Saturday, March 28, 2015

FINALLY AN ARTICLE ON SEX ABUSE THAT IS FAIR AND BALANCED AND EXPOSES THE UGLY TRUTH

 The way the liberal media, i.e. New York Times which owned the Boston Globe went after the Catholic Church and reported on the crimes of priests and bishops would make one think that sex abuse is something isolated to the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church was the one hiding it.

While I do not disagree with reporting this huge story in the Catholic Church, I think it is safe to assume that much of the reporting was done in order to undermine the Church because of the hot button issues that liberals fear the Church has too much influence, namely on artificial contraception and abortion, same sex marriage and sexual ethics in general, euthanasia and other issues concerning the manipulation of life. But make no mistake, the Church's stance on birth control and same sex marriage is something that liberal progressives want to change or snuff out.

Thus the liberal press gives a pass to the sex abuse scandals in Hollywood. Note how they treated Michael Jackson and other celebrities accused of such crimes. Note how there is no investigative reporting of other churches, synagogues, temples, places of religion and the biggest news story in this ugly chapter on public schools, their administrators and teachers.

Thus with this in mind, here is a very good article from Catholic365.com that exposes the truth!

 Catholic Sex Scandals: Media Double Standards vs. Statistics

By Dave Armstrong
3/27/2015

Friday, March 27, 2015

TIME CAPSULE: A 1970'S DOCUMENTARY THAT WE CAN WATCH WITH 20/20 HINDSIGHT

In the heady days of the so-called post-Vatican II renewal, especially that of religious life, most religious orders actually thought that what they were doing would secure their survival and that they were actually renewing themselves as Vatican II wanted. It was done in good faith.

Much of it was also done in bad faith and a reverse misogyny, women religious who hate men who are in authority.  This was the greatest error of the renewal, allowing men-haters in religious life to rise to power and cut themselves off from the Magisterium.

The clericalism of these progressive sisters is found in their touting of their academic credentials and how much smarter they are than anyone else especially the bad old men in Rome. 

But even in the late 1960's and early 70's there were those who had serious misgivings. We can't undo history, but we can learn from it especially with 20/20 hindsight!



Today, though, there is hope. These come from congregations of religious women who want to turn the tide. The ones that don't want to turn the tide are dying out. It is only a matter of time when religious life will return to what it once once and what Rome desires as well as the people of God!

IS IT HERETICAL TO BELIEVE THAT GOD CAN ANNIHILATE A HUMAN PERSON'S IMMORTAL SOUL?

Is there such a thing as an immortal human soul, immortal independent of God?


In a supposed interview, Pope Francis has supposedly said the following concerning hell:

Scalfari: What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how? 

The response of Francis is distinct and clear (netta e chiara): there is no punishment, but the destruction/annihilation of that soul. [The Italian word is annullamento, literally, "turned into nothing", meaning here the same as the more usual Italian word for annihilation, annientamento]

 All the others will participate in the beatitude of living in the presence of the Father. The souls that are destroyed/annihilated will not take part in that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is finished. And this is the motivation of the Church’s missionary activity: to save the lost. And it is also the reason why Francis is a Jesuit to the end.”

Is what Pope Francis supposedly said heretical or not? Keep in mind that an interview with an atheist who then reports the interview from his memory is not a magisterial teaching. It is an opinion of  Jorge Bergoglio as Jorge Bergoglio. Keep in mind that when Pope Benedict wrote his trilogy on Jesus he stated that theologians were free to critique and disagree with some aspects of his writings, but of course in an academic way. So popes can have opinions to which we may agree or disagree but we should be able to back up our negative critique with academic prudence.

I was taught, maybe heretically, I am not sure, that if God ceased even to think about us we would cease to exist. It is only through the power of God that we are. This seems to imply to me that we can be annihilated in body and soul!

But I was also taught that we are created with an immortal soul. Is that true? Or can God annihilate the immortal soul of a mortal being? Certainly this is true if God is all powerful, which of course He is!

Thus what wiggle room does Pope Francis and any Catholic have in describing what hell actually is? It seems to me that there are no dogmatic descriptions of hell that are considered infallibly defined. Correct me if I am wrong.

For example, I believe that the Church teaches about the existence of hell, but the Church has never taught infallibly that any human soul actually exists there, although this is true in the realm of the theoretical. The Church does teach that Satan and the other fallen angels dwell in hell. But they are angels not humans.

A Catholic certainly can embrace the theological construct that an immortal soul condemned by God to hell suffers punishment and it is tortuous and could involve flames. But a Catholic could also believe in the torture and flames in figurative way that the immortal soul in hell experiences an absence of God by choice just as the soul did in life. The torture and flames symbolize the eternal knowledge that one has freely chosen to cut oneself off from God and reaps the fruit of their misdeeds and mortal sins. The immortal soul actually exists in hell and has knowledge.

But if what Pope Francis believes as is reported by an atheist, that the immortal soul isn't immortal after all that God can annihilate the immortal soul and cause it to cease to exist, wouldn't this be hell too? The hell is that one is gone, completely, body and soul and has absolutely no existence of immortality even in hell, now for the soul and at the Final Judgement in the here after with their body raised from the clay of the earth.

Is it heretical to believe the soul can be annihilated by God and thus in the Final Judgement and the resurrection of the dead, only the dead bodies that have souls in heaven will be raised from the clay of the earth and fashioned after the Glorified Body of our Savior and joined to their immortal soul in heaven?

BURNING IN HELL? IS IT POSSIBLE?


Recently a commentary in the Macon Telegraph questioned priests/ministers who preach hell and and scare small children to death. Its premise is that there really isn't any hell. I suspect the person who wrote the commentary is a practicing agnostic. He is an ex-priest and non-practicing Catholic but loves pontificating on all things Catholic about that which he likes (from the 1960's) or dislikes from almost every other period including our own time. But that is besides the point. His commentary provoked this letter to the editor:

[A] recent column entitled “The little ledge in hell” in which he chastised ministers who preach eternal fire and brimstone for nonbelievers. I well remember as a young boy many long-winded sermons in the Baptist Church, especially during revival when each message got hotter and hotter as the week progressed. By closing night the church pews were sizzling like a hot cooking stove for those “lost in sin,” and many waded into the baptismal pool to escape the heat of a misguided Elmer Gantry.

Indeed such preaching scars young children and that should be grounds for child abuse charges. Anyone subscribing to the belief that our God of the universe is so narcissistic he would condemn one of his own to an eternal pit of fire for any reason whatsoever should use his tithing dollars to buy psychiatric help.

Is there a hell? The upper-middle class person who wrote the letter to the editor doesn't seem to think so. It is said too, that Pope Francis told an atheist that hell is annihilation, the complete death of the soul. In my way of thinking this thought is nicer than burning in hell for eternity, knowing what you are missing because of your full consent of the will choices throughout life to live as though God does not exist or it doesn't matter how one lives one's life because nothing matters after death.There is either nothingness or bliss.  Some see Pope Francis' point of view, if it is what he actually said to the atheist, as heretical. I see it as merciful but maybe not the full truth. 

But let's talk about the hell of this life. God doesn't prevent it either. Think of the 150 souls on the passenger jet from Germany who were murdered by their co-pilot and the horror they knew for a couple of minutes as the jet inched toward the alps in plain view!

Think about the hell of drug addicts and others doomed to a life on the streets.

Think about those who are murdered in the most heinous ways.

Think about the life long sufferings of people with chronic diseases and poverty.

Think about those sentenced to life in prison or living on death row.

God doesn't prevent any of these types of earthly hells.

We have three options. Atheism in the face of suffering and hell on earth that is completely hopeless about this life and the next.

Agnosticism that admits one really doesn't know and doesn't have any answers nor any hope either especially about the afterlife.

Or the Christian who hopes for a better world through God's grace and believes that the God created us with free will and the grace to choose God over Satan, to chose life over death and to find hope and meaning through suffering and death.

God  allows us the choice but assures us the grace to go the heaven if only we receive and use His gifts of faith, hope and love!  I prefer the Christian way of life and belief over the cynical agnostics' or atheists' way of life and belief! Give me Jesus!

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2015/03/27/3662391/this-is-viewpoints-for-friday.html#storylink=cpy

Thursday, March 26, 2015

TELLING IT LIKE IT IS, BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS, IS IT ON BEHALF OF THE POPE OR NOT?

Cardinal Muller tells it like it is and with such clarity. There is no ambiguity that leads to being disoriented, bewildered, perplexed unclear, confused, unsure or lost! Oh, that this would be the case once again in the Church from the top down.  I copy the following from Rorate Caeli:

On Marriage and Bishops' Conferences, Cardinal Müller teaches Cardinal Marx the true Catholic lesson

Excerpt of interview granted by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, to French weekly Famille Chrétienne.

[FC:] In a book of conversations on the family [The Hope of the Family, Ignatius Press; La speranza della famiglia, Edizioni Ares], recently published in Italy and in the United States, you encourage Christians to, "choose the prophetic boldness of martyrdom." Why?

[Müller:] The Church is not a philanthopic organization. To say that we respect the opinions of all, that we wish for the good of all, is not enough. To present the Gospel as a simple therapeutic message is not very hard, but it does not respond to the demands of Jesus. “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me," Jesus says. The first aposltes, the Fathers of the Church, the great bishops in the History of the Church very often sailed against opposing winds. How could it be any different for us?

[FC:] Could certain doctrinal or disciplinary decisions on marriage and family be delegated to the episcopal conferences?


[Müller]It is an absolutely anti-Catholic idea that does not respect the Catholicity of the Church. Episcopal conferences have authority on certain matters, but they are not a magisterium beside the Magisterium, without the Pope and without communion with all bishops.
[FC:] Recently, a German bishop [Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich and Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference] said that the episcopal conference that he chairs is not a "branch of Rome." What do you think of this?

[Müller:] An episcopal conference is not a particular council, even less so an ecumenical council. The president of an episcopal conference is nothing more than a technical moderator, and he does not have any particular magisterial authority due to this title. Hearing that an episcopal conference is not a "branch of Rome" gives me the occasion to recall that dioceses are not the branches of the secretariat of a bishops' conference either, nor of the diocese whose bishop presides over the episcopal conference. This kind of attitude risks in fact the reawakening of a certain polarization between the local Churches and the Church universal, out of date since the Vatican I and Vatican II councils. The Church is not a sum of national churches, whose presidents would vote to elect their chief on the universal level.


Wednesday, March 25, 2015

THE NUNS' STORY, 1962 AND 2015

This is a nice piece from 1962 and one for the archives!

 And then we have this in 1965! UGH!

And this was this past Saturday, 2015!

IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT THE KNEELING, SITTING AND STANDING GUIDELINES FOR THE LAITY AT THE EF MASS BE MORE LIKE THE OF MASS?


Okay, this is a pet peeve of mine. I don't like the different standards for kneeling, standing and sitting for the EF Mass, with the Low Mass having one set of standards and the High Mass another. I think this is an American invention as we like to tell the laity what to do in the pews.

Also, I think there is entirely too much kneeling for the EF Low Mass. You even kneel for the readings! I remember this as a child and not fondly. I remember how tired people got and how they did a butt-kneel. Has anyone seen this today in an EF Mass, a butt-kneel? It was very, very common in the bad old days prior to Vatican II. I did too, you just leaned back and you were kneeling an let your butt rest on the edge of pew. Nice no? NOT!

Because the EF Mass is the red-headed step daughter of the Church, most bishops' conferences don't pay any attention to it. Maybe this is good. I don't think so. Why can't they decree that the standing, sitting and kneeling of the EF Mass be more like that which is a part of the OF Mass. Just wondering.

Here are my suggestions for the EF Mass no matter if high, low or anywhere in between:

Stand for the entrance.

Kneel for the PATFOTHA

Stand for the Kyrie, Gloria, Collect

Sit for the First reading and Gradual/tract

Stand for the Gospel

Sit for the homily

Stand for the Credo

Sit for the Offertory Antiphon and Offertory

Stand for the Orate Fratres

Stand for the Secret, Preface

Kneel for the Sanctus and Canon

Stand for the Pater Noster

Remain standing through the Agnus Dei

Kneel after the Agnus Dei

Sit during the abultions and Communion antiphon

Stand for the Prayer after Communion

Stand for the Ite Missa Est

Kneel for the Placeat and Blessing

Stand for the Last Gospel




THIS SHOULD BE A UNIVERSAL NORM! OH, WAIT, I THINK IT IS!

More bishops and priests need to emphasize these universal norms concerning Holy Communion. Thanks to the southern priest in Alabama who placed this on his blog,
  • Father B. Jerabek, J.C.L.

    Birmingham, Alabama — formerly Rome, Italy

Inspiring Episcopal Leadership on the Eucharist

I was recently pleased to come across a decree issued by the Archbishop of Ferrara, Italy, Most Rev. Luigi Negri, who is an impressive leader in the Italian church. This bishop takes seriously his duty to safeguard the Holy Eucharist in his local church, and so, in this decree, summarizes the relevant norms from the various sources of Church law and also issues some norms of his own. This document impressed me so much that I translated the entire thing and share it with you here. (My source for the original Italian doc.)
Archbishop Luigi Negri
Archbishop Luigi Negri
Just take a look at this. The archbishop directs that in all the churches of his archdiocese, the following statement should be read before the distribution of Holy Communion:
THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE LORD IN THE HAND SHOULD DO SO WITH DEVOTION, THEY SHOULD BE CAREFUL NOT TO LOSE ANY PARTICLE, AND THEY SHOULD CONSUME THE HOST RIGHT AWAY IN FRONT OF THE MINISTER.
THE FAITHFUL ARE REMINDED THAT COMMUNION IS RECEIVED KNEELING OR STANDING; IN THIS LAST CASE IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT, BEFORE RECEIVING THE SACRAMENT, THE FAITHFUL SHOULD MAKE THE APPROPRIATE GESTURE OF REVERENCE, AT LEAST BOWING THE HEAD.
REMEMBER ALSO THAT THOSE WHO INTEND TO RECEIVE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST IN COMMUNION MUST BE IN THE PROPER CONDITION TO BE ABLE TO DO SO:
- THEY MUST KNOW THAT THEY ARE RECEIVING THE LORD JESUS, WHO IS PRESENT BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY;
- THEY MUST NOT BE IMPEDED BY CANON LAW;
- THEY MUST NOT BE IN THE STATE OF MORTAL SIN, SINCE, IN SUCH A CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO RECEIVE ABSOLUTION BEFOREHAND IN THE SACRAMENT OF CONFESSION.
The decree also covers things like the use of the communion plate (paten) and altar bells – and more. There’s at least one thing that might not make sense to American readers (the thing about additional tables for First Communion – this may be more of an “Italian problem”), but overall I think that much of this decree will be inspiring and edifying. Click the following icon to download it:
Click icon to download.
Click icon to download.

While it has no binding force outside the Archdiocese of Ferrara-Comacchio, in any case it may instruct some, edify others, and perhaps even inspire some priests and/or bishops to exercise similar leadership on a parish or diocesan level.

The Most Holy Eucharist is the Church’s greatest treasure, and in times like these when belief in the Real Presence seems to be quite weak in some areas, and where shocking abuses of the Blessed Sacrament seem to be occurring with a startling regularity, such episcopal leadership is most opportune and, indeed, very inspiring.

Thank you, Archbishop Negri!
English translation of the decree by Rev. Bryan W. Jerabek, J.C.L.

ONE WOULD THINK THAT THE SOLEMNITY OF THE ANNUNCIATION OF OUR LORD WOULD BE A HOLY DAY OF OBLIGATION OF THE HIGHEST ORDER AND A HOLIDAY TO RIVAL CHRISTMAS AND EASTER!

Don't forget to genuflect (not a bow) at today's Mass during the Credo and "the Word became Incarnate of the Blessed Virgin Mary...and also during the recitation of the Angelus!

I have never figured out why the Solemnity of the Annunciation isn't a Holy Day of Obligation throughout the world and without exception. Without our Blessed Mother's "fiat" to conceive in her sacred womb the Savior of the World, The Word Made Flesh, there would be no Christmas, no Easter and no eternal life in heaven.

Why oh why is this feast so obscure in the Church and world? Really, I want to know!

Did you receive your Hallmark Annunciation Greeting card from family and friends yet? Here are a few of my favorite which I think capture the attitude of our Blessed Mother upon the angel's arrival and his peculiar proclamation to which she gives her fiat!



A Blessed Annunciation to all and to all a good night!  Goodnight! that this feast isn't better known and celebrated!

POPE FRANCIS CALL FOR PRAYER AND AN END TO CHIACCHIERARE CONCERING THE UPCOMING SYNOD ON THE FAMILY


It does not take a clairvoyant like myself to predict that the upcoming synod on the family will be a day for the vultures in the liberal press, be it Catholic or secular, to promote division and discord in the Church. It happened with the synod process last year and it is accelerating this year.

I think Pope Francis may be quite aware of the polarization occurring in the Church under his watch. We know that Pope Francis has a disdain for Cardinal Burke having demoted him. Could Pope Francis be referring to yet another interview Cardinal Burke has given (both His Holiness and His Eminence are tied with the number of interviews they give)?

LifeSiteNews: Since the extraordinary synod on the family, we have entered a period of uncertainty and confusion over several “hot-button” issues: communion for divorced and “remarried” couples, a change of attitude towards homosexual unions and an apparent relaxing of attitudes towards non-married couples. Does your Eminence think that this confusion is already producing adverse effects among Catholics?

Cardinal Burke: Most certainly, it is. I hear it myself: I hear it from Catholics, I hear it from bishops. People are claiming now, for instance, that the Church has changed her teaching with regard to sexual relations outside of marriage, with regard to the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts. Or people who are within irregular matrimonial unions are demanding to receive Holy Communion, claiming that this is the will of the Holy Father. And we have astounding situations, like the declarations of the bishop of Antwerp with regard to homosexual acts, which go undisciplined, and so we can see that this confusion is spreading, really, in an alarming way.

Thus at this morning's General Audience in a rain soaked Saint Peter's Square, the Holy Father, Pope Francis, Bishop of Rome, asked for prayers for the upcoming synod on the family in October. He is asking popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, relgious and lay faithful to pray and His Holiness has a written prayer for us to recite.

But this is what the Holy Father said this morning:

  I would like for this prayer, and the whole Synod journey, to be animated by the compassion of the Good Shepherd for His flock, especially for persons and families that, for different reasons, are “troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd” (Mt 9:36). So, sustained and animated by the grace of God, the Church can be ever more committed, and ever more united, in the witness of the truth of the love of God and of His mercy for the families of the world, excluding none, whether within or outside the flock. 

I ask you, please, to not neglect your prayer. All of us – the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, priests, religious, lay faithful – we are all called to pray for the Synod. There is need of this, not of chatter! (chiacchierare) I also invite those who feel far away, or who are not accustomed to do so, to pray. This prayer for the Synod on the Family is for the good of everyone.

Here is the prayer:

Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
In you we contemplate
The splendour of true love,
We turn to you with confidence.


Holy Family of Nazareth,
Make our families, also,
Places of communion and cenacles of prayer,
Authentic schools of the Gospel,
And little domestic Churches.

Holy Family of Nazareth
May our families never more experience
Violence, isolation, and division:
May anyone who was wounded or scandalized
Rapidly experience consolation and healing.

Holy Family of Nazareth,
May the upcoming Synod of Bishops
Re-awaken in all an awareness
Of the sacred character and inviolability of the family,
Its beauty in the project of God.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
Hear and answer our prayer. Amen.

(Unofficial translation)

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

POINTS FOR LITURGICAL DISCUSSION ON THE CONVERGENCE OF THE TWO FORMS OF THE ONE LATIN RITE ACCORDING TO VATICAN II


Homework: Read & Discuss:

The two [points of view] most often heard are the lack of obedience to the Council which reformed the liturgical books and the rupturing of unity which must necessarily follow, if one allows other different liturgical forms to continue. It is relatively easy to refute in theory these two arguments. The Council itself did not reform the liturgical books but rather ordered their revision. To that end it laid down some fundamental rules.

Primarily the Council defined what liturgy is and this definition gives valid criteria for every liturgical celebration. If one wishes to scorn these essential rules and to put aside the normae generales which are bound at numbers 34 to 36 of the Constitution "De Sacra Liturgia", then one violates obedience to the Council! One must judge liturgical celebrations, whether they be according to the old or the new liturgical books, based on these criteria. 

An average Christian without special liturgical formation would be hard pressed to distinguish a Sung Mass in Latin according to the Old Missal from a Sung Mass in Latin celebrated according to the New Missal. The difference, by contrast, can be enormous between a liturgy faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI and the concrete forms and celebrations in the vernacular with all the possible freedom and creativity! 

Firstly, one judges the two liturgical forms by their exterior elements and arrives at the conclusion that there are two fundamentally different outlooks. That the new liturgy be celebrated in the vernacular, facing the congregation and that there be great leeway for creativity and the active exercise of roles by the laity, is considered essential by the average Christian. On the other hand, it is deemed essential that the old liturgy be in Latin, the priest face the altar, that the rite be strictly controlled and that the faithful follow the Mass by praying privately without having an active role. From this view appearances and not what the liturgy itself considers important, are essential for a liturgy. One must realize that the faithful understand the liturgy from visible concrete forms and that they are spiritually impregnated by them and that the faithful do not penetrate easily the depths of the liturgy.

This is why it is so important to obey the essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which I cited above, even if one celebrates according to the Ancient Missal. At the moment when this liturgy truly touches the faithful by its beauty and depth, then it will be alive and there will be no irreconcilable opposition with the new liturgy - provided that these criteria are truly applied as the Council wished.

Monday, March 23, 2015

KNEELING AT THE ALTAR RAILING FOR HOLY COMMUNION: EVEN RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION IN THE HAND LOOKS REVERENT!




As you know, our 12:10 PM Mass, a very Ordinary Form Mass that is exactly like our other Masses in the vernacular and in chants/hymns, is different in two ways only. Its Liturgy of the Eucharist for three years now is celebrated ad orientem (which nary a protest) and for the past month with Holy Communion distributed by the celebrant and the deacon at our newly restored altar railing.

I've already mentioned that no one is forced to kneel at the railing and that I've said each Sunday that one may stand at the altar railing to receive and either standing or kneeling one may receive Holy Communion on the tongue or hand.

Some would say that allowing the communicant to choose to stand or kneel brings a divisiveness into the liturgical assembly of that particular Mass and into the diocese which doesn't have other parishes that allow this option. I would have to ask the question of these naysayers if they would say the same thing about those who choose to receive on the tongue compared to those who choose to receive in the hand. And the same question concerning the common chalice and those who choose it and those who don't? Is there a flaw in logic here?

But let's get back to the altar railing and Holy Communion received in the traditional manner of using an altar railing. Everyone except for those who really can't kneel easily kneels. For those who kneel on my side where I distribute Holy Communion the majority are receiving on the hand.

This is my sacred observation about what is happening at our altar railing at communion time:

1. Receiving at the altar railing is less rushed for the communicant, who often is kneeling for a bit of time before the priest gets to them and then they don't need to leave immediately, they can pause in meditation/thanksgiving, make the Sign of the Cross and then depart in an unhurried way. Compare this to the communicant in constant motion from the time they depart the pew to approaching the minister of Holy Communion, receiving, moving and returning immediately to their pew. Who in the world thought this is a better method of receiving Holy Communion than kneeling at an altar railing when standing was mandated for the OF Mass?

2. Those who choose to receive in the hand do so more deliberately and remain at the railing until they place the host reverently in their mouth, they then pause in meditation and thanksