Thanks to Ann Barnhardt for her recent post and sharing of this most illustrative painting and explanation. You can find her instructive post here: https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/07/20/found-it-image-of-the-birth-of-ecclesia/

The Bride of Christ: derided, blasphemed, spat upon, buffeted, as the Mystical Body of Christ, still present in the world and a woman of sorrow just as Christ was a man of sorrow: uncomely, disfigured and unrecognizable. Her sufferings are relived in Her Body, the Church: the Spotless Bride of Christ.

Flesh of My Flesh: Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for the body, which is the Church. __ Colossians 1:24

The Bridegroom and Bride Shall be Two in One Flesh: Christ and the Church are One: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_explores_st._pauls_teaching_on_the_church_as_bride_of_christ

Genesis 2:24

Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.

Mark 10:8

And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.

Ephesians 5:31

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.

Isaiah 62:5

For the young man shall dwell with the virgin, and thy children shall dwell in thee. And the bridegroom shall rejoice over the bride, and thy God shall rejoice over thee.

John 3:29

He that hath the bride, is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy because of the bridegroom’s voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled.

Ephesians 5:29

For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church:

CCC 796

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? “The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church.”²⁴⁰ And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”²⁴¹ They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself “bride.”²⁴²

Christ Was Buffeted and Spit Upon: Will the Bride not Suffer What the Bridegroom Suffered?

Job 30:10

They abhor me, and flee far from me, and are not afraid to spit in my face.

Isaiah 50:6

I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that plucked them: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spit upon me.

Matthew 26:67

Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him: and others struck his face with the palms of their hands,

Isaiah 53:2

And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him

1 Peter 2:24

Who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice: by whose stripes you were healed.

Seven Last Words of Christ from the Holy Cross: Will the Church Not Imitate Her Bridegroom and suffer with Him? http://www.catholictradition.org/Passion/passion27a.htm

1st

Luke 23:34

And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

2nd

Luke 23:43

And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

3rd

John 19:26

When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.

John 19:27

After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

4th

Matthew 27:46

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34

And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Psalm 21:2

O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me?

5th

John 19:28

Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.

6th

John 19:30

Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.

7th

Luke 23:46

And Jesus crying out with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this, he gave up the ghost.

 

And people ask why I don’t leave the Bride of Christ in Her hour of most need. I would prefer to remain with The Mother of God at the foot of the Cross than to be hiding in the upper room fearing for my life. This is why. __ Scoop

Ultra pragmatism and scientism has left man with the illusion of an anthropocentric universe which no longer has need or use of a Creator God. But for all the science that builds one atop another, from the smallest sub-atomic universe to the galaxies of immense proportions throughout the vast universe, we no longer see the pervasive mysteries that are cooked into our natural observations and our mathematical and scientific theories – no matter how perfectly they can predict or read the history of being itself. For every finding that is discovered and proved, the age old question of the child is still there: “why?”. For there are things that mathematics and science and logic will never unravel and the “why, how, for what purpose and to what end” questions are only covered over by a thin veil of evermore complicated explanations. It seems we keep peeling back layers of an onion only to find that we still don’t know why there is an onion.

The scientists and the pragmatics amongst us still cannot explain the mystery of a universe (who) creates intelligence which in turn tries to explain itself; which leads us to accept some kind of mechanism at work; an introspective conglomeration of vibrating subatomic and atomic particles with self-consciousness. We take for granted that this (living) universe can be comprehended by a naturally formed bit of the universe – ourselves. The universe somehow has a desire to know itself and it is us (small little sub atomic beings of the cosmos), who are both alive and conscious of this universe that has been bequeathed this task. How utterly wonderful, awe inspiring and mysterious and we are urged to think of it with no more interest than we might have in what we should eat for dinner.

Imagine first why there is anything at all. If I were to be able to hypothetically ask a dead man, according to the beliefs of atheists, if there is anything at all to existence he would have to say from his perspective that it is only an illusion: for he sees, feels, senses or remembers nothing. So to the dead, we are in error and there is no being. And to the living, the dead would be in error as we merely need rely upon our existing living senses.

