Catholic Register Editor post Anti-trad article on Facebook

Hello Everyone, 

Wow I actually have the motivation to blog on something! Skimming my blogposts for the usual morning read, I found a new entry by a blogger Vox Cantoris on an editor of the Catholic Register, a diocesan newspaper for the Archdiocese of Toronto. It seems like a case of hypocrisy or being two-faced. I decided to look at this and I'll give a take on it. 

So first, what is the inflammatory posting that started this whole mess? It comes from Michael Swan's Facebook page. He made it public so anyone can view this for now (till he chooses to delete his posting if he wants to cover his tracks). Here's the post:

The item of interest is the Friday posting with the NCR article on Veiling

The text in the posting is as follows: "It's not surprising that traditional Catholics who prefer their nuns in habits and priests in cassocks would want to get in on the dress-up fun. And I understand the power of a nonverbal message sent through clothing. It's why police officers wear uniforms, gang members wear colors and Packer fans wear cheeseheads."

Since there's an NCR article attached, I must see the context of his post. Turns out that this is a paragraph from the NCR article here: http://ncronline.org/news/spirituality/head-covering-thinly-veiled-patriarchy. The "wonderful" author of the article has lovely gems on the practice of veiling like this:

"... But some of these enthusiastic would-be veil wearers don't seem to see the contradiction in "getting up the courage" to wear a veil as an in-your-face expression of submission and humility. A few even noted how great a veil is for "blocking out distractions" at Mass, as if fellow worshipers are an annoyance during private me-and-God time ....``

``.... Even wedding veils, part of the princess bridal attire that many American girls dream of, have their roots in patriarchy. In an arranged marriage, a husband unveiled his wife to symbolize his taking possession of his wife (from her father), and the veil became a symbol of virginity and purity, as well as submission to her new spouse ....``

``.... Unfortunately, most traditionalists calling for a return to veil wearing believe in complementarity, that women and men's differences complement one another. This justifies separate roles, usually men as leaders and women as followers, thus the emphasis on submission, humility and modesty as virtues for women.``

So, after a full read of the original article, I can only conclude that the author takes a very pessimistic and feminist slant towards veiling, and even mocks valid and POSITIVE reasons for veiling. And not everybody on that site that is commenting is in agreement with her. In fact they are fighting back at the liberalism of that paper. If you read Fr. Z`s blog, you`ll know the NCReporter is also called `the fishwrap` as it stinks with liberal heterodoxy with known liberals on staff as John Allen Jr. and Sr. Joan Chittister (a pantsuit nun) that has been covered extensively by Fr. Z. 

So having sought the original source, I turn my attention to the first to bark on the bandwagon, TH2. While I have left a positive comment on that article as a nice "silver lining," I cannot advocate this blogger as I find him critical to the point of being a nusiance, even for this young Trad. To me, constantly reading TH2's posts will put one in a spirit of anti-charity and a hate of all things Vatican II. I used to be like that and I don't want to go back there. Also I dislike his literary style of his posts, it comes off like a tabloid rag vs. well informed analysis, e.g. Fr. Zuhlsdorf. 

However, he is the first commentator on this. His post is here: http://heresy-hunter.blogspot.ca/2012/09/facebook-fun-with-catholic-registers.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/hrLm+(THE+HERESY+HUNTER)

What is most useful in analysis is this paragraph: ".... What is the purpose of doing that - especially that particular quotation - except to send a message of his dislike for the return to reverent liturgy and its concomitants? Why share a link to an article, minus a qualifier, where we find phrases like "veiled patriarchy", "get in on the dress-up fun", "enthusiastic would-be veil wearers", "an in-your-face expression of submission", unless he agrees. That's fine, and he's certainly free to post whatever preference on FB. Contrarily, I see mantillas at Mass as a most excellent thing. It confers that distinctive Catholic dignity and mystery to a woman. Also, it is symbolic of that extra and special amount of privacy which is the natural right of a woman...." 

TH2 does have a point. If you didn't support that position, or you are trying to uphold a "standard" of sorts, you don't be a hypocrite and post this stuff for anyone and everyone to see. At the very least if Michael Swan wants to lead a "double life", then he should keep his Facebook Private and only his liberal friends will see his stuff online, but at least professionally he can have some sort of decorum and uphold the standards of his Diocesan newspaper. Now, if Michael Swan does not care and it doesn't matter to him what he posts in the paper, than well at least he's being honest about his Church political stance.

Then I look to Vox's posting to see his commentary. He's actually got it right in this occasion. This is the simplest way to say what should be done in this matter:

"I am not going to debate here the merits of a woman veiling. It was up until the new Code of Canon Law necessary, it is now not required. However, should a woman veil herself that is her choice and it is not my business, nor is it Mr. Swan's business to insult any woman for doing so. How you or I express our piety and spirituality within the context of our faith is between the individual and our loving God."

Why do I agree when clearly he isn't the nicest kid on the block in the Catholic Blogosphere (with obvious enemies?) Well here's why: (1) He states the Church's written documentation on it, or rather the change in the Church's laws on this matter. It's always necessary with Church matters to reference the official documents of the Magisterium and Church Law on any matter first. (2) Exactly as said, it is a woman's choice to veil now that it is not mandated by Church law. And it is not right for anyone, clergy or layman, to mock another's validly acceptable and not canonically or liturgically banned practices. To do so is just as harmful as a traditional Catholic calling a Charismatic Catholic a heretic because they approach prayer differently. I am not endorsing Charismatic Catholicism, but hey it is validly accepted in the Church and has not been condemmned by any Pontifical council or the Popes yet, so fine, let it be. My take: If it isn't banned by the Catechism, Canon Law, the Magisterium or the Popes, it's ok to do, though valid enlightened discussion for or against the practice should be allowed. It's a "t"radition, not TRADITION. And if it`s that freaky, only a small subset of the population will love it, most will avoid or hate it. (3) There are bigger things to threaten clergy and laypeople who don't tow the line about, like that pedophile  that Vox was talking about in Ottawa`s St. Joseph who has magically disappeared from their registry. 

Now, look, if you want to write a letter like Vox did, be my guest. However this is not worth my time, in my opinion, to harp over. In addition, Swan posted the article in line with his liberal stance on his personal Facebook page, where Facebook is a public domain. If he did that in the Register, that's a different kettle of fish that possibly Cardinal Collins could step into mediate and readers can blast his ass on. 

My summary two cents: Michael Swan shouldn't be a hypocrite. Either he goes out guns ablazing and makes his stance known in the Register, or he should keep his personal sentiments that are offensive to others of the Catholic community to himself on his Facebook page IN PRIVATE STATUS NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEWING, and be professional as editor in chief of the Catholic Register. In fact, some people have two Facebook profiles attached to their account: One that acts like a professional resume/portfolio/business card etc. that is public and for managers to see as the new trend is for management to scan potential job applicants' social networks; the second is their personal one for friends and family and contains more of their "racier" or "private" photos, videos, posts, etc. Perhaps he should do the same. 

YCRCM. 

Quickpost: One of Fr. Z.'s best rants ever, and rightfully deserved.

Hi All.

Just haven't had the motivation or drive to do bigger posts on this blog for a while now. Might re-visit one I started on a week off I had, but not sure if I will.

In the meantime, Fr. Z lays this nugget in this post about the stupid post-Vatican II changes to Holy Days of Obligation. Post is here:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/09/and-he-shall-make-all-both-little-and-great-rich-and-poor-freemen-and-bondmen-to-have-a-character-in-their-right-hand-or-on-their-foreheads/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wdtprs%2FDhFa+%28Fr.+Z%27s+Blog+-+What+Does+The+Prayer+Really+Say%3F%29

"Paul VI blew it when he changed the obligations for doing penance and abstaining on Fridays.    Sorry, that was a bad move.  Does anyone do penance now? FAIL. Our bishops blew it big time by intermittently repressing Holy Days of Obligation.   Now people don’t go to Mass when the obligation is not repressed.  They got the message: going to Mass isn’t very important after all.  FAIL.  Shortening the Eucharistic Fast to an hour before Communion? Another brilliant outcome, do you think?  Do people now pay attention to fasting at all?  Do they have a sense of participation in the Eucharist as involving sacrifice?  We creatures of body and soul need preparation that is both physical and spiritual, fasting and being in the state of grace. Is there any concept of mortification as salutary among the people of God?  Do lots of people really give deep consideration to what they do when receiving Communion?

Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27. FAIL."

GO FR. Z! Nuff Said

Also, the commenter in the beginning of the post recommends an attendance sheet or stamp card for attendance. I've seen on the net/blogosphere this as a suggestion for the odd Confirmation/1st communion program. Personally, I'm all for it. However the card must be stamped, with two different stamps/colors, one for the beginning of the Mass up to 5 minutes before the Liturgy, and then another one post liturgy. Yes it won't prevent people who falsify emergencies or "bathroom" visits, but it would get people to stick around. As for who would do it? get more people to become ushers. 

While were at it, I think also that the Church could really help their money problems AND help ensure people do their obligations by doing what many Jewish synagogues do: Charge people for tickets on the high holidays. You don't have a regular membership/obligation? You pay for being a C & E Catholic. 

Now I don't know if one gets their high holiday tickets paid for if you are a regular Saturday-going member of a synagogue, but for the Catholic church I'd throw in the High holiday tickets for free with regular attendance (measured by an at least once a month to weekly donation in the envelopes, or a stamp card if you don't like to donate.). Also the front-most rows should be stauchened or blocked off, and only those with the front row tickets (a.k.a. regular attendees and/or regular weekly donations) allowed to have those seats with an Usher on each side to watch. Any disruptions, police get called or security to haul your all out.  Everyone else is first come first serve with tickets, but tickets must be bought regardless whether you get a seat or not. One final note, if all this enforcement were to take place, any people involved should receive some form of compensation for the sake of people who are just piss-pots. 

Sigh, no one will have the guts to do this though.

Pax, YCRCM. 

Quickpost: 4000 views

As of this morning, 8:36am EST, 4000 views. Thanks to all that have viewed my little nothing in the Catholic blogosphere. YCRCM.

Quickpost: From the Mouth of a Young Priest, Vatican II was Hijacked

Hello All,

Sorry I've not been around much. Work and life is weighing me down, and they just won't get new employees to replace the vacancies fast enough. That and I'm so beat mentally and physically I'd rather do other things in my spare time to de-stress my mind than write on here.

However, I did find something today that interested me. This young buck in the seminary in Charlottetown, PEI in Canada, writes today about Vatican II (OOOOOH!). He's also enrolled, like myself, in the Canadian Society of Catholic Bloggers run by Dr. Colin Kerr. You'll like what he says. That's right older generation, we're not falling for the Spirit of Vatican II garbage. We see through the lies and we're not going to drink your cool aid.

Read the good summary post here of what the liberals at the Council did:

http://fromshadowstotruth.blogspot.ca/2012/08/the-spirit-of-vatican-ii.html

Now, go spike this priest's stats and give him a thank you and support for doing what is right and necessary. And maybe nudge him to say the 1962 Latin Mass.

Pax, YCRCM.

Quickpost: Shocker! Kids hate Political Correctness but so do Adults Too

This was too good to miss.

So browsing my Sympatico homepage with tons of news and links, I was curious and clicked on one that featured a 10 things kids hate and like about school post. It's here for now at:

http://lifestyle.ca.msn.com/family-parenting/back-to-school/10-things-kids-hate-about-school-and-10-they-love#image=1

So I'm going down the List and this is what you hit at hint number 3 or 4 of the hate list:

"Ditch school jargon, kids advise. Nine-year-old Olivia Mater of Guelph, Ont., doesn’t like the “fancy words some teachers use, like ‘nutrition break’ and ‘dismissal routine.’”

HOLY BAJOONGEES BATMAN!!!! There you have it, straight from the horses mouth. And yet nanny state government premiers of provinces think it is fun to screw with education curriculums and terminologies with things like trying to make home-schooling illegal in the Prairies, and Overlord McTyrant and his education dictator Lauren Broten forcing gay stuff in schools against the Catholic faith in Ontario via Bill 13. The Kids don't want it! They hate your bull $@*# terms and want you to do the basics for their education darn it.

