In my senior year of high school, I was taking fourth-year Latin and third-year French; in the latter course, Sister Maria Gemma offered us a proposal: If we completed the whole textbook before semester’s end, she would give us a treat (which she didn’t identify). We took the bait. The “treat” was spending the last two or three weeks of high school French reading Le Petit Prince (The Little Prince) by Antoine de St. Exupéry.
For those unfamiliar with the novella, let this very brief (and very inadequate) summary suffice (or whet one’s appetite). A little prince goes on an inter-galactic journey in search of a friend. That work became one of the most transformative literary experiences of my life.
On one of the planets visited by the Little Prince, he meets a king – megalomaniacal to the core. He endeavors to impress his little visitor with his power, declaring that every thing and every person in his kingdom renders him absolute obedience. The little fellow is skeptical, to say the least, causing the nutty king to assert that even the sun obeys him:
“You shall have your sunset. I shall command it. But I shall wait, according to my science of government, until conditions are favorable.” “And when will that be?” inquired the Little Prince. “Well, well!” replied the king, first consulting a large calendar. “Well, well! That will be around…around… that will be tonight around seven-forty! And you’ll see how well I am obeyed.”
The king based his claim on an interesting premise:
“One must command from each what each can perform,” the king went on. “Authority is based first of all upon reason. If you command your subjects to jump in the ocean, there will be a revolution. I am entitled to command obedience because my orders are reasonable.”
This story came to mind in the aftermath of Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes, the follow-up document of Archbishop Arthur Roche, and – most especially – the ultra-draconian edict of Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago.1 What do all these three ecclesiastics have in common? They have made demands, assuming that they will be obeyed because they are aimed at “conservative” or “traditional” Catholics who, by their very nature, are given to obey their superiors in the Church.
I then recalled an Irish witticism: “The willing horse gets flogged the most.”
Where am I going with all this?
Yes, the prelates in question have made a presumption, based on the theological convictions of their intended audience. That is, that “conservatives” obey. However, “conservatives” are not ahistorical; they have witnessed for more than half a century that “liberals” have never obeyed any liturgical authority, and have done so with impunity. Actually, more to the point, “liberal” disobedience and disregard for liturgical norms most often resulted, not only in no punishment, but in having their disobedience enshrined in law!
Let but a few examples suffice.
In spite of the fact that not a word in Vatican II discusses the reception of Holy Communion in the hand, the Low Countries, France and Germany introduced the new way (a “new way” resurrected at the Protestant Reformation), contra legem. Pope Paul VI then polled the bishops of the world on whether that method ought to be permitted. The worldwide episcopate replied with a resounding “No!” In an effort to avoid a schism, the Pope agreed to permit it in countries where the illicit practice had been introduced. Numerous other countries (where Communion in the hand had not been in vogue) petitioned the Holy See; all those petitions were viewed favorably. In the United States, the illicit mode of distribution and reception was spreading; the topic had brought to the floor of our episcopal conference on several occasions, each time defeated. Finally, the topic surfaced for debate and vote during the presidency of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin; it failed yet again, causing Bernardin to resort – illicitly – to absentee ballots, with the result of passage by one vote. Disobedience rewarded.
At roughly the same time, a push occurred for the reception of Holy Communion in both species on Sundays, which was not permitted. The Holy See had repeatedly forbidden the practice because of the unwieldy nature of it, as well as the concomitant almost inevitable recourse to extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to carry it out. Not only did reception under both forms continue, but dozens of bishops mandated it for their dioceses. Rome blinked. Disobedience rewarded.
Throughout the entire Judaeo-Christian Tradition, a female had never served at the altar. That fact did not stop innovators from enlisting girls and women to join the ranks of boys and men. Some bishops attempted to enforce the ban; some winked; not a few encouraged female service at the altar; and, amazingly, some even mandated it. Rome constantly repeated the norm, to no avail. Eventually, Rome validated the use of female altar servers. Disobedience rewarded.
Pope Paul VI, in Immensae Caritatis, opened the door for the non-ordained to assist in the distribution of Holy Communion in very narrowly defined circumstances. These assistants were to be called “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.” The U. S. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy determined that such nomenclature sounded like these people ought to be used only in “extraordinary” situations (which was, of course, the point). So, they changed the title to “special” ministers. Pope John Paul II referred to abuse of the permission for extraordinary ministers “reprehensible”; Redemptionis Sacramentum decreed that such ministers were to be phased out of Masses and not to be introduced where they did not yet exist. Hardly a parish in the country does not have “extraordinary” ministers in grand supply, so that more Catholics receive Holy Communion from a lay person than from a cleric on any given Sunday. Disobedience rewarded.
From time immemorial, Jews and Christians alike forbade cremation, except in times of plague. During the so-called “Enlightenment,” cremation was used as a means of mocking the notion of the resurrection of the body. In 1973, the Church permitted cremation, if no such denial of bodily resurrection were operative (with the further caveat that the ashes had to be buried).2 However, the intact body had to be present for the Mass of Christian Burial. More often than not, ashes in an urn replaced a casket in the center aisle of a church. Once more, Rome bowed to the counter-practice; ashes can occupy the place of honor. Disobedience rewarded.
Cardinal Cupich has forbidden ad orientem celebrations of Holy Mass and has intimidated one of his priests with threats of suspension for daring to question his diktat. But no bishop has the authority to forbid what universal law not only permits but actually presumes (the rubrics assume the priest is facing east, hence, the directive to “turn toward the people” to offer greetings or blessings). When authority figures resort to bullying, it is the clearest sign that they know they are constructing their edifice on sand.
We have lived through decades of liturgical abuses, with precious little effort on the part of bishops (or Rome, frankly) to stem the tide. Indeed, one of the principal reasons the usus antiquior has gained such an audience is precisely because weary Catholics have sought safe haven in that liturgical expression. An archbishop of my acquaintance called in a priest renowned for his flagrant disregard for the rubrics of the Sacred Liturgy. He cajoled the priest to mend his ways. The priest smiled at him condescendingly. The archbishop asked him if he intended to comply. “I can’t,” came the swift response. “Would you like me to suspend you a divinis?” “You do what you gotta do, and I’ll do what I gotta do,” replied the renegade cleric. What did the archbishop do in the end? Nothing!3
So, what makes Pope Francis, Archbishop Roche and Cardinal Cupich think that their current policies will be obeyed, given our long history of disobedience being rewarded? Because their observation of human behavior leads them to conclude that “willing horses” will indeed accept “flogging” in perpetuity. But suppose those “willing horses” recall a canonical maxim, namely, that “custom is the best interpreter of law” – which, in this context, means that disobedience is generally rewarded? Or suppose, more, they have finally learned that the power-crazed king of our novella was correct: Dictates ought always to be “reasonable”? Would it be a vain hope that ignoring unreasonable demands might give way to the reward of having one’s reasonable aspirations become law? Or, what about another canonical maxim: “I have no obligation to obey what you have no right to command”?
The Little Prince ends his visit to the king’s planet with this comment: “Grown-ups are so strange.”
One final thought for our “fathers in God”: “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged” (Col 3:21).
Endnotes:
1Not a few of their supporters are now asking why Latin-lovers don’t just attend a Latin Mass in the current rite. There is a cruel irony here because if a priest had a regularly scheduled Latin Mass in the usus recentior but a few months back, he would have gotten a call from some diocesan bureaucrat telling him to cease and desist. I know whereof I speak because, back in the 1980s, I had to deal with just such interlopers and remind them that no permission is needed to celebrate Mass in Latin; permission is needed for the vernacular!
2The law requires that a priest ensure that the cremains be buried. But how is that to be enforced? How many priests tell stories of visiting parishioners’ homes to meet the whole family in urns on the mantlepiece?
3While the Archbishop of Chicago busied himself with slapping down “traditional” priests and parishes, the whole world beheld the spectacle of the outrageous, blasphemous, sacrilegious would-be Mass on Christmas Eve at St. Sabina’s. Truth be told, such abuses have been weekly fare in that parish for decades. Did Cupich summon the pastor and threaten him with suspension, as he did with the priest alluded to above? If he did, the People of God have a right to know that; if he didn’t, the People of God also need to know why not.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Father Pfleger and St. Sabina’s have been doing their own thing in Chicago for decades. Even conservative Cardinal Francis George didn’t rein them in. That leads me to wonder:
Does Pfleger have knowledge about Archdiocese corruption that he’s threatened to expose if he is disciplined? Is he the only archdiocesan priest who can reach out to Chicago’s black community? Will St. Sabina’s fall apart when Pfleger retires or dies?
For years, I have been waiting for the cult of those who believe that Fr. Pfleger is the one true god to reveal itself.
I’m quite sure it exists because the man operates imperiously, independent of any rules or regulations, irrespective of Church superiors or hierarchy, with utter impunity. Like a god.
Cupich will no doubt be writing the very forward-looking, open and inclusive catechism for the new Pflegerismic religion, the basic premise of which will be to focus all religious impulses on the divinely (if not immaculately) conceived Democratic Party.
And all mortal sins will be done away with for all time except for the supreme sin of not voting Democratic.
For which there can be no forgiveness.
I saw this mass over Christmas and it looked liked and felt like a Satanic Black Mass. I did not feel or contemplate one iota of the divine presence there, only blasphemy under a veil.
At my suburban Chicago parish, our popular pastor was rotated out to another parish some years ago, because we were told that that’s the way things are done in the Archdiocese of Chicago. There are no pastors-for-life. No parish gets to keep its pastor for more than a certain number of years, I believe it was 16. And yet, we read that Father Pfleger has been pastor at St. Sabina since 1981. I guess he must be special.
The members of Pfleger’s parish have money. When Pfleger was being investigated on abuse charges and away from the parish, they threatened to withhold all donations until he was restored there. Money always seems to be the pull for the greedy and power hungry, which would definitely include Cupich. That parish is nothing about God and I feel so sorry for the people who go there and think this is worship.
“ Will St. Sabina’s fall apart when Pfleger retires or dies?”
And would it be a bad thing if it did?
There will be a rally outside Holy Name Cathedral Sun, 2/6, first ban on the Latin Mass Sunday, at 11:00 AM .
As Catholics, how are we to make sense of the case in which one’s conscience comes into conflict with the Church’s teachings? For example, if one’s conscience is saying that a male only altar server rule, or dare I say, a male only priesthood, violates that which is just and good. How is one to navigate such an inner conflict? Could there be yet a higher law than ecclesial law?
Perhaps, male only priesthood might be what is just and right. Just as a woman’s ownership of motherhood, or a man’s of fatherhood are just and right.
Rabbi Shais Taub recommends accepting two fundamental rules for life: 1)There is a God in command of the universe and 2) It isn’t me. That being the case, I don’t get the privilege of telling God what’s good and what’s evil, what’s just and what’s unjust; God gets to tell me. What is God’s law? As Rev. Stravinskas notes, “consuetudo est optimus interpres legum” — custom is the best interpreter of the law. What is the custom?
That is not your conscience, but your fallible reason attempting to understand an ecclesiastical law. In such cases, your duty is to pray for an increase in understanding. But your conscience is not in play. No one is commanding you to do something you believe you must NOT do, or forbidding you to do something you believe you MUST do. Meanwhile, I think it is quite mad to trust this society, of all societies, when it comes to questions regarding the sexes….
Amen!!!
“The willing horse gets flogged the most.”
I’ve found something similar to be true in the workplace: “The reward for a job well-done is more work.” The people who work the hardest become the go-to people in a company when people need things done, and those who don’t work hard or work well get less work, because people know that trying to motivate the underperformers will be fruitless– but the underperformers don’t necessarily lose their jobs for underperforming. Or as Jesus said, “To those who have much, much will be given, and from those who have little, what little they have will be taken away.”
And that’s were you get the expression that the “horse was ridden hard and put away wet”. 😉
Thank you Padre…Right in so many ways.
Pleger getting away with sacrilege is proof that Cupich’s punishment of the traditional community in his Diocese is not motivated by a desire for unity, but for submission and and raw exercise of power on his part.
With all of the resultant chatter since Traditiones Custodes I am amazed and find it disheartening that no where can I find mention of Pope Pius V’s “Quo Primum.” Quo Primum makes it clear that the Mass of the Ages is enshrined and not subject to alteration. I am not a canon lawyer and I defer to that discipline for a qualified interpretation of Quo Primum but I can read and it seems very clear to me that Quo Primum renders Traditiones Custodes invalid on its face. The seventh paragraph of Quo Primum opens with a very clear declaration to wit: “Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.” (Meaning that arguably the post-VII “indult” requirement to celebrate the Usus Antiquior was an illegal construct from the start, an illegal construct which Summorum Pontificum corrected.)
The final two sentences of Quo Primum are also unequivocal. “Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
Disobedience indeed.
Link to Quo Primum:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm
Popes have made many changes to the Mass since Quo Primum. The document, as a non-doctrinal statement, isn’t binding on future popes but it sure should have been given more consideration at VII. Before VII there were sequences, tracts, and prefaces that were added/moved. Holy Week liturgies were greatly modified in the 50’s.
Popes have NOT made many changes to the Mass since Quo Primum. Offhand the only instance I can think of is the changes to Holy Week by Pius XII (unless you count the Leonine prayers after Mass while the priest is still vested). The 1962 Missal is in all essentials the same as the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pope Pius V which in essentials is very much like that celebrated by Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome. Quo Primum is most certainly binding on succeeding Popes as they acknowledge that very thing whenever a new Missal was published. It is also binding on all succeeding Popes because it addresses the Faith and not just the Discipline. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Mass is where the Faith is formed by how we pray.
What one pope can change, another pope can also change. No pope can bind a future pope’s hands except regarding infallible teaching, and this does not involve that. You come pretty close to saying that the Novus Ordo is invalid, which is exactly the attitude that Pope Francis claimed he had to fight when he cracked down on the older mass.
Mr. Northon,
I have read and re-read Louis’ posting and can find no evidence to support your supposition the he is “… pretty close to saying that the Novus Ordo is invalid” He does not even mention the Novus Ordo or imply about it in any way. He addresses Quo Primum. Your supposition is quite a reach, sir. Perhaps Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi renders you uncomfortable?
To all of which one can imagine Francis replying: “Well, that’s not what I want to do.”
The Cardinal seems to be taking steps toward the eventual banishment of the Latin Mass in the diocese, but the years of blasphemous behavior by Fr. Pfleger – that ‘Mass’ being only the latest example – are given a free pass.
Given this – how can he expect faithful Catholics even to respect him – and his office – let alone take him seriously?
FYI – I do not live in Chicago.
I have been to dozens of Masses where there were at most 30 parishioners present, yet the priest still used two extraordinary ministers and himself to distribute just the Body of Christ. Actually took longer for the priests to give them Communion, and then give them each a plate/bowl for distributing Communion, than if the priests had just distributed Communion themselves.
Not surprising, since distribution of Holy Communion by so-called extraordinary ministers has become a “right” to which many laymen feel entitled, and which many priests are happy to delegate to them.
In Mark 14:22, Matthew 26:26 and Luke 22:19 we read that Jesus broke the bread and GAVE it to his disciples. He didn’t FEED it to them, or put it in their mouth. The Eucharist obviously deserves respect and proper handling, but I see no issue with it being GIVEN or FED to a communicant. The Church invented the requirement that Eucharist be taken in the mouth. They can just as easily un-invent such a requirement.
Mr. McGinn, it is a matter of proper reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, your argument semantically follows but I submit that receiving on the tongue and only from consecrated hands predisposes one to a deeper reverence, respect and awe for the Sacrament. On a practical note, receiving only on the tongue profoundly reduces the possibility of abuse. i.e. pocketed and then not consumed for whatever nefarious purpose.
