to comment please open your gmail account, email me or use Facebook or Twitter. Scroll down for comments. Thank you.
So Jesus died on the Cross. What's that got to do with me?
Another cri de coeur, this time from my grandson Theodore (Theo). Theodore, incidentally, means 'gift of God'.
Theo is nine years old. Recently his mother was fairly gobsmacked when during his night prayers he suddenly threw himself across the bed and cried, "I'm sick of being naughty and guilty! It's the worst possible combination!"
A priest who heard of this was gobsmacked too. So when Theo asked why Jesus dying on the Cross was a big deal, he deserves an answer. His mum says it's not easy to explain to a nine year-old. It's not easy to explain to grown-ups either but I'll have a go. Remember, I'm speaking to a nine year-old boy.
"The first people God made were Adam and Eve. He made them just like Himself. He even gave them his Power so they could do amazing things like zoom around the universe visiting planets.
But his Power was only for doing good things, because that's all God ever does, is good things. The only difference between God and Adam and Eve was that if they wanted to they could use his Power to do bad things.
Then God told them not to eat any apples off the Tree of Good and Evil in the beautiful Paradise he'd made for them. God said that eating one of those apples would kill their souls. Not their bodies, just their souls. It would be a Big Mistake. It was something they mustn't use his Power to do.
So what happened? The Devil wanted to get them out of Paradise and into Hell. So he came along disguised as a snake and told Eve if she and Adam ate one of those apples they would be exactly like God, and they would know everything about what is good and what is bad. And Eve fell for the devil's story and ate an apple and got Adam to eat one too.
Straight away Adam and Eve were changed. They felt naughty and guilty, because they were naughty and guilty. They had used God's Power to do something wrong. That's called a sin because it isn't good. Sin is bad because God's Power never does bad stuff.
So God took the Gift of his Power away and sent them out of Paradise and closed the gates of Heaven so no one could get in when they died.
From then on Adam had to work really hard and when Eve had babies it really hurt, big time. And people got sick. The Devil had a great time getting people to do bad stuff and go to Hell. Everybody did bad stuff sometimes and some people were really bad, all the time.
Can you imagine what God thought about all that? He'd made people to be like him and be good and happy and live with him in Heaven for ever. That's what he wanted. But Adam and Eve sort of gave him the finger. They decided to do their own thing and so they were punished. That's because God is just, so he makes sure that in the end everyone gets treated the way they deserve.
So after that, when bad people died they went to hell where the Devil lives. And when good people died they went to a place called Limbo where they had to wait for Heaven's gates to be opened again.
They had to wait a long, long time. Thousands of years. But God had a plan. He had this plan from the start because he knew that Adam and Eve would ruin everything.
So what did God do? He sent his Son Jesus to be a person just like us, except of course he was God as well. He asked his Son to be born in a cold dirty cave and be poor and hungry all his life, and in the end he'd have to die nailed to a Cross. He even knew all about that before he was born. He thought about what was coming to him, all his life.
Why did the Jews hate him? Because he was good and they were bad. They were full of sins so they couldn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God they'd been waiting for, and Jesus was telling everyone the truth about the evil Jews, so they got the Roman governor to have him crucified.
The Son of God had to die nailed to a cross because nothing else could make up to God the Father for all the terrible sins that had been committed against him for thousands of years.
Only one drop of the Son of God's Blood would have made up for everything, but God loves us so much he wanted his Son to suffer as much as he possibly could, to prove it, and Jesus agreed with him. because he loves us that much too.
Jesus would have died on the Cross JUST FOR YOU, THEO. ONLY FOR YOU. He did it to prove he would do ANYTHING, JUST FOR YOU, TO HELP YOU GET TO HEAVEN. That's because he loves every single person, even if they're bad, just as much as he loves everyone all put together.
And then when he died, what did Jesus do? We pray in the Creed, "he descended into Hell". But he didn't go all the way down to where the Devil and his mates and the wicked people live. He went just as far as Limbo on the top level of Hell, and let out the millions of good people who were waiting for him, and took them all to Heaven, where God the Father had opened the gates and was waiting for them.
So Theo, Jesus died on the cross to make up to his Father for all the evil stuff everyone had done, starting with Adam and Eve. He did it to open the gates of Heaven.
So because you've been baptised you have some of God's Power, and if you try your best to be good Jesus will give you more Power, and when you die you'll go to Heaven to be with Jesus and be happy FOR EVER."
Bob Gill says:
Out of the mouths of babes! Nicely put, Julia.
Thursday, 18 April 2019
Monday, 15 April 2019
AN OPEN LETTER TO CARDINAL JOHN DEW
To comment, please open your gmail account, use my email address Facebook or Twitter. Scroll down for comments. Thank you.
Dear John
No, this isn't a 'dear John letter'. You must be tired of that joke and it's our shared childhood at St Joseph's Convent School, Waipukurau, that tells me I can still call you John.
I call your name urgently, hoping you will hear me out.
Dear John, we in the pews are STARVING. It's people in pews who are "struggling", not knowing what to believe any more, or even if they should believe at all.
Pope Francis wants "a poor church for the poor": dear John, we fill the bill! We do need to be "radical" in our thinking. We need to go back to our roots in Jesus Christ and the Gospel, but we need guidance from our shepherds to find our way back. And if the shepherds are lost, what happens to the sheep? They wander off into the wilderness, as we know from falling Mass counts and closed churches.