Also to think, if this is what kids don't want at grade 4 or 5, let's expand that to the wider and adult world. People generally hate PC terminology, so say for example .... let's take our Roman Catholic INSTITUTIONAL Church. Example: my now OLD parish is inviting the ministers for a ministry weekend. As part of that, the resident parish theologian is having a "morning workshop and reflection" that weekend and will "explore the interior source of authentic ministry in religious experience and will encourage individuals to the open-eyed control of their ongoing ministerial formation."

Now to me what this says is "let's have a kum-bay-ah session and do liberal crap that makes us see our inner chakra" and garbage. B.S! What I just quoted in the last sentence, you might have well just said out loud. Stop hiding this crap in fancy words picked from a thesaurus. If you truly want to form Catholic lay ministers, how about you bring in a priest who actually practices what is taught in the Catechism and by the Magisterium of the Holy Father, and you have that person give a lecture TIED to scripture and the documents of the Magisterium, heck even Vatican II, with maybe a little Verbum Domini for the Lectors, Ecclesia de Eucharista and Ecclesia de Mysterio for the EMHCs thrown in?

This is but one of the many reasons I'm moving on spiritually. Thank God I had the smarts to prevent myself from exposure to things that would harm my spiritual salvation.

MAIN POINT FOR TODAY: Politically/Spiritually "Correct" jargon is hated by the majority of people, ESPECIALLY KIDS!!!!

Nuff Said. Pax, YCRCM.

Quickpost: Women Can Change and Become the Espresso of Life Instead of the Bitter Rinds

Hello Everyone,

I haven't been posting in a while as I haven't found anything BIG to post about, as well as my life's kinda wearing me down (job stuff, faith struggles, put in the "friend zone permanently by someone I thought was a 'seraphic single' who'd be great to date).

Anyways, I read Seraphic Singles, a blog by Dorothy Cummings McLean of the Catholic Register fame who's written a book for single Catholic women of the same name (also called other titles in the USA and Poland). While her writing is mainly for women and it's consistently solid (with a few personal disappointments opinion-wize as a Nice Catholic Bachelor hoping to shed that status), there are times that she writes a post that really is something to not just her female majority, but also to me as a male reader. Well she did it again. Read this post:

http://seraphicsinglescummings.blogspot.ca/2012/08/a-change-in-attitude.html

Reading it, it has some lovely and funny quips a la Bridget Jones in there, and it puts a smile on my face to hear she demanded on her first date with her husband, get this, BEER AND MEAT PIE! Now that's a woman! I personally hate it when they just only want to order salads cause they are afraid of gaining even one pound. For one, just enjoy yourself! Don't be a sad sack, especially if I am paying for the meal. 2nd, I prefer a healthy to curvy (and I can even tolerate a few extra pounds) woman and truly most men do regardless of the stupid magazines and er, darker stuff suggests. If only there was a Seraphic a good number of years or younger around me like this, I'd be sold just on the meat pie and pints!

However, the real good content of the post is how Seraphic delves into how women hating men (and well vice versa too if one really reads into the post) is destructive and is not the way to go. Further, she understands the whole feminism thing. Plus, she also shows how she, herself, overcame the androgyny and got herself back to Catholic virtue.

I highly recommend both sexes read this post. For the women, it is a great one to keep coming back to, especially when lesser members of my sex act like total douchebags. As for men, read it to give you hope when you are rejected by women, but also that they are not all corrupted by the societal anti-Catholic, androgynist brainwashing machine of society. Women CAN change and actually enjoy us as "the cappucino of life" as Seraphic always says.

Pax, YCRCM.

And Now For Something Completely Different ... My 5 pm Vigil Mass at my New Novus Ordo Parish

Hello Everyone.