Why do you assume that the word ‘gave’ means Our Lord put the bread in the hands of the disciples? How do you know that our Lord didn’t give the Eucharist to them on their tongues? It could mean either way.
When the priest ‘gives’ Communion to the faithful at the TLM, he places the Host on their tongues. You’re reading more into the word than it actually means.
There were many reasons why the Church eventually adopted the practice of communion exclusively on the tongue, not least of which was the problem of fragments dropping and being desecrated or similarly that communicants would drop the Sacred Host. As even the liturgist J. A. Jungman observed, communion directly on the tongue eliminated these and a host of other problems that had long plagued the previous practice.
Jesus broke the bread, gave it to…whom, exactly? The apostles, who were our first bishops. You are not. Neither am I. When you become one, you may take it in your hands.
Only bishops? Peter says that we are, “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation”. At the Last Supper, the Church had not yet been established.
We should remember that those to whom Christ distributed His body and blood on Holy Thursday were the first bishops.
Would you then include Judas as a bishop?
Add to this the observations by Fr. Louis Bouyer, who in his memoirs accused Msgr. Bugnini (the committee chairman of the committee which fabricated the “New Order of the Roman Rite), of using lies to manipulate both his fellow committee members and Pope Paul VI, pretending that one or the other “insisted” on undesirable changes, effectively playing them to get what he and his fellow-travellers wanted. Fr. Bouyer stated that Msgr. Bugnini was “a man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty.” That is from p.219.
The cultivated attitude of deference to autocratic and manipulative personalities in our Church has enabled men like Msgr. Bugnini and ex-Eminence McCarrick etc etc to impoverish our Catholic liturgy and our Catholic schools snd seminaries, to create a cult that they feel comfortable running, the cult that declared its ultimate goal when it orchestrated idolatry in Rome in 2019, injecting the idolatry into the Mass presided by the Pontiff Francis, offering the black bowls of sacrifice in honor of the pagan goddess Pachamama, symbol of the repurposed false gods of the Buenos Aries Pontificate.
There is a fallacy here. The allegedly mean and heavy handed “conservatives” who used to be in charge actually failed miserably in their duty to discipline the disobedient. They governed with an extremely light touch and an overabundance of tolerance. They were, in the end, very weak “rulers.” If you think the current regime has the same hesitancy, I believe your will find yourself gravely mistaken. They are ruthless and will enforce the “new paradigm” ruthlessly.
In my experience, the most important objective for most “conservatives” was to keep their dioceses financially solvent and – far above anything else – TO AVOID CONTROVERSY AT ALL COSTS.
They knew well, of course, that we obedient traditionalists would take our obligations to the church seriously and so, when they stonewalled our complaints about liturgical aberrations or heterodox catechetical programs in religious education we weren’t about to go to the secular media or otherwise make any noise.
And if we asked that the OF of the Mass be celebrated in Latin, well, we really can’t do that because it’s “divisive,” the canned answer I’ve received personally many times in response to that . On the other hand, free-wheeling progressives who flouted liturgical norms, openly criticized Church teachings on any number of subjects or otherwise refused to comply with diocesan directives, well they didn’t want a big news expose in the secular press or an uproar from people who were more than willing to make noise.
In fact, such people, as this article accurately notes, could reasonably expect to eventually get whatever they wanted, just do the bishop could avoid bad PR. As for the rest of us, well we appreciate your support for the Church, your concerns will be taken in to consideration, and oh, please don’t forget to sign your check before you leave.
Back in the 1990s, James Hitchcock wrote an article titled “Conservative Bishops, Liberal Results”. You can find it on the Internet.
As perhaps is well known, there is a remark by someone who knows BXVI well, that the problem is
that Benedict cannot believe there are evil people. Every truly good person I’ve ever known has similar difficulties. They believe everyone is like them, just as truly wicked or avaricious people tend to do that too.