Yes, "the Church is here to be the service of the world", but only through preaching "the gospel of the kingdom" (Mt 24:14), and that's exactly what the Church is not doing. That's basically why the world is a horrendous mess. May I refer you - if it's not beneath the dignity of the cardinalate - to Facebook, to a post by Mark Metzger just yesterday, comparing the 'Bible Jesus' with the 'Modern Jesus'. It's Protestant, but proper to this discussion: https://www.facebook.com/mark.metzger777/posts/10156735902778787 (If this link does not work, please copy to a url.)
The "lack of priests and potential amalgamations (of parishes)" which even if it doesn't worry you, worries many of the faithful, is caused by the failure of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to preach the faith. The rot started with failure to preach Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968, and has spread via contraception and abortion - as a confessor, you will know that - throughout the Church, turning it into a Church of Nice which avoids unpleasant truths and instead preaches heart-warming pop psychology and doubt, ambiguity and confusion.
God sent His Son Jesus Christ to die a hideous death on the Cross not to save souls from a mortal life of poverty ("The poor are always with us" - this morning's Gospel) but to save souls from eternal death. We are indeed meant to be "out there serving the poor" but it's the spiritually impoverished and sinners that Jesus came to save - and He did it by being highly visible, speaking openly (and offensively, to the Pharisees whose hearts were hardened) in the Temple .
And I humbly suggest that it's not "a constant conversation within the Church" which will "help find young men who are contemplating the call". What will help find young men is constant listening within the Church, praying as the infant Church prayed with Our Lady in the upper room.
"No one lights a lamp to hide it under a bushel". Priests and monks who hide the light of faith by dressing like ordinary guys are hiding the Light of Christ from the lost and the lonely, giving the message that witnessing to Christ with a roman collar is going to offend people.
But it absolutely IS the number of people attending Holy Mass which is critical - which is why 'lay-leaders' are leading us in the wrong direction, away from the Mass, as the devil intends.
It's only the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the divine Victim sacrificed mystically on our altars, which stands between the world and the wrath of God.
WOT??? In homilies we hear repeatedly that "God is never angry, God is kind, compassionate and merciful." Yes. But Scripture tells us God is also angry, particularly at the sins that cry out to him for vengeance:
Dear John, your faithful people really know all this. It's written in their Catholic hearts. But we need reminding. As for "allowing lay people to hold a mass (being) something the church should reconsider, currently only an ordained priest is able to give communion and a homily", Wellington South's Pastoral Council Chairman Stephen Neal must surely have been misreported.
Yes, "many parishioners are already involved in charitable work, often outside the realm of the conventional church". But the Catholic Church needs Marys more than Marthas. Mary chooses "the better part".
Dear John, cheer up. You want the Church to be "bruised and hurting". Well, she is. But we do indeed need to be "introverted", in the sense that God dwells within us and we need to get to know Him. Rather than being "obsessed with itself" the Church must become obsessed with God.
The only mandate Pope Francis has "to change things … within the world" is by first changing the Church. Changing ourselves. Not one another, ourselves. And only by the grace of God.
You say, "it means everyone being involved in the life of the Church. So yeah, I'm not worried."
My dear John - with respect - you should be.
with love
AMDG
Julie
'Anonymous' says: Hey Julia, just read your blog... Brilliant! I think in cricket that's called a 'S--I--X!!!!!' Outa the park! Nice one 😁
'Anonymous' II says:
I have that little bit of trepidation in that I am a product of the church in the modern world and I agree with you. And yet if we were real Church, real people of faith and sharing in and of the Eucharist, that would be manifest in acts of social justice. I suppose I mean we need to get the Church back to its main role of creating faithful, God-centred people who can then walk humbly on this earth.
Dear John
No, this isn't a 'dear John letter'. You must be tired of that joke and it's our shared childhood at St Joseph's Convent School, Waipukurau, that tells me I can still call you John.
I call your name urgently, hoping you will hear me out.
The Catholic Church is not a social agency! We are not WinZ, we are not Oranga Tamariki or ACC, not even a Women's Refuge.
Dear John, we in the pews are STARVING. It's people in pews who are "struggling", not knowing what to believe any more, or even if they should believe at all.
Pope Francis wants "a poor church for the poor": dear John, we fill the bill! We do need to be "radical" in our thinking. We need to go back to our roots in Jesus Christ and the Gospel, but we need guidance from our shepherds to find our way back. And if the shepherds are lost, what happens to the sheep? They wander off into the wilderness, as we know from falling Mass counts and closed churches.
Yes, "the Church is here to be the service of the world", but only through preaching "the gospel of the kingdom" (Mt 24:14), and that's exactly what the Church is not doing. That's basically why the world is a horrendous mess. May I refer you - if it's not beneath the dignity of the cardinalate - to Facebook, to a post by Mark Metzger just yesterday, comparing the 'Bible Jesus' with the 'Modern Jesus'. It's Protestant, but proper to this discussion: https://www.facebook.com/mark.metzger777/posts/10156735902778787 (If this link does not work, please copy to a url.)
The "lack of priests and potential amalgamations (of parishes)" which even if it doesn't worry you, worries many of the faithful, is caused by the failure of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to preach the faith. The rot started with failure to preach Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968, and has spread via contraception and abortion - as a confessor, you will know that - throughout the Church, turning it into a Church of Nice which avoids unpleasant truths and instead preaches heart-warming pop psychology and doubt, ambiguity and confusion.
God sent His Son Jesus Christ to die a hideous death on the Cross not to save souls from a mortal life of poverty ("The poor are always with us" - this morning's Gospel) but to save souls from eternal death. We are indeed meant to be "out there serving the poor" but it's the spiritually impoverished and sinners that Jesus came to save - and He did it by being highly visible, speaking openly (and offensively, to the Pharisees whose hearts were hardened) in the Temple .
Dear John, you're right. The Church "is about living the Gospel". But nowhere in the Gospel do we find Jesus setting up soup kitchens and night shelters or saving the planet. He preached the kingdom of God and how to get there, not by saving people from material poverty (c'est impossible), but in teaching the narrow way of the Cross, in helping everyone endure their own form of poverty - lack of health, of friends, of family, of employment, or of income, etc. That was His mission, and it's ours too. It's prayer that is the appropriate use for "unused church buildings", not soup kitchens or night shelters or refuges.
And I humbly suggest that it's not "a constant conversation within the Church" which will "help find young men who are contemplating the call". What will help find young men is constant listening within the Church, praying as the infant Church prayed with Our Lady in the upper room.
"No one lights a lamp to hide it under a bushel". Priests and monks who hide the light of faith by dressing like ordinary guys are hiding the Light of Christ from the lost and the lonely, giving the message that witnessing to Christ with a roman collar is going to offend people.
Yes, "few men are able to discern that call (to the priesthood)", mainly, I believe, because they don't know how to pray contemplatively, how to listen to the Lord. And they don't know because priests don't know, because they've never been taught.
How often do we see priests just sitting with Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, in that meditation which should lead to contemplation? Did the seminary teach them anything of the great masters of the spiritual life, like St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avila? Priests may say they know and practise meditation, meaning 'Christian Meditation' which surely, with the passing of years and no fruits of vocations to the priesthood, has been eloquently demonstrated as a dead end.
And if any priest says he doesn't have time for contemplation, that great work Fire Within, by Thomas Dubay SM, will surely change his mind.
The programme director of Religious Studies at Victoria University Wellington, one Geoff Troughton, knows "what it means to practise Catholicism" - and in the next breath opines that "it is about what the church (sic) is supposed to be, rather than the number of people attending mass (sic)".How often do we see priests just sitting with Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, in that meditation which should lead to contemplation? Did the seminary teach them anything of the great masters of the spiritual life, like St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avila? Priests may say they know and practise meditation, meaning 'Christian Meditation' which surely, with the passing of years and no fruits of vocations to the priesthood, has been eloquently demonstrated as a dead end.
And if any priest says he doesn't have time for contemplation, that great work Fire Within, by Thomas Dubay SM, will surely change his mind.
But it absolutely IS the number of people attending Holy Mass which is critical - which is why 'lay-leaders' are leading us in the wrong direction, away from the Mass, as the devil intends.
It's only the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the divine Victim sacrificed mystically on our altars, which stands between the world and the wrath of God.
WOT??? In homilies we hear repeatedly that "God is never angry, God is kind, compassionate and merciful." Yes. But Scripture tells us God is also angry, particularly at the sins that cry out to him for vengeance:
- murder (abortion)
- sodomy (homosexuality)
- oppression of widows and orphans (abuse of children in care) and
- cheating labourers of their due (minimal rates of pay, harsh treatment of migrant workers, wrongful dismissal).
Yes, "many parishioners are already involved in charitable work, often outside the realm of the conventional church". But the Catholic Church needs Marys more than Marthas. Mary chooses "the better part".
Dear John, cheer up. You want the Church to be "bruised and hurting". Well, she is. But we do indeed need to be "introverted", in the sense that God dwells within us and we need to get to know Him. Rather than being "obsessed with itself" the Church must become obsessed with God.
The only mandate Pope Francis has "to change things … within the world" is by first changing the Church. Changing ourselves. Not one another, ourselves. And only by the grace of God.
You say, "it means everyone being involved in the life of the Church. So yeah, I'm not worried."
My dear John - with respect - you should be.
with love
AMDG
Julie
'Anonymous' says: Hey Julia, just read your blog... Brilliant! I think in cricket that's called a 'S--I--X!!!!!' Outa the park! Nice one 😁
'Anonymous' II says:
I have that little bit of trepidation in that I am a product of the church in the modern world and I agree with you. And yet if we were real Church, real people of faith and sharing in and of the Eucharist, that would be manifest in acts of social justice. I suppose I mean we need to get the Church back to its main role of creating faithful, God-centred people who can then walk humbly on this earth.
Friday, 12 April 2019
LAWYERS SAY EUTHANASIA BILL PUTS CITIZENS AT RISK
to comment please open your gmail account, use my email address, Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down for comments.
Objecting to objections to Catholic Sir
David Santaynand heading the Commission into abuse in state care and
faith-based institutions, Rosemary McLeod acknowledges that “there’s always been anti-Catholic
sentiment here”.
Yes, kids from ‘the main school’ chanted rhymes at us
convent kids - but sadly, I never knew any to chant back.
Rosemary observes that it’s not just
Catholics, but also David Seymour’s Parliamentary fellows who are
finding his End of Life Choice Bill “full of pitfalls”.
There are lawyers and legal academics too, who are just “as entitled to hold a
view” on the matter as Catholics and politicians – and funnily enough, those
views coincide. NZ’s Lawyers for Vulnerable
New Zealanders say this bill “places our country’s most vulnerable citizens at
greater risk of premature death, whether through misdiagnosis or prognostic
error or through coercion, abuse or neglect.”
It was always a horrible idea, a
nightmare. Let’s all wake up now and get over it.
Viola says: I agree, Julia. It's happening in Australia as well!
Viola says: I agree, Julia. It's happening in Australia as well!
Sunday, 7 April 2019
GOD ALLOWS US MANY RELIGIONS THE SAME AS HE ALLOWS US TO SIN
To comment please use your gmail account or my email address or Facebook. Scroll down for comments.
I got into trouble with a Monsignor in Taupo a week ago for contradicting the Pope. Since then, Pope Francis had back-pedalled on what he said in February about a diversity of religions being "willed by God".
I had told the Monsignor that was heresy. The Monsignor said I was "incorrect".
Pope Francis has since declared that "God willed to permit (a diversity of religions)". Permit", meaning God allows a diversity of religions.
Yes, God allows us many religions in the same way as He permits or allows us to sin. But He never wills us to sin, and willing people to sin was in effect implied by the statement signed by the Pope in Abu Dhabi in February with the Grand Imam. Because in the Qur'an Islam commands its followers, inter alia, to "strike off the heads of the disbelievers" - which in Christian terms is a serious offence against God.
"Willed by God" means 'wanted by God'. But if God 'willed' or 'wanted' Islam, why would He send his apostles out expressly "to baptise all nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"? God wanted Islam to be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, Whom Islam refuses to recognize, and Whose adherents (Christians and Catholics), must be converted, the Qur'an says, to Islam. Otherwise, as commanded by the Qur'an, non-believers (Christians, Catholics and Jews) must be slain as idolaters wherever they are found.
God allows Islam because He gave us a free will. If we want to sin, He allows it. If we want to be Muslim, He allows us to be Muslim. If an evil man wants to walk into a mosque and slaughter 50 worshippers of Allah, God allows it. And if Muslims want to massacre Christians and Catholics, as they do so still in many parts of the world, believing that such massacre guarantees them a prime place with Allah in eternity, God allows it.
The good Monsignor in Taupo wanted me to read the documents of Vatican II, which would prove me "incorrect", and prove God does "will" or "want" us to have many religions. But even if Vatican II's statements, taken in context, had indeed said that, Vatican II's documents are still man-made and if they conflicts with the Gospel we must "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
And Vatican II is not the god that the NZ Church of Nice has made it out to be. Vatican II was only a pastoral council, not a doctrinal or dogmatic council, which means it was not intended by the Church to give definitive teaching. Indeed, it is liable to correction.
Please remember that, people, next time you hear "the spirit of Vatican II" invoked as Gospel and proof that we should entertain more post-Vatican II ideas such as 'ministers of the Eucharist', or Communion in the hand, or girls serving the Mass - or reject the Traditional Latin Mass, which produced countless saints, countless priests and countless converts to the Catholic Faith.
Paul Collits says:
V2 has been weaponised by revolutionaries and the useful idiots of revolutionaries. The hermeneutic of disruption.
I say: Indeed. But there are counter-revolutionaries! Thank God.
Just in case you didn't know, 'hermeneutic' means 'interpretation'. Pope Benedict XVI talked about Vatican II in terms of a 'hermeneutic of continuity', interpreting Vat II as having no rupture with Tradition. However there are conciliar texts which are ambiguous and which have opened the door to pronouncements and practices contrary to the Tradition and doctrine of the Church.
Such as, for instance:
I got into trouble with a Monsignor in Taupo a week ago for contradicting the Pope. Since then, Pope Francis had back-pedalled on what he said in February about a diversity of religions being "willed by God".
I had told the Monsignor that was heresy. The Monsignor said I was "incorrect".
Pope Francis has since declared that "God willed to permit (a diversity of religions)". Permit", meaning God allows a diversity of religions.
Yes, God allows us many religions in the same way as He permits or allows us to sin. But He never wills us to sin, and willing people to sin was in effect implied by the statement signed by the Pope in Abu Dhabi in February with the Grand Imam. Because in the Qur'an Islam commands its followers, inter alia, to "strike off the heads of the disbelievers" - which in Christian terms is a serious offence against God.
"Willed by God" means 'wanted by God'. But if God 'willed' or 'wanted' Islam, why would He send his apostles out expressly "to baptise all nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"? God wanted Islam to be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, Whom Islam refuses to recognize, and Whose adherents (Christians and Catholics), must be converted, the Qur'an says, to Islam. Otherwise, as commanded by the Qur'an, non-believers (Christians, Catholics and Jews) must be slain as idolaters wherever they are found.
God allows Islam because He gave us a free will. If we want to sin, He allows it. If we want to be Muslim, He allows us to be Muslim. If an evil man wants to walk into a mosque and slaughter 50 worshippers of Allah, God allows it. And if Muslims want to massacre Christians and Catholics, as they do so still in many parts of the world, believing that such massacre guarantees them a prime place with Allah in eternity, God allows it.