Well, some SSPX die-hard didn`t like my post and already sent me a comment. Kay, I`ll repeat this again. (1) read my blog rules back in the first post, August 2011. (2) No anonymous posting. You have to at least give me a pseudoname if you even want moderation. (3) I warned you I would delete anything uncharitable from both sides (liberal and conservative, St. Joseph`s loving AND SSPX loving) if it was `stupid`. You want to rant, do it at the very least with some clarity, logic, reasoning, or even essay style with evidence to support your points. That comment was stupid and inflammatory in calling me ``obnoxious``, so I deleted it. This is my last and final warning to everyone who views my last post. You don`t like my house, go stink up someone else`s blog where they share your mind or your views on any/or one or more of: the SSPX, women wearing pants as a "sin", liturgical dance, the new creation theology espoused by sister pantsuit, etc.

And Now For Something Completely Different ........

So I just got back from the 5pm vigil Mass at my new parish in my area. I left my old one (save finishing up summer lectoring commitments) because it was spiritually choking my soul and I do not agree with the liberal, spiritual direction of the pastor and the youth minister. While some of my friends I met there are sticking it out, I can`t in good conscience and without souring my soul and disposition and speaking out. Mass generally was lovely. The pastor says the black and does the red. I received much needed confession prior to Mass to receive the Eucharist happily. And the homily was much needed and relevant (see below ...)

Coming back from Mass there has inspired me to write this post. I`ll get to the meaty part of this first. Here`s the Gospel for today from the NRSV-CE translation, 15th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Sundays Year B, Novus Ordo Liturgical Calendar:

MARK 6:30-34
`The Apostles returned from their mission. They gathered around Jesus, and told him all that they had done and taught. He said to them, `Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while.` For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure to eat. And they went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves.
Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they hurried there on foot from all the towns and arrived ahead of them. As Jesus went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and  he began to teach them many things.`

So, the pastor gave the homily. His greatest strength is his passion and his strong spirituality and devotion to the Catholic Faith. You can tell he really wants the best for us, even if there are other things the parishioners don`t like or perceive about him.  The homily reflected Jesus calling the disciples away for a much needed rest. For one, he reflected briefly about Mass being a spiritual rest in life with the Eucharist (didn`t get the full point cause I had bad luck being behind an off-duty EMHC/EMHE(ucharist) with his wife and noisy toddler). The bulk of his homily centred around how we in our lived today are constantly immersing ourselves in our computers and wireless technology and televisions. We are not giving ourselves a "spiritual" rest as it were, and we are totally ignoring the beautiful work of God found in his creation. [Creation by the way, is one of God's two direct ways of Revelation to us. The first is His Word (including Jesus as the Word made flesh), the other is creation.] So Go! Go out and have a rest! Go take your family to a park and revel in God's creation! Go out for a walk! Get away from immersing yourselves in those 200 e-mails a day!

Also, he commented that it's also plaguing the young. This was so true to say. I was privileged to be in a trial period for their EDGE ministry (decision still pending), and the few weeks I was there, I witnessed this with the young tweens to some degree. The largest degree was seen in the first young woman I was able to know by name. I constantly witnessed her on her blackberry a lot, rather doing that than the icebreaker activities and some other things at times. Don't worry though she came every week to EDGE so it's not like she wasn't wanting to be there. I did ask her if she wanted to participate (thinking maybe she was shy or we should be inclusive), but she wasn't interested. So Father is not making this up or speaking as "that old guy." He's speaking the truth.

Father's point is applicable to all ages that by immersing ourselves constantly in this virtual life with out technologies, we are becoming one unto ourselves, inward, and isolated and alone. It is implied that this is become selfish and self-centred and depriving one's self of being healthy, mentally and spiritually. Sadly, many of our youth are doing this and likely contributing to decreased language and conversation skills, and even behaviour too. I'll also sheepishly admit I do this quite a bit too. I'm more of an introspective person (so says my Myers-Briggs personality test) and I don't make friends easily. I got other things too, but I don't have a wide calendar of social events. So well computer stuff is one way I relieve my work-day stress but also do as my past time. I definitely need to, as well as others, need to take Father's message to heart and make sure that I make my life not totally self-centred via my electronics.

A Nice Little Side Note on Youth and Modesty
Now, we don't get a lot of young people at the 5pm mass, so the ones that do I'm thankful to see at my parish. Today, wow it was interesting! The young adults that came, male or female, were modestly dressed, especially the women!

I did not see one set of those short shorts I've been seeing on women on my way to work, nor tight miniskirts or skirts above the knee or crop tops (Why are they back in fashion? They should have stayed in the 80's-90's!). Not one women had exposed shoulders or a top that was way too tight on the torso, and even respectable shoes (no flip flops!). As for the men, including myself, we were wearing at least decent jeans and a non-inflammatory top, and one guy even was semi-business dressed. (I assume he and his three female companions were at or going to some semi-casual social event before or after Mass). This was a good change to see today at the Mass, giving respect to our Lord in the Mass. Now, I don't know whether it was just coincidence or it's this parish's influence, but to me, it's just another small sign that I am finally in the right parish for me for the Novus Ordo.

Hope you enjoyed my change for today. Pax. YCRCM.

Stuff from this week: SSPX Crankypants, A Heretical Parish in Ottawa, and FSSP Priest training for Low Mass

Hello All,

I've been paying the piper at work for taking a whole weekend off and not being called in before or after a family member's wedding. So my blogging has gone by the wayside. Finally today a day off so I'm just going to post about what's been peeking my interest of my feeds.

1) Vox Cantoris exposes a gay-pride loving, liturgically sacrilegious, hedonistic and evil "catholic" parish in Ottawa called St. Joseph's in Ottawa. The post is here: http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2012/07/st-joes-is-vibrant-diverse-and-ever.html. WARNING!!! Some disturbing content within. If you are uber sensitive to liberal stuff and homosexual movements, you may want to take some hyperactivity-reducing and blood pressure meds because this post will get you angry and wanting to burn the heretics at the stake. They also committed a grave liturgical violation in the past by having a layperson give the homily. GIRM states no body but the deacon or higher reads the Gospel, and/or gives the homily. Somebody please alert the Bishops or better (cause they don't really care in Canada about this as they themselves are weak with heterodoxy) the Vatican. At least they every once in a while Benedict issues personal or institutional bans, like recently they stripped a Peruvian university of the words "Pontifical" and "Catholic" from the title after repeated attempts for them to play nice (see here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/07/no-longer-catholic/). Oh, and did I forget to mention they have a liturgical dance team ... REALLY, FOR 20 STINKING YEARS????? "Carndinal Arinze is not amused with your amature theology," and he said "NO liturgical dance". Disgusting. I wonder how many vocations from that parish have arisen? I'd bet 0. 

2) Hey all you extraordinary form people, and priests if you happen to read this too. The FSSP is issuing a cool training session in the USA for clergy who want to serve the Low form of the Mass. If you know someone who might be interested, or are a clergy member yourself interested, please pass this on. The link is  here: http://fssptraining.org/index.html. Please get more priests to do this. Help restore the liturgy in the Church and give Joe Catholic something not banal to attend on Sundays or any day of the week.


3) Well, it seems the the SSPX are being a bunch of naughty idiots and Benedict will have to launch the Vatican Obliterati Sattelite Cannon in their faces. They just had their annual chapter meeting and while it seems all went well and they issued some statement that is ambiguous and as usual insults the Vatican if you read between the lines, It seems like they are going to pull a repeat of 1988 and get themselves schismatic again. Why? Well some fool (or secret saint if they really are that bad) released a "confidential" document sent by the Secretary of State for them that even said internally they weren't supposed to release this on the internet or blogs. It contains conditions, to the Vatican, where they will accept canonical status only if the top 3 are filled, with the other 3 desired.

Here's the summary of their conditions in French: http://www.riposte-catholique.fr/summorum-pontificum-blog/informations/les-conditions-de-la-fraternite-saint-pie-x

The full letter can be found in French here: http://tradinews.blogspot.fr/2012/07/abbe-thouvenot-fsspx-lettre-circulaire.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Tradinews+(TradiNews)

Now, using the almighty Google Translator, here's what they are asking for:
"... "Finally, he stated the conditions that the Society of St. Pius X was needed in dealing with authorities Roman:

Preconditions that the fraternity is required and it demands of the Roman authorities before considering a canonical recognition:

 1. Freedom to maintain, transmit and teach sound doctrine of the Magisterium of the Church constant and unchanging Truth of Tradition divine freedom to protect, correct, resume, even publicly, the makers of any errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism , Vatican II and its consequences;

 2. Exclusively use the liturgy of 1962. Keep the sacraments that we currently have (including: orders, confirmation, marriage);

 3. Guarantee of at least one bishop.

 Desirable conditions:

 1. Own ecclesiastical courts of first instance;

 2. Exemption of the houses of the Society of St. Pius X in relation to diocesan bishops;

 3. Pontifical Commission for Tradition in Rome in dependence of the Pope, with majority of members and chair for the Tradition."