“Those who live by the light of piety, purity and divine love find it hard to understand that the majority of mankind are complete strangers to it. They can form no idea of a state of mind in which it plays no part.”
Francois Mauriac, “La Pharisienne”
To tell you the truth, for a long time now I was looking for a way to begin a critique of Mauriac and a way on understanding his literature better. You have just given it to me.
Today I am quite elated. It occurs to me a short while ago during lunch that the freedom of discourse at CWR exemplifies that this virtue originates in the Church. I am at a loss for words at the moment to describe it but it is a great thing in itself while it is a sort of radiance in the community and shows the lustre in history. I was thinking where I should make this observation in CWR and compliment the editorial management; but felt unsure because the moment was no special time like the end of the year or some anniversary. I am prompted at Fr. Stravinskas’ article, to do it now, here, because of his very basic observations about cause and effect and what happened first and what came after it.
Honestly, I am not a particular fan of the Little Prince. That’s another story though. But I did say Fr. was so conscientious. And thank you.
Very good article. I would have to take up a point on cremation. Yes, it was done to mock the doctrine of the resurrection, yet today, we don’t see it that way. In fact, the body decomposes and ends up becoming ashes (which we are reminded of every Ash Wednesday). I, myself, would not choose cremation, but I have served many funerals that have had the ashes present, even served Masses that had no body present at all.
Took a coarse via the University of Wisconsin by a Female Nurse Professor with a Nurses Group combined with Director of a Mortuary — took us through the Doc Kublor Ross steps on death and dying. This Professor told us that after our loved one departs, we ourself go through the ANXIETY. I had just spent 10 days at my Mothers bedside. and told this Prof that when my Mom took her last Breath, that I was at Peace. She then told me that She went through the Same with her Father — She told me that I worked through these steps while caring for my mom. Since then, while working in Hospice, I have been able to draw the family into the Process, and takes away the Sting. Sad the way relatives avoid going to Nursing Homes Maryknoll priest in Africa told me that they did not have Nursing Homes — Doc Ross tells us that we get rid of Grief by entering in to the Care of our loved ones. Then, also there is a new – or used to be new type of burial where we are buried under a Tree, or in my case a plot by church that still tolls the Chimes, and asked my Liberal Pastor if the Church would approve being buried under a Tree of choice — He knew that I had a Dry sense of Humor, and told me — No,You will contaminate the Earth!! Fear of Death at this time in History has taken its Toll on Society. Being a Deacon should help lessen the fear? I have learned that No one dies Alone — That God is ALWaYS Present. My 93 year old bridge Partner told me that She was not afraid of dying, — but afraid of the Process. She lived life right up to the last and we even attended Mass at St Patrick’s on Paddy’s Day — Her relatives were Musical and She delighted in the Music She had a Brief stay at the Hospice center, and Doc Rock was so impressed with her outlook that He asked her to write her own Eulogy — She avoided the Tranquilizers, and took only meds for Pain. Dorothy did write her own Eulogy. All of her Cherokee neighbors followed her voyage, and listened to Dorothy’s Eulogy
Fr Kolbe would read this article with horror, frankly. Obedience teaches us the will of God, and the superior (so-called) bears the burden for his own decisions.
The word for the story Fr. relates so well, is didactic. And if you were paying attention you’d see how tuned in those who read it are in the whole cloud of witnesses. It is understandable to believers too because it got written with sense. Besides that, Kolbe was a journalist and publisher with wide ranging interests and it seems to me he’d have put an article such as this in his circulations. Why? Because verily, it might change the heart of a superior!
Look now, consider with great care that the problems brought by laxity in liturgy also entail temptation in general, or, degrading of appreciation in the youth, etc. – it is very serious.
I am going to join 2 quotes from Kolbe that don’t originally occur together; you decide what you want to do with it.
“These sufferings will not cause us to crumble but will help us more and more to become stronger ….. Hence our complete pardon of others’ offenses against us suffices us to obtain for us the right to be pardoned for the faults we have committed against God.”
When we have the grace to pardon we are still obliged to try to make it matter!