Of course the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people. The Christchurch mosque massacre was horrible and heinous, an evil unprecedented in the history of our nation.
'And what about the Crusades!' Please, spare me. Catholics once slaughtered Muslims, yes. But that was and still is a crime against God and the Catholic religion, and proscribed by the Bible. Slaughter of non-believers is not proscribed by the Qur'an, but rather advocated.The good Monsignor in Taupo wanted me to read the documents of Vatican II, which would prove me "incorrect", and prove God does "will" or "want" us to have many religions. But even if Vatican II's statements, taken in context, had indeed said that, Vatican II's documents are still man-made and if they conflicts with the Gospel we must "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).
And Vatican II is not the god that the NZ Church of Nice has made it out to be. Vatican II was only a pastoral council, not a doctrinal or dogmatic council, which means it was not intended by the Church to give definitive teaching. Indeed, it is liable to correction.
Please remember that, people, next time you hear "the spirit of Vatican II" invoked as Gospel and proof that we should entertain more post-Vatican II ideas such as 'ministers of the Eucharist', or Communion in the hand, or girls serving the Mass - or reject the Traditional Latin Mass, which produced countless saints, countless priests and countless converts to the Catholic Faith.
Paul Collits says:
V2 has been weaponised by revolutionaries and the useful idiots of revolutionaries. The hermeneutic of disruption.
I say: Indeed. But there are counter-revolutionaries! Thank God.
Just in case you didn't know, 'hermeneutic' means 'interpretation'. Pope Benedict XVI talked about Vatican II in terms of a 'hermeneutic of continuity', interpreting Vat II as having no rupture with Tradition. However there are conciliar texts which are ambiguous and which have opened the door to pronouncements and practices contrary to the Tradition and doctrine of the Church.
Such as, for instance:
- separation of Church and State
- Mass in the vernacular
- ecumenical prayer meetings
- 'eucharistic ministers'
- abolition of the death penalty which for 2000 years was permitted, albeit in very rare circumstances
- altar girls
- Communion in the hand
- and now, promotion of sacrilegious Holy Communion for:
- hetero couples living together outside marriage
- couples divorced and 'remarried'
- homosexual couples
- non-Catholics
In short, what we have with Vatican II is what Paul calls a 'hermeneutic of disruption'.
Saturday, 6 April 2019
BISHOP DRENNAN, WHY IS THE NAPIER SSPX MASS CELEBRATED IN A FUNERAL CHAPEL?
To comment use your gmail account, my email address or Facebook. To view the comments, scroll down to the bottom. Thank you.
Humiliation is good for the soul. Yes, sir!
Once again I must apologise, this time for seeming to designate the Traditional Latin Mass in a 'tiny church in Ashhurst' (March 15) as SSPX (Society of St Pius X), when in fact of course that weekly Sunday Mass is diocesan, and celebrated by priests of the Palmerston North Diocese (would that there were more of them!).
I had carelessly lumped Ashhurst in with the TLM at St Anthony's in Whanganui and Dunstall's Funeral Parlour in Napier. I do apologise.
Of course, the traditional Latin Mass in all places is the same, the difference being only that in Whanganui and Napier they are celebrated by the SSPX, not a diocesan priest.
And in regard to the canonical standing of the SSPX, Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said that: "When the Society of St Pius X will (not 'if') be completely integrated as a canonical institute of the Church they can really officially give to the Church a good contribution to a necessary theological discussion and deepening of some aspects of the Council which had a temporal (temporally limited) character.
I might well add that Vatican II was only a pastoral council, not a doctrinal or dogmatic council. It was never the intention of the Church to give, in the documents of Vatican II, any definitive teaching. That is, Vatican II is not set in stone. It's liable to change, or even to correction.
'Anonymous' says:
Hopefully, Vatican II is not set in concrete! I do see that Council as a licence for unnecessary change within the Church. I see liberals, both priests and lay people, throwing in their interpretation of church practices. During a school Mass in my local church all the children going to Communion held out their hands to receive the Eucharist. Not a single one received on the tongue. Does this mean our teachers have been instructed to teach the children to receive Communion in the hand only – and without so much as a bow beforehand? As we judge people by their actions at times, how many of those children actually believe in the Real Presence?
I say: Lex orandi, lex credendi: Yes, we pray as we believe. Which means it does appear that people receiving Communion in the hand cannot actually believe they are receiving the Lord God of Hosts into their soul.
But I used to receive in the hand. I think it's a question of depth of faith. My heightened belief in the Eucharist means now that I go down on my knees (while I still can), and receive on the tongue.
Teachers mightn't have been instructed to teach children to receive in the hand. More likely it's just taken for granted they'll receive in the hand, because that's what the teachers do - and, sadly, the teachers' teachers, too.
Another 'Anonymous' says:
With all due respect there is a gulf of difference between the Mass celebrated by the SSPX priest and the one celebrated by the diocesan priest in Ashhurst. One is an extraordinary act of disobedience, the other is simple preservation of the traditional form of the liturgy with canonical approval. Disobedience rooted in pride.
I say:
For years I shunned the SSPX Mass, because I thought the same. Now I attend the SSPX Mass when it's celebrated in Napier - an hour away - but only on the third Sunday of the month, and only after attending my parish Novus Ordo Mass.
That's because it is the right of all of Christ's faithful that the celebration of Holy Mass should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulation as prescribed in the liturgical books (Redemptionis Sacramentum). In my parish of Holy Trinity, Central Hawke's Bay, the celebration of Holy Mass is quite simply not 'as the Church wishes'.
In 1995 Msgr Camille Perl of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei stated: "In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St Pius X … If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
What really drew my attention however, because I knew the foregoing, but I didn't know that SSPX priests and bishops are usually allowed to offer Mass in non-SSPX churches around the world, including Lourdes and St Peter's Rome.
So why, Bishop Charles Drennan, do your faithful people in the Diocese of Palmerston North have to suffer the Holy Mass being celebrated IN A FUNERAL CHAPEL?
This is outrageous, and a terrible offence to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. The proper place for the SSPX Mass in Napier is one of the several Catholic churches in the city and suburbs.
Humiliation is good for the soul. Yes, sir!
Once again I must apologise, this time for seeming to designate the Traditional Latin Mass in a 'tiny church in Ashhurst' (March 15) as SSPX (Society of St Pius X), when in fact of course that weekly Sunday Mass is diocesan, and celebrated by priests of the Palmerston North Diocese (would that there were more of them!).
I had carelessly lumped Ashhurst in with the TLM at St Anthony's in Whanganui and Dunstall's Funeral Parlour in Napier. I do apologise.
Of course, the traditional Latin Mass in all places is the same, the difference being only that in Whanganui and Napier they are celebrated by the SSPX, not a diocesan priest.
And in regard to the canonical standing of the SSPX, Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said that: "When the Society of St Pius X will (not 'if') be completely integrated as a canonical institute of the Church they can really officially give to the Church a good contribution to a necessary theological discussion and deepening of some aspects of the Council which had a temporal (temporally limited) character.
I might well add that Vatican II was only a pastoral council, not a doctrinal or dogmatic council. It was never the intention of the Church to give, in the documents of Vatican II, any definitive teaching. That is, Vatican II is not set in stone. It's liable to change, or even to correction.
'Anonymous' says:
Hopefully, Vatican II is not set in concrete! I do see that Council as a licence for unnecessary change within the Church. I see liberals, both priests and lay people, throwing in their interpretation of church practices. During a school Mass in my local church all the children going to Communion held out their hands to receive the Eucharist. Not a single one received on the tongue. Does this mean our teachers have been instructed to teach the children to receive Communion in the hand only – and without so much as a bow beforehand? As we judge people by their actions at times, how many of those children actually believe in the Real Presence?
I say: Lex orandi, lex credendi: Yes, we pray as we believe. Which means it does appear that people receiving Communion in the hand cannot actually believe they are receiving the Lord God of Hosts into their soul.
But I used to receive in the hand. I think it's a question of depth of faith. My heightened belief in the Eucharist means now that I go down on my knees (while I still can), and receive on the tongue.
Teachers mightn't have been instructed to teach children to receive in the hand. More likely it's just taken for granted they'll receive in the hand, because that's what the teachers do - and, sadly, the teachers' teachers, too.
Another 'Anonymous' says:
With all due respect there is a gulf of difference between the Mass celebrated by the SSPX priest and the one celebrated by the diocesan priest in Ashhurst. One is an extraordinary act of disobedience, the other is simple preservation of the traditional form of the liturgy with canonical approval. Disobedience rooted in pride.
I say:
For years I shunned the SSPX Mass, because I thought the same. Now I attend the SSPX Mass when it's celebrated in Napier - an hour away - but only on the third Sunday of the month, and only after attending my parish Novus Ordo Mass.
That's because it is the right of all of Christ's faithful that the celebration of Holy Mass should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulation as prescribed in the liturgical books (Redemptionis Sacramentum). In my parish of Holy Trinity, Central Hawke's Bay, the celebration of Holy Mass is quite simply not 'as the Church wishes'.
In 1995 Msgr Camille Perl of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei stated: "In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St Pius X … If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
What really drew my attention however, because I knew the foregoing, but I didn't know that SSPX priests and bishops are usually allowed to offer Mass in non-SSPX churches around the world, including Lourdes and St Peter's Rome.
So why, Bishop Charles Drennan, do your faithful people in the Diocese of Palmerston North have to suffer the Holy Mass being celebrated IN A FUNERAL CHAPEL?
This is outrageous, and a terrible offence to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. The proper place for the SSPX Mass in Napier is one of the several Catholic churches in the city and suburbs.
Monday, 1 April 2019
TOLD OFF TO A STANDSTILL IN THE CONFESSIONAL
To comment, please open your gmail account, use my email address or Facebook.
From Leo Leitch: You can be quite confident, Julia, that your Monsignor has read the documents of Vatican II.
Last Saturday in the confessional I got told off to a standstill
I'd 'fessed up to an estrangement between me and my PP. Actually I hadn't 'fessed that up, because it's not necessarily sinful. But my confessor seemed more interested in that statement (I was explaining why it was weeks since my last confession) than in my sins.
"Why is there this estrangement?"
Because among other things, I said, in last Sunday's homily the PP quoted Pope Francis' statement that "God wills a diversity of religions". I said that was heresy.
"You are incorrect! Why do you say it is heresy?"
"Because Jesus' last direction to his disciples before ascending into heaven was "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", and Islam doesn't believe in the Trinity. So to say God wills the Muslim religion must be heresy."
"You are incorrect," said the Monsignor (yes, he was one such). "You should read the Catechism."
"I've read it, Father."
"You should read the documents of Vatican II."
"I've read them, Father."
"Well, you read them incorrectly."
"Are you aware, Father, that there is a vast body of opinion within the Church who believe in the faith as it was taught for 2000 years?"
I could have added that the Catechism and Vatican II are man-made documents, and the Gospel is the word of God,and so is Acts, which states that obedience to God comes before obedience to men. But I thought I'd said enough already.
"Does it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect?"
"Yes, Father, every day. Every day I re-examine my position in my spiritual reading and silent prayer."
"For your penance, make the Stations of the Cross." Which, being far more than any penance I've ever been given in my life, seemed a bit OTT for the sins I'd actually confessed, and more commensurate with any putative sin of pride in declaring the Pope to be heretical, which I hadn't confessed, because it's not a sin.
"Yes, Father. Thank you, Father."
But that's not all. I've been ticked off also by 'Anonymous', in relation to an earlier post, Spiteful Demon sows discourse in PN Diocese and the lack of spiritual directors in same. He/she says:
To save your soul and make yourself a more effective apostle you might have to move to Wellington or Hamilton or God forbid, even Auckland, to find the spiritual care you require. It is available but perhaps not in your diocese.
Well gosh, that's telling me. But he/she is hardly singling me out, because most people lose their soul. We know that from reading the saints, and if you don't believe the saints, try the Gospel: "The road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. How narrow is the gate and hard the road that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Mt 7, 13b, 14).
I quoted this to a dear friend yesterday who belongs to the Church of Nice. "Is that in the Bible?" she asked. Which rather illustrates my point.
And 'im indoors is hardly likely to move to another diocese because I'm in need of spiritual direction. I console myself with the fact that spiritual directors are a modern phenomenon. Teresa of Avila had John of the Cross, and vice versa. But did the Cure of Ars have a spiritual director? Did John the Baptist? Therese of Lisieux?
Also "Anonymous' is a comment on the late, lamented Father Bryan Buenger of Dannevirke, now of some blessed diocese in the States (Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, March 15):
"The loss of Fr Bryan is so sad. He connected with my older boy in five minutes - no one else has got close."
'Another 'Anonymous':
A beautiful sermon. Still feeling the loss all the way from Wellington.
'Anonymous' says:
I don't know what church you go to but I have never been to the church of nice.
I say:
'Church of Nice' is a handy metaphor for the liberal/progressive body in the Catholic Church of our day, as opposed to traditional Catholics, who obstinately cling to the truths taught by the Church for 2000 years.
Because the NZ Conference of Bishops is decidedly liberal/progressive - and has been since the '80s - most parishes here (certainly in the PN Diocese) naturally follow suit.
The over-riding characteristic of the Church of Nice is not to mention anything that might upset people. Such as contraception, abortion, homosexual relationships, sex outside marriage, Communion for those who indulge in any or all of the above, or Communion for non-Catholics, all of which is seriously sinful.
'Anonymous' says:
'Anonymous' (II) says:
I was tempted to buy your book but your taking unwarranted umbrage at my comment about spiritual direction completely dissuaded me. It seems that rather than choosing to be constructive in your criticism of fellow Catholics including the hierarchy in the vein of fraternal correction - you just hike the lonely road to contrary-land.
I say:
Oh dear. I certainly didn't take umbrage. I gave your comment serious consideration; I did have spiritual direction for years, but the distance I had to travel made it impracticable.
I didn't take you seriously about moving to another diocese, because by your "God forbid" remark I took your tongue to be in your cheek, and replied in the same vein. My sense of humour tends to be dead-pan and I wonder sometimes about using smiley icons to show I'm joking.
I do apologise if I caused offence. It certainly wasn't intended.
Bob Gill says:
I have noticed some variations in different New Zealand dioceses within the ‘Church of Nice’. In the Hamilton cathedral, for example, they have religious paintings on the walls, but such paintings have been removed from some churches I have visited in the Palmerston North diocese.
Surprisingly, one traditional practice acceptable to the ‘Church of Nice’ is the candle-stand. If your church lacks the traditional touch, do consider getting one of these made.
From Leo Leitch: You can be quite confident, Julia, that your Monsignor has read the documents of Vatican II.
Last Saturday in the confessional I got told off to a standstill
I'd 'fessed up to an estrangement between me and my PP. Actually I hadn't 'fessed that up, because it's not necessarily sinful. But my confessor seemed more interested in that statement (I was explaining why it was weeks since my last confession) than in my sins.
"Why is there this estrangement?"
Because among other things, I said, in last Sunday's homily the PP quoted Pope Francis' statement that "God wills a diversity of religions". I said that was heresy.
"You are incorrect! Why do you say it is heresy?"
"Because Jesus' last direction to his disciples before ascending into heaven was "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", and Islam doesn't believe in the Trinity. So to say God wills the Muslim religion must be heresy."
"You are incorrect," said the Monsignor (yes, he was one such). "You should read the Catechism."
"I've read it, Father."
"You should read the documents of Vatican II."
"I've read them, Father."