OK, there are some big ass problems here. Let's start with the desirables and go to the main course.
On the desirables:
1) No bloody way.  Why the heck do you think you guys can have your own courts within the Church? This would be stupid. Would you persecute other Catholics not with the SSPX with them? The Church, sacramentally and politically, must maintain some semblance of order and it will not give you guys your own courts. Heck your courts (e.g. annulments) and other sacraments outside the Eucharist aren't even valid at all because you aren't under an Ordinary's/Bishops permission and jurisdiction to do so.

2) Fine. I get why you want this because many of them stink of liberalism and heterodoxy and are a smack in the face to Christ. And they sure as hell hate tradition and want to shut you down. However, you will be under someone's purview, be it diocesan, or the Pope himself, who is a bishop BTW. Even under the free-roaming ordinate structure, e.g. Anglican Use, you will still be overseen by a bishop. And hey if I were the Pope, I sure as heck would not want you guys running free and loose anyways. You`d probably cause more internal division in the Church over your `holier than thou` attitudes.

3) Hey I`m all for the pontifical commission in Rome for Tradition, but I wouldn`t want most or all the members of that to be SSPX. It`d better have a combo of a few of them, FSSP, ICKSP, and diocesan priests/bishops/Cardinals favourable to tradition with the Pope as head and final arbiter of decisions.

Now the Main points:
1) Good on everything, save the Vatican II bit. Hey I'm not favourable to it, though I still maintain that V-II was hijacked by liberals who mis-applied the documents and the true spirit of the Council. However, were the Pope to allow their "Vatican II is evil" message and acknowledge it, it could violate the order of the Church. All councils when declared are guided by the Holy Spirit right? so one wasn't? Further, if the Pope were to admit such an error, this could (a) possibly bring on criticism that he is fallible, so how can we trust the Holy Father on anything, even faith and morals? (b) if a. were to occur, this would violate the doctrine of infallibility declared at Vatican I, and (c) we'd have a free for all in the Church b/c "hey if we can chastise Vatican II, we can chastise anything theological in the Church". The Holy Father is not going to allow complete anarchy to happen in the Church just to please a small sect of practising Catholics in the huge worldwide body. Besides, Tradition is taking off without them being around and more TLMs are popping up worldwide gradually, but it's happening. They aren't essential to that cause, though it would quicken things and give another bunch of validly, CANONICAL AND LEGAL options for trad-catholics in cities and towns where the SSPX do have a foothold, and more TLM resources worldwide.

2) No Contest here. It's a simple statement with no strings attached.

3) Well ... alright. Fine I understand they want someone in their court, BUT, This reeks of 1988. It's history repeating itself. If they think they can pull this same crap again and get it the 2nd time around, if it's not a valid bishop of the "regular" Church of Benedict's choosing, they are dreaming way to high.

Honestly everyone, I'm just about to give up on the SSPX. They are now acting just as stubborn and stupid as they were back then under Lefevbre, and there's no way that Benedict, with ALL he has done and given them this time around, even more so than JPII, will easily give them what they want. Worse, now that this is out in the open, they have shot themselves in the foot. They are really now going to have to retract this and accept whatever Benedict gives them, because time is running out, and the Holy Father's patience is wearing thin. He is tired of playing games, and if they are going to continue to be a stubborn little child that won't listen to his parent, he's going to get an ass-spanking that will hurt a long time. Also, we don't know what the next pope will bring. Some people think weird things like we are going to get an anti-pope or a pope unfavourable to tradition (which is likely possible with the pool of cardinals available) and well, that pope also will likely NOT be a child of Vatican II (not born during the time or, or at the council) so will not understand things, or be further infected with the "fruits of the council". Boys or girls, if any of you see this or someone who will live, breathe, and die for these people, gets this, you'd better tell them they should accept. This is their last good offer, and if it's not now, it's likely going to be never.