A Truly brutal display of raw power by Cardinal Cupich:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/illinois-bishop-pressured-by-cdl-cupich-to-restrict-latin-mass-prepare-catechesis-pushing-novus-ordo/
A big thank you for the Trip down Memory Lane, and will forward to my daughter who took French instead of Latin!! Having been a Military Nurse after a 2 year Discernment in a Convent — in Chicago, and then another 3 years as Student Nurse — Via those Great Franciscans who were the Gals who started the Mayo Clinic, and the Sisters who were dedicated to teaching an ALL GIRLS School in Joliet — This Nurse spent 2 years in Nurse Corps, and had the opportunity to attend a PM Mass on Post — Often when there was no Altar Boy, this Nurse who was not allowed on Altar Decide to take the Place of Altar Boy from the Front Pew — The Chaplain introduced me to a Colonel one day, as I guess I shamed him into going up on the Altar. We were also allowed to eat meat on Friday, and having a Very Ecumenical group of Doc’s, I was once called out of my Post in the Nursery by a Mormon Doc — to baptize a Catholic Baby!! This Mormon doc had Studied at Georgetown, and Concurred with our Catholic Chaplain, and was the Most Pro- Life Doc one could ever find. Roe Vs Wade would never have been a Suprememe Court Law for ABORTION At this time, with the Doc’s at Fort Huachuca. Then there was Humanae Vitae, and Pope Paul VI warned us about the Slippery Slope. Having been a Member of the Charismatic Group, and having been on retreat o Mexico City, and also to Mediugorye. Me thinks that our Lady is telling us that We are in Big Troubled Times. Satan is Strong. and Be Vigilant, and She has told us that We need to PRAY AND FAST. Having had 2 years of Latin in an All Girls School, I consider it a GOD SEND, as alsmost all the Medical Terminology came from the Latin roots, and at the same time, I can understand Pope Francis in his decision to Limit the Latin, as I explained to a Most Pro-Life Journalist. Francis comes from a culture where there is a Caste system, and unlike America.the majority would not begin to Understand the Liturgy — even here in America Latin was not in the Curriculum in Public Schools — In DC my Grandchildren had the opportunity of once again having Latin as a choice Language. At this time in History. I find myself attempting to Hold on to the ABSOLUTES that were Taught by Mother Church, and lament the fact that my children did not have Father Stravinskas for theology at Bishop kelly Doc Frankl who weathered Auschwitz told us that their is a Superior Knowledge — tuned into our Transcendent God, and Pope Francis has the Devotion to Mary that Promises to Carry us through the Storms coming our way. “MY IMMACULATE HEART WILL TRIUMPH” — Totus Tuus. Ad Jesum Per Mariam. In Te Domine Speravi (Hope as one of the Theological Virtues)
Reading about all the abuses of liturgy and the push to end Latin mass reminds me the devil goes to church too, will stand next to you and stare you down! But praise God our Lord Jesus Christ isn’t afraid of any devil and we like our leader Jesus Christ should not be afraid of no devil either and follow the Tradition set forth and given to St Peter to follow throughout time. The Church should mirror OUR LORD certainly not to try to appease society or the Democratic Party which what this leadership is starting to look like is!!!! Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us and truly lead the church to your Son Jesus Christ!! Lord ha w mercy on us and help us!!!!
St Michael the Archangel, defend us in Battle — Father Amorth?, the Exorcist was not afraid of the BIG BAD WOLF!! — Neither was ST Francis!!
PS What is Essential is seen with the Heart — from the Little Prince
I recall reading an article several years ago published in “the Latin Mass” magazine and written by a priest whose name I cannot recall that in the ancient Jewish Passover tradition, the father of the household would feed unleavened bread to family members at the table by placing a morsel in their mouths. He also administered a small spoonful of wine into their mouths. This was written as part of a larger explanation for the reasoning behind the centuries old tradition of Communion in the mouth rather than the hand. The article included many other defenses of the ancient practices, most or all of which have been articulated in Father’s outstanding CWR article and in the ensuing commentary.