"Well, you read them incorrectly."
"Are you aware, Father, that there is a vast body of opinion within the Church who believe in the faith as it was taught for 2000 years?"
I could have added that the Catechism and Vatican II are man-made documents, and the Gospel is the word of God,and so is Acts, which states that obedience to God comes before obedience to men. But I thought I'd said enough already.
"Does it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect?"
"Yes, Father, every day. Every day I re-examine my position in my spiritual reading and silent prayer."
"For your penance, make the Stations of the Cross." Which, being far more than any penance I've ever been given in my life, seemed a bit OTT for the sins I'd actually confessed, and more commensurate with any putative sin of pride in declaring the Pope to be heretical, which I hadn't confessed, because it's not a sin.
"Yes, Father. Thank you, Father."
But that's not all. I've been ticked off also by 'Anonymous', in relation to an earlier post, Spiteful Demon sows discourse in PN Diocese and the lack of spiritual directors in same. He/she says:
To save your soul and make yourself a more effective apostle you might have to move to Wellington or Hamilton or God forbid, even Auckland, to find the spiritual care you require. It is available but perhaps not in your diocese.
Well gosh, that's telling me. But he/she is hardly singling me out, because most people lose their soul. We know that from reading the saints, and if you don't believe the saints, try the Gospel: "The road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. How narrow is the gate and hard the road that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Mt 7, 13b, 14).
I quoted this to a dear friend yesterday who belongs to the Church of Nice. "Is that in the Bible?" she asked. Which rather illustrates my point.
And 'im indoors is hardly likely to move to another diocese because I'm in need of spiritual direction. I console myself with the fact that spiritual directors are a modern phenomenon. Teresa of Avila had John of the Cross, and vice versa. But did the Cure of Ars have a spiritual director? Did John the Baptist? Therese of Lisieux?
***
"The loss of Fr Bryan is so sad. He connected with my older boy in five minutes - no one else has got close."
'Another 'Anonymous':
A beautiful sermon. Still feeling the loss all the way from Wellington.
'Anonymous' says:
I don't know what church you go to but I have never been to the church of nice.
I say:
'Church of Nice' is a handy metaphor for the liberal/progressive body in the Catholic Church of our day, as opposed to traditional Catholics, who obstinately cling to the truths taught by the Church for 2000 years.
Because the NZ Conference of Bishops is decidedly liberal/progressive - and has been since the '80s - most parishes here (certainly in the PN Diocese) naturally follow suit.
The over-riding characteristic of the Church of Nice is not to mention anything that might upset people. Such as contraception, abortion, homosexual relationships, sex outside marriage, Communion for those who indulge in any or all of the above, or Communion for non-Catholics, all of which is seriously sinful.
'Anonymous' says:
If that is your definition of the Church of Nice - I stand by my sadness at having never been invited there. The people in my church do talk about homosexuality an inordinate amount, they openly invite everyone and anyone to receive Communion, contraception is celebrated as God's gift to mankind; fornication is encouraged and the latest innovation is to acknowledge and endorse gender fluidity and non-binary identification. I wish I could visit the church of nice you speak so fondly about - our church is the church of exclusion and rudeness.
| |||
I say: I mean of course, by my definition of the Church of Nice, that those topics and the sinfulness thereof are never mentioned by the priest from the pulpit - or rather from anywhere but the pulpit, which seems out of bounds now for most priests when giving 'homilies' (a so much nicer word than 'sermon').
| |||
As long ago as September 2017 (blush blush), commenting on my post 'Church of Nice, State of Nasty', Judith Norton
said:
Yes, I follow Church Militant and it is so sad that NZ is finally having to contend with the Church of Nice. It is very noticeable now if you know what to look for.
I say:
I didn't realise how long it is since I first mentioned the Church of Nice. But it's been around a lot longer. And it's amazing how many people are oblivious. Michael Voris can get a bit strident but maybe Church Militant should be required reading for all RCs.
| |||
'Anonymous' (II) says:
I was tempted to buy your book but your taking unwarranted umbrage at my comment about spiritual direction completely dissuaded me. It seems that rather than choosing to be constructive in your criticism of fellow Catholics including the hierarchy in the vein of fraternal correction - you just hike the lonely road to contrary-land.
I say:
Oh dear. I certainly didn't take umbrage. I gave your comment serious consideration; I did have spiritual direction for years, but the distance I had to travel made it impracticable.
I didn't take you seriously about moving to another diocese, because by your "God forbid" remark I took your tongue to be in your cheek, and replied in the same vein. My sense of humour tends to be dead-pan and I wonder sometimes about using smiley icons to show I'm joking.
I do apologise if I caused offence. It certainly wasn't intended.
Bob Gill says:
I have noticed some variations in different New Zealand dioceses within the ‘Church of Nice’. In the Hamilton cathedral, for example, they have religious paintings on the walls, but such paintings have been removed from some churches I have visited in the Palmerston North diocese.
When I offered to donate a picture of Our Lady to my local church recently, I was thanked and advised that the picture would be hung in the church foyer – it wouldn’t be allowed to hang within the church. I immediately withdrew my offer.
I visited a New Plymouth church recently and the bare walls stared back at me as soon as I entered the church. I guessed immediately who the church’s bishop was, even though I didn’t know beforehand that the church came under the Palmerston North diocese.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)