Secondly, we can imagine then that every bit of energy in the universe has some primal or latent life residing within itself (mysteriously) such that it has its own primal desire for knowing and acknowledging itself. For how do these atoms arrange themselves in man to allow logic or a sense of being? And if that is our belief then we have become committed pantheists. How too, is it that this logical existence (man) has come into being only to grow, then whither and die? What happened to the stability of the atoms from which this life force is created, ebbs then wanes, and then returns to the state of simple atoms once again? What is the purpose then for man to come into being, thinking of itself as alive and logically examining such questions, only to die; like little unexplainable conscious beings of life bubbling to the surface to only burst. So life is mysterious as well. It is a wonder that there are collections of cells, atoms and sub atomic particles that come and go, without any purpose or meaning: no rhyme or reason, and yet we wish to admonish wonder, awe and mystery that permeate creation but is the substance of our faith in God.

Thirdly, why is it that we have a sense of “I-ness” or “ego” and a sense of “thou-ness” or other; the seer and and the seen. Where is the entire cosmological intelligence that is always aware of itself even if we are simply like dying cells being replaced by newer ones? For there is no reason that an atom should become unstable within our bodies in our short, normal lifetimes. Those same atoms existed before I was born and exist after death and yet in this intermediate step between non-existent man and decomposed man there is life and a social, moral and ethical order and construct that binds us together just as sure as the cells of a body bind themselves one to another in order to create a single living human being.

Isn’t it harder to imagine such a universe than to un-imagine it? And that, I think, is what is ultimately the end result when we place all our belief in science; nihilism or nothingness. “Life could be a dream” seems to fit the narrative. For it is meaningless, has no beginning and no end and only exists in those who accept their own consciousness as being real . . . though they will return to whence they came which is non-consciousness or non-being; utter emptiness and nothingness.

So is life better lived with our instinct to have faith in our perceived dignity and worth? To embrace hope for the future of ourselves and all of mankind? And to find the dignity, both morally and ethically to embrace true charity (self-giving love or sacrificial love)? For to give ones life for another in the world of “you only live once” crowd, such sacrifices seem totally out of place. 

We are to believe that life with meaning is simply ignorance and so we strip away all the wonder, awe and mystery of life which a loving Creator God provides. A God Who desires man to live well so that we might live together with Him in happiness eternally or to live in an existential world that is ultimately valueless is one’s primary choice in life. And remember that the same process that developed science, logic and all other pragmatic studies were intuited by mankind in the very same way that the other subjects developed. They are naturally occurring in our species. So, is religion any more part of our internal makeup than this new “religion” which denies even itself?

In this short post the only point I wish to make has to do with proper reverence and esteem that should be given to certain personages. This is something that seems to be lost on our new, more relaxed, and egalitarian construct of society. For my examples I would like to address three which I think might bring my point home. 

For my construct let us take on the birth name of a fictional character known as Robert Miller.

If Robert Miller becomes a doctor of medicine and we have the proper reverence for his unselfish service to provide us with healthcare and life saving practices one would be rather bold to address the man as Dr. Bob. He deserves more respect, more esteem and a sense of reverence for his sacrifices and his service to the community. The proper way to address him is Dr. Miller.

And if Robert Miller becomes a Lieutenant in the Marines and is risking his life to procure and safeguard the country and my own freedoms, likewise one would never refer to him as Lt. Bob but as Lieutenant Miller.

Most of us understand this protocol at some level or at least we did in our recent past. I was raised to do this; just as I was raised to say Mr. or Mrs. when addressing an older married man or woman. 

I find it incredible that today in the Catholic Church that we feign such familiarity with our priests. For if Robert Miller is ordained a Catholic Priest today he is most likely to be addressed as Fr. Bob. Now here is a man that is our spiritual father and is serving God and his flock. This seems to be the result of the breakdown of all civility and norms that occurred during the mid-60’s in our country. that prevails today.

We previously were not to look at him as just a pal and another man or friend. He was more than that. The common thread to the respect that civil people employed in the past was simply the fact that a Doctor served the community and the health of each of us while the Military man served his country and protected our lives, liberty and freedom. But higher than this, the Priest who serves God and his flock in an effort to bring us safely to heaven and to avoid hell should obviously deserve more reverence and respect: as the aim of his ministry has eternal consequences to our souls. It is not, as in the other two instances a temporal end that is being sought for our well-being. 

