Roman Catholic Blog

Ethical decline = Market collapse

Pope Had `Prophecy' of Market Collapse in 1985, Tremonti Says

By Flavia Krause-Jackson and Lorenzo Totaro

Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Pope Benedict XVI was the first to predict the crisis in the global financial system, a ``prophecy'' dating to a paper he wrote when he was a cardinal, Italian Finance Minister Guilio Tremonti said.

``The prediction that an undisciplined economy would collapse by its own rules can be found'' in an article written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became pope in April 2005, Tremonti said yesterday at Milan's Cattolica University.

German-born Ratzinger in 1985 presented a paper entitled ``Market Economy and Ethics'' at a Rome event dedicated to the Church and the economy. The future pope said a decline in ethics ``can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse.''

Pope Benedict in an Oct. 7 speech reflected on crashing markets and concluded that ``money vanishes, it is nothing'' and warned that ``the only solid reality is the word of God.''

The Vatican's official newspaper, l'Osservatore Romano, on the same day criticized the free-market model for having ``grown too much and badly in the past two decades.''

Conditio Sine Qua Non

"Do not be afraid! Do not be afraid to give your life to Christ! Nothing will ever replace the ministry of priests at the heart of the Church! Nothing will ever replace a Mass for the salvation of the world! Dear young people, and those not so young who are listening to me, do not leave Christ’s call unanswered!"

Benedict XVI

Mass at the Esplanade des Invalides, Paris
13-IX-08

INCONGRUOUS

Does anybody else notice the incongruity in the picture below?

I know that in the PC world we live in the Pope has to go along with this stuff, but...

Your thoughts?

Every Knee Should Bow

That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:

Philippians 2:10

Ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectat caelestium et terrestrium et infernorum

Philippians 2:10

This has always been a pet peeve of mine. Twenty years ago while a seminarian at St, John’s in Camarillo I was informed by the then dean of Students that my kneeling during the consecration of the mass was a "sign of disunity." Today that priest is an Auxiliary Bishop.

Later, during a liturgy class I asked the priest instructor why every knee would bend at Jesus" name, but not for his real presence? I was treated to a lecture on our status as "People of the Resurrection" who do not servilely bow. When I quipped that he obviously had knowledge that St. Paul did not it garnered me a meeting with the Rector. He told me that I was being disruptive and questioned my "true level" of spiritual growth if I was so concerned with outward and antiquated signs of pre-conciliar piety. Today that priest is an Archbishop!

At least the Pope can call the shots at his own mass.

Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies

By Carol Glatz, CNS

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling before the pope will become the norm at papal liturgies, said the Vatican's liturgist.

While current norms allow the faithful to receive the Eucharist in the hand while standing, Pope Benedict XVI has indicated a preference for the more traditional practice, said Msgr. Guido Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies.

Kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue highlights "the truth of the real presence (of Christ) in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces the sense of mystery more easily," he said in a June 26 interview with the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.

You can read the full story at: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm

"Phantasmagorical Cocktail of Inventions"

I was pleased to read that the Vatican has forbidden the makers of the latest Dan Brown thriller, Angels & Demons, to be filmed in any church in Rome, including Santa Maria del Popola pictured above.

Part of the article reads:

Dennis Prager: California Decision Will Radically Change Society

Here's the link: California Decision Will Radically Change Society

Here's a quote:

Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change." And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.

Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.

Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.

And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it's no big deal. Hey, it doesn't affect any heterosexuals' marriage, so what's the problem?

This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.

Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.

Be sure to read the rest at the link.

Also worth reading:

Pope restates gay marriage ban after California vote

Bishop Vigneron To The Faithful Of The Oakland Diocese On The California Supreme Court Decision Allowing Same-Sex Marriage

No wiggle room: Vatican says no exceptions to ban on homosexuals in seminaries

Any thoughts?

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos: Celebrate TLM In Parishes – Even When It Isn’t Requested

Via What Does The Prayer Really Say?: PCED’s Card. Castrillon Hoyos: celebrate TLM in parishes even when it isn’t requested

Quote:

According to Card. Castrillion Hoyos, the Holy Father desires that the TLM be a normal part of parish life. He also says that priests should offer it in their parishes even if there is no specific request for it.

That's a very different message than the one given here: Ex-Papal Liturgist, Archbishop Piero Marini: Liturgical Renewal "Irreversible"

Background quote from Wikipedia:

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos (born July 4, 1929) is a Colombian Cardinal of the Catholic Church. He was Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy from 1996 to 2006, and currently serves as President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Elevated to the cardinalate in 1998.

Any thoughts?

Ex-Papal Liturgist, Archbishop Piero Marini: Liturgical Renewal "Irreversible"

Christ Healing The Blind Bartimeus by Carl Heinrich Bloch

Here's the link: Vatican official calls liturgical renewal 'irreversible path'

Here's a section of the article:

Liturgical renewal launched by the Second Vatican Council is an "irreversible path" and has not been affected by Pope Benedict XVI's concession on wider use of the Tridentine rite, a Vatican official said.

"The pope's decision has so far not produced any change in the celebrative practice of our ecclesial communities. His gesture was only one of service to unity," Archbishop Piero Marini, who arranged papal liturgies for more than 20 years, said in an interview April 25 in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"Therefore let's look ahead and let's continue with enthusiasm the path undertaken by the council," he said.

Late last year Archbishop Marini was named to head the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses.

The archbishop remains involved in international liturgical issues, and he said a revision of the committee's statutes is giving it wider authority over eucharistic congresses at the national and regional level, too.

Asked if Pope Benedict's relaxation of restrictions on the use of the pre-Vatican II liturgy signaled a halt to the liturgical reform movement, Archbishop Marini said that was clearly not the pope's aim.

The pope's decree "does not intend to introduce modifications on the current Roman Missal or express a negative judgment on the liturgical reform desired by the council," he said.

He said the decree, which reached out to disaffected Catholics, should be seen as an effort to maintain unity in the church.

Archbishop Marini said his own experience in organizing papal liturgies in more than 100 countries has convinced him that the liturgical reform movement has brought overwhelmingly positive results.

"Everywhere, the liturgy desired by the council was celebrated with lively participation and enthusiasm. Everyone understood the liturgy as proper to the local church and at the same time as an expression of the universal church," he said.

Those liturgies also demonstrated that liturgical reform has solid theological foundations, he said.

"Therefore this is an irreversible path," he said.

Liturgical celebration cannot be separated from the life of the church, the archbishop said, and this means "the church of today, not the church of yesterday or of tomorrow."

At the same time, Archbishop Marini said celebrating the liturgy according to Vatican II is not an easy thing. It takes patience, perseverance and pastoral charity, he said.

One particular issue that has emerged during papal trips, he said, is the fact that some Masses are now attended by hundreds of thousands of the faithful. That raises practical considerations like the number of concelebrants, the distribution of Communion and the level of personal participation, he said.

Pope Benedict has already asked for reconsideration of the role of concelebrants, and Archbishop Marini said it makes sense to look at the question through a serious study and with eventual pastoral-liturgical guidelines.

My thoughts:

We'll see, Archbishop Marini. I suspect you're wrong, though. I certainly think it's wrong to claim that Summorum Pontificum was only issued in an effort to preserve unity and avoid schism. How does the allowance of a right Archbishop Marini clearly views as old and outdated alongside the Ordo Missae promulgated by Pope Paul VI signify a movement that preserves liturgical unity?

It's clear that the archbishop is not in agreement with Pope Benedict XVI with respect to the liturgy. That is probably why he's known as ex-papal liturgist, Archbishop Piero Marini.

Any thoughts?

Rush Limbaugh Comments On Pope Benedict XVI's Address To Seminarians And Young People, St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, New York, Saturday, April 19, 2008

Rush Limbaugh: Pope Benedict XVI Speaks Truth

Text of Rush Limbaugh's commentary after the jump...

Report: Pope Benedict XVI Considering Ways To Cleanse The Priesthood

Here is the link: Pope Celebrates Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, Prays for Healing From Church Sex Scandal

Here is the key quote:

A top Vatican official now says the Roman Catholic Church is weighing a further change to clean up the clergy: revising church law so predators could be more easily removed.

"It's possible," said Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican office that reviews abuse claims against priests worldwide.

"There are some things under consideration that I'm not able to say," Levada told reporters Friday, in a meeting at Time magazine's offices. A Vatican spokesman stressed Saturday that no immediate changes are planned.

It is the latest signal during Benedict's first papal visit to America that he is intent on purifying the priesthood as he affirms traditional Catholic practices and teaching.

My thoughts: Working to prevent men with homosexual tendencies from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders or entering religious life would be a great start!

See also: Bill Maher Makes Excuses For Michael Jackson, But Attacks The Catholic Church [Language Warning]