before getting to the answer, I want to further build up my argument against St. Theodore. Orthodox and Catholic theologies rightly consider the transmission of truth to flow through the hierarchy of the Church (Bishops to Priests to Laity.) This is a reflection of the hierarchy of truth given through the 9 choirs of angels (Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, etc.) This hierarchy of communication should not be broken. This is how Orthodox and Catholics are different from Protestants: The order of hierarchies is not to be considered clericalist, but angelic.

For humans, the true interpretation of Sacred Scripture comes from God through the bishops through the priests through the parents to the children. This is how catechesis should work. Notice this beautiful cascading down of the truth.  Similarly, within the angelic choirs’ hierarchy, there is a cascading-down of truth, but it is a non-verbal, angelic illumination: The angels who are closest to God, the Seraphim, communicate down to the Cherubim and likewise to the Thrones to the Dominations to the Powers to the Principalities to the Archangels to the Angels to finally the angels’ work in our lives on earth. (Notice that the highest angels do nothing but contemplation and the lowest angels deal with measly human affairs.)

In any case, besides the hierarchy of the transmission of truth among the angels revealing the perversity of a Sola-Scriptura-interpretation of Divine Revelation, there is the positive and beautiful call to an order of obedience to the hierarchy in this transmission of truth in both communities—on earth and in heaven. This obedience of low angels to high angels was never violated.

Except for once—now my counterargument—when St. Michael the Archangel himself attacked Lucifer for placing himself above God Almighty. During the great angelic battle in heaven (Rev 12:7), the military ranks were indeed broken and God blessed the lower angel reminding the disobedient higher angel that no one is like God (מיכאל, Mi-cha-El? Who is like God?) Not even the Seraphim are like God.

Not even the bishops. Martin Luther broke rank against the bishops to begin a mutiny against Divine Revelation on marriage. St. Theodore the Studite broke rank against the bishops to end a mutiny against Divine Revelation of Marriage. Actually, Theodore never broke rank. He essentially said Who is like God’s Divine Revelation on the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage. Even in this, Theodore obeyed the Church hierarchy who supported the Emperors who threw him into exile three times. He never started a new “Church.” Theodore suffered within the Church—not without in schism—all for the sake of the truth. Holy Orders must be honored, but still Theodore gave primacy of place to God: No synod can change the truth of the Gospels and the traditional Magisterium.

People often say that the sensus fidei (sense of the faithful on doctrinal issues) is infallible, implying that we need a democratic vote of doctrines like contraception. Bishop Morlino of Madison wonderfully answers these people by reminding them that the infallibility of sensus fidei actually includes not only those Catholics alive, but also those dead: the billions of Catholics who have gone before these dark days, who held firm to the truths of the Gospel (or at least triedto, an important attraction to the Divine Mercy of Our Redeemer.)

Speaking of ancestors, all four of my mother’s grandparents relocated in the early 20th century from Counties Mayo and Roscommon, Ireland to the South Side of Chicago. Thus, I have a great love for Chicago Catholicism. My heart broke when I read the new Archbishop’s homily from this week (23 August 2015.) Archbishop Cupich said the following about the upcoming synod of sexuality:

“With the upcoming synod, it is clear that the Holy Father is calling the Church to examine our categories of expression about what we believe and be open to new avenues and creativity when it comes to accompanying families. All of this has much to say to us in Chicago, that we not settle for solutions that no longer work, expressions that no longer inspire and ways of working that stifle creativity and collaboration.”

With my extended family’s roots in Chicago, I have to wonder: Whichexpression of Catholicism is not working in Chicago? Bernadin’s seamless garment? Or perhaps Cupich is speaking of the many families found in this video of a Mass in Chicago in 1941, narrated by Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

To be sure, there is nothing wrong with Archbishop Cupich’s denotation in the above quote. He said nothing heretical in the above quote. But let’s remember: Only a legalistic society considers denotationwithout connotation. Is the connotation of Archbishop Cupich’s quote that the Catholic Church will integrate “creativity” in regards to doctrinal “solutions that no longer work” in reference to the morality of homosexual actions or Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried? We’ll have to wait until the synod to see!

Telescoping outside of the world of sexual morality, let me say a brief word on the morality of the tongue and pen: I wonder how many of us Catholics of all vocations, priest and laity, right or left, think that we’ll be able to stand before God at our death and justify our small lies and large deceptions of others by saying things like, “Technicallyin my denotation, I did not say…”

Well, God will impute against us any connotation that purposefully deceived others, for God is not a legalistic American lawyer or a German accountant. I think that at our judgment, each one of us will answer both for the denotations and connotations of our words. We will answer not only for what we “technically” said, but for the fruits in others’ lives produced by our teachings and even attitudes.

These fruits (life-based or rotten) found in others’ lives (most especially our children’s catechesis, be them our spiritual children or biological children) will all be made clear at the General Judgment, for then we will see the outcome of the lives that we formed so intimately. There will be no word games at the General Judgment—only an arrival at our eternal reward—where we join those we guided in word and example, for better…or for worse.

Planned Murderhood and Liturgical Abuse, Fr. Nix

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND PRIESTS

pp Mass

When I was sidewalk counseling at an abortion clinic last Friday, it hit me that it’s good that there’s actually a few priests and bishops speaking out against Planned Parenthood, but there’s still something worse than abortion.

“For no crime is there heavier punishment to be feared from God than for the unholy or irreligious use [of the Holy Eucharist.]”—Council of Trent, De Euch v.i., 16th century.

This could either refer to sacrilegious Masses or sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion.