Please God that we once again respect the high-calling of the priest and see in him as our alter Christus acting in persona Christi during the sacraments of Confession and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Maybe then, we will quit treating him as just another member of the congregation that dresses funny (hopefully in his clericals and cassock).

As all men are touched by God’s love, so all are also touched by the desire for His intimacy. No one escapes this longing; we are all kings in exile, miserable without the Infinite. Those who reject the grace of God have a desire to avoid God, as those who accept it have a desire for God. The modern atheist does not disbelieve because of his intellect, but because of his will; it is not knowledge that makes him an atheist…The denial of God springs from a man’s desire not to have a God – from his wish that there were no Justice behind the universe, so that his injustices would fear no retribution; from his desire that there be no Law, so that he may not be judged by it; from his wish that there were no Absolute Goodness, that he might go on sinning with impunity. That is why the modern atheist is always angered when he hears anything said about God and religion – he would be incapable of such a resentment if God were only a myth. His feeling toward God is the same as that which a wicked man has for one whom he has wronged: he wishes he were dead so that he could do nothing to avenge the wrong. The betrayer of friendship knows his friend exists, but he wished he did not; the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not. __ Fulton J. Sheen

I wonder if the following link would be considered “evidence” for the truth that Christ is the Son of God (also from Fulton J. Sheen)?

The Only Person Ever Pre-Announced

 

You Decide!

https://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/2019/05/so-now-that-were-all-saying-what-were.html?m=1

If a priest acts ‘in the person of Christ’ (in persona Christi) then what does an extraordinary minister do? Are they acting in the ‘person of the priest’ who is himself acting ‘in the person of Christ’; in other words, are they now to be viewed as acting in persona sacerdotis? And since this is the logical conclusion, I suppose we can now call these lay persons ‘alter sacerdotus’ or “other priests”; as the priest is also known to be an ‘alter Christus’ or another Christ. Therefore, a lay minister of the Eucharist is acting in the person of Christ, twice removed which is total lunacy.

All of this, of course, is preposterous. But even more preposterous is the role of an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion who is a woman; a woman who is pretending to be a priest (priestess) and carry out the ministry of the ordained priest. Talk about a confusing mess. Is there any wonder why women and men are confused about their genders, their roles in life or their limitations and their abilities? Everybody seems to think that they can be whatever that want to pretend to be and we encourage it. So no reason to shake your heads at those who want to be female priests, or those people who want to be married to their own gender or who are not even sure what gender they are. You can be whatever you want to be and people should treat you exactly like whatever you have decided that you are; though you really aren’t and it is nothing more than pretending and wishful fantasy. We are what we say we are is the new maxim.

So Eucharistic Ministers is a fabricated, non-entity, that priests and bishops even utter though the Church has expressly condemned that phrase and instructed them to be called ‘extraordinary’ for they are to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances. And women in this role seem to be totally out of place; at least in my mind.

Here are a few examples of what has been previously taught concerning the laity receiving in the hand and the use of extraordinary ministers and such:

+++

To show that Communion in the hand was once a “universal practice”, a particular text of St. Cyril of Alexandria is habitually quoted, as to how we ought to make a throne of our hands to receive the King. What is not usually noted, though, is what any reliable patrologist could verify: THIS TEXT IS OF DUBIOUS ORIGIN. In fact, it is more likely from a Nestorian bishop. Further, we have VERIFIED texts of Leo the Great, and Gregory the great, and St. Basil, and many others, that prove the exact opposite.

– Pope St. Sixtus I (c. AD 115) “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”

– Pope St. Eutychian (275-283) Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

– St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379) “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

– The Council of Saragossa (380) Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

– Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

– The Synod of Rouen (650) “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but ONLY in their mouths.” Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

– The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681) Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

– St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

– The Council of Trent (1545-1565) “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

– Pope John Paul II, Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9 “It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.”

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

The non-ordained faithful already collaborate with the sacred ministers in diverse pastoral situations since “This wonderful gift of the Eucharist, which is the greatest gift of all, demands that such an important mystery should be increasingly better known and its saving power more fully shared”.(95)

Such liturgical service is a response to the objective needs of the faithful especially those of the sick and to those liturgical assemblies in which there are particularly large numbers of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion.

§ 1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.(97)

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situation, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.(98)

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”. __ On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest

+++

I don’t know about you but it all seems a bit silly to me and detrimental to our understanding of the Holy Eucharist and of the priesthood as well. I also feel complicit to this abuse by receiving Holy Communion from the hands of these individuals though I am sure that none of them (or few of them) understand how foolish their feigned priestly ministry appears and actually is. It is pure buffoonery and an abuse of the teachings of the Church. Where are the acolytes of old when such situations arose for ministerial help . . . all of which were men of course? This pretend ministry needs to come to an end as we are turning Mass into a not so well hidden version of a clown Mass. And this is why I will not receive Holy Communion from a lay person.

 

It seems that Bergoglio has never found a non-Catholic position on issues relating to governance or moral precepts that he doesn’t like and support. Take for instance the following:

1. Support for LGBTQ’s and homosexual clergy (as long as they are not abusing our youth).
2. Support for regimes and prominent left wing politicians who are pro-death.
3. Support for all socialists, communists and other radical regimes.
4. Support for the globalist elites and their agendas: including increased contraception and abortion, global warming, redistribution of resources to the poor and the confiscation and redistribution of money and goods from the wealthy.
5. Working hand and glove with the UN Sustainability Goals which includes abortion and contraception as part of their solution: a move to save the planet and ignore the saving of souls.
6. Social work promoted above the spiritual aspects of the Faith.
7. “Sins below the belt” are the least serious. Though Our Lady of Fatima said that more people end up in hell due to these sins than any other . . . and, of course, how would the hierarchy of mortal sin matter if you should die with these sins on your soul? Those mortal sins which remain unconfessed at the hour of death will earn you the same fate: eternal hellfire. So now they are unimportant?

It seems the new focus of Bergoglio is political and social rather than religious and salvific for the very sheep he was elected to lead on their path to eternal beatitude.

Venezuela’s collapse, the selling of the Catholic Church to the Chinese State and the support of the globalist elites and morally destitute seem not be enough to dissuade our Church from following these disastrous programs. And lets not forget his support for the wolves that attack Western Culture, especially the invasion of Islam, who hate Jews and Christians, square with his responsibility to protect his sheep? Is the so-called Pope simply a hireling of the worst type; taking sides with the wolves amongst us and ignoring the slaughter of his flock?

There are many other moves that have been made since Bergoglio assumed this office that could be mentioned but do any of them have anything to do with Church Teaching or Gospel teaching? It appears counter-intuitive. The Following article gives us some additional information as to what our true social teaching should be: https://fatima.org/news-views/fatima-perspectives-1271/

This is a companion piece to today’s excellent post from NEO at his site: https://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/venezuela-and-maduro

 

 

A liberal thinks that they stand on high moral ground for allowing anybody to enter our country and become a citizen; regardless of the harm that it causes to the country and the economy of its people. Criminals are ignored, as is the transport of drugs, terrorists and even human traffickers. So walls are immoral and they love to speak about building bridges as though that is some lofty moral mantra that makes those against their liberality seem to be intolerant dolts.

On the other hand. they seem to say that the living wall of a woman’s womb, is up to the individual woman as to whether that wall is able to be breeched at birth or if they will kill the ‘illegal alien’ before it sticks its head out into their private world. And this physical wall of the womb is not even a wall to prevent the child from entering this world but it is a natural protection of the child that is too small to live outside the womb until it has gained sufficient strength to survive in this cruel environment. It is designed to be both porous and a place to nourish and protect the baby until they biologically ready to be birthed.

But alas, liberals claim to have a right to get outraged if you call an illegal alien an’illegal alien’ simply because they are from another country (an alien) and enter without the express wishes of the country being violated (illegal). And conversely, they are not upset by referring to a child in utero as a fetus or a clump of cells (a seeming insult to human dignity). And further, they think they have a constitutional right to kill that baby if they wish. It it a woman’s ‘right’ you know. But woe to the rights of the people of our country who want secure borders from foreign invading hordes who get a wink and a nod as they pander for their future votes.

If a sea turtle’s eggs have more rights than does a human baby in the womb and an illegal alien who may do us harm as a country and as a society has more rights as well, then count me out of such an upside down world that calls these points of view logical and moral. They are neither.

I guess that is why I am a conservative.