However what's YCRCM's final take with them? Basically you guys are being prideful pricks, and if you want to be that pig-headed, you can take your pre-Vatican II mindset and societies, seminaries, and schools, and adherents, and leave the Church alone. Go ahead and be schismatic and separate with only 1 sacrament to deal with. I'm going to stay right here, under the Barque of Peter, receiving all 7 Sacraments validly and licitly, and going to Diocesan TLMs that I know are said by VALID AND LICIT priests so I have no doubt that I am receiving valid sacraments and participating in valid masses and my soul will be ok. As for the souls of you and your adherents, may Christ have mercy on them, cause I don't know what will happen to them come their deaths under a soon-to-be schismatic sect of Catholicism. However, if you do get canonical recognition in spite of everything, welcome home, and please save the liturgy with the TLM and give your servers and priests to us  (on loans of course, never permanently) to help us grow more TLMs everywhere and make priests around you actually adhere to the Magisterium and not preach heretical teachings. 


Alright. That's it for me for now. Pax. YCRCM. 


P.S. I will be monitoring the combox and my e-mail. Don't try anything stupid from either side, be you on the St. Joseph's article (Vox broke the story anyways, not me) or the SSPX issue. It'll just go in my trashbin. 


NEW UPDATE FROM WITNESS BLOG ON ST' JOSEPH'S EXPOSE . 3:00pm EST, July 21, 2012


HOLY SHhhhh...... well, just, damn. A convicted, diocesan-lacized priest is in residence there????? Barona at Witness found this gem, courtesy of some witch (pervert priest) hunter, Sylvia. See the post and the links here: http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.ca/2012/07/why-is-convicted-child-molester-on.html

Quickpost: 3K

Wow. Over 3000 pageviews. Nice. Pax. YCRCM.

Quickpost: The Anchoress and Why We should Have Beautiful Churches

Hey everyone.

Wow I can't believe the number of hits I'm getting from my last post on that EF priest from Vancouver! Thank you for the visits everyone.

Any ways, this just in after a mid-day viewing. Many people who hate the Catholic Church criticise us for having lavishly decorated exteriors, metal-plated devices, statues, etc. and say we should only have crappy, simple (and modern Churches to boot) made of economically cheap materials and art, etc. Well! Here's something from Elizabeth Scalia, the Anchoress and Oblate Benedictine (tertiary):

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/07/06/why-not-beautiful-churches/

It`s also got a link to another Patheos blogger, the Crescat, who comments also on the situation.  Still, read the full article. I take from it, the first two and last paragraphs. They say it all:

"One of my cousins is a Capuchin priest. He has worked very closely with the very poor and disadvantaged for decades, and he bristles when people talk about “frivolous beauty” or “liturgical pomp”, and when they declare that beautiful things should be stripped down and sold for the poor. “You help the poor by being with them, living and working with them; being one with them, because one of the biggest needs of the poor is the reception of a simple message: ‘You’re as important as anyone; you are loved and loveable.’ You don’t send that message by making the world uglier for them.”


Sell everything in a church, strip it down and you buy some temporary assistance; then the people who sold all that sinful, frivolous beauty go back home, feeling pretty good about themselves and all the ‘help’ they gave to ‘the poor.’ But when the money runs out — and my cousin says money running out is one of the few things you can bank on — then for the poor who remain, “it’s back to business as usual, but with nothing beautiful for them, anywhere ....”


``And for future generations of common, ordinary people — sometimes very poor people, what do the beautiful churches do for them? What does beauty do for any of us? It gives us pleasure; it helps us to dream; it stirs the imagination; it consoles; it reminds us that of all creatures, human beings are invested with a spark from the Creator; it gets us wondering — all of us, rich or poor, privileged or struggling — what potential conflagration of beauty might yet be lit from from our own small, individual sparks``[No matter how vile and dark and 'snuffed' out they may appear externally, or even internally due to sin].


Pax, YCRCM.