Of course, the interior state of a person who is receiving Holy Communion can never be judged by another, especially based on exterior indications.  However, a priest or a bishop who publicly tramples the rubrics of his rite commits a public act of sacrilege, calling down upon him “the heaviest punishment to be feared from God.”  (ibid.)

Consider four frequently-broken rubrics found in a post-Vatican II document called Redemptionis Sacramentum:

1) “When Holy Mass is celebrated for a large crowd – for example, in large cities – care should be taken lest out of ignorance non-Catholics or even non-Christians come forward for Holy Communion, without taking into account the Church’s Magisterium in matters pertaining to doctrine and discipline. It is the duty of Pastors at an opportune moment to inform those present of the authenticity and the discipline that are strictly to be observed.”—Redemptionis Sacramentum 84

2) “The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration.”—Redemptionis Sacramentum 102

3) “Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy.”—Redemptionis Sacramentum 151

4) “If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.”—Redemptionis Sacramentum92

Is there a big enough chance the Eucharist would be profaned that would justify the switching of an entire parish or diocese from Communion in the hand to exclusively Communion on the tongue? First of all, a bishop once told me he believes 80% of those who received Holy Communion in his diocese received Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin.  I’ll never forget that number that he told me.  That right there is enough profanation to demand exact and immediate obedience to the rubrics of the Liturgy:  New Mass, Old Mass or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.  This is because a priest doing the right thing automatically engenders worthy communions among the laity.

When a bishop preaches against a Satanic Mass that takes place in his diocese, that’s great.  But where did the Eucharistic host come from destined for sacrilege?  This answer I can give with 99% surety:  The consecrated Host came from a Mass in that same diocese where the satanist took Holy Communion in the hand from a lay Eucharistic “minister” who was quickly smiling at the next person in line…while Our Lord was being taken to a new crucifixion in unspeakable rituals…literally unspeakable satanic rituals which are as evil as abortion.

Bishops and pastors have not only the right, but the duty to enact everything in Redemptionis Sacramentum overnight without any need for a higher authority.  Why?  Because protection of the Eucharist is Divine Law, not Ecclesial Law. Rome can change Ecclesial Law (and some things in Redemptionis Sacramentum admittedly refer to Ecclesial law.)  Particular Law is what a bishop can change in his diocese. Divine Law and Ecclesial Law trump Particular Law.  Redemptions Sacramentum is mostly the first two since it is a document for the universal Church.

So what is the excuse for ignoring God’s law?  Because no one else is following it.  But this will not exonerate us at the Final Judgement, especially since Rome was so clear after Vatican II, not to mention all the binding documents prior.  Even common sense dictates that we must end this sacrilege against God in the Eucharist, especially if we are to simultaneously beg God to end the scourge of abortion—something only He can do—not the Republican party.

This rejection of God’s holy law is why Bishop Athanasius Schneider has called this the fourth greatest crisis in the history of the Church.  His namesake shows that there is precedent in Church history for global blindness even among the clergy.  The core of every crisis is when priests fear man more than God.  The same is true for this crisis of the 21st century.  The only difference is that we have dubbed our current fear-of-man to be “pastoral charity” instead of “Arianism.”

The specific four instructions that I quote in Redemptionis Sacramentum were given by the Church nearly forty years after Vatican II.  All are to be enacted within the new Mass of the vernacular (i.e. English or Spanish in the USA.)   I can’t stress enough that it was released in 2004, not 1604.  Nor is Redemptionis Sacramentum a frilly tidbit of devotion for more pious priests.  Why do I say this?  Again, the above four quotes are examples of the bare-minimum.

Pastors and bishops can stop 99% of Satanic Masses (and probably reduce the more common sacrilege of people showing up to Mass in 6″ shorts) by enacting Redemptionis Sacramentum, for this document clarifies that it is our duty to eradicate the reception of Holy Communion in the hand in any danger, even in the Mass of Vatican II, for the highest authorities have spoken on this topic: “To touch the Sacred Species with their own hands and to distribute them is a privilege of the Ordained.”—Pope St. John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae.

(The above tenets are all “givens” in the Traditional Latin Mass that you see pictured in the above photo with a priest-friend of mine in front of a Planned Parenthood.   It’s the only Mass I offer now, too.)

We should return to my original topic:  What does obedience to Redemptionis Sacramentum have to do with ending abortion? Read Exodus 25 and Exodus 26.   The chapters contain God’s instructions to Moses regarding Divine Worship.  The Ark and the Tabernacle had to be fabricated exactly as God said—down to the centimeter.  In Exodus 25-26, following the “legalistic rules” of worship does indeed come before social justice.   Hence, in the New Covenant, for “no crime is there heavier punishment to be feared from God than for the unholy or irreligious use [of the Eucharist.]”—Trent.   Redemptionis Sacramentum is a lot easier to follow than the Trent, and yet it’s still being ignored by “conservative” pastors.  If we eschew the minimum of God’s request on worship, how can we ask Him to end abortion?

In fact, any priest or bishop who preaches the hard truths of marriage while not fulfilling the minimum found above in Redemptionis Sacramentum may be the very person Jesus spoke of when He said: “You load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.”—Luke 11:46.  So-called “conservative” pastors are often the worst culprits in persecuting the few priests and laity who wish to hold to all of Redemptionis Sacramentum.   At least, I have to honor the “progressives” for their consistency:  They don’t hypocritically pretend to fight the Unborn Holocaust or this Liturgical Holocaust.  Some even have genuine zeal for their own pet-projects.

I don’t think we priests can sincerely ask God to end the Unborn Holocaust until we have collectively become obedient to Him in ending this Liturgical Holocaust.  It would cost us little more than short-lived popularity.  Until then, it may be costing unborn babies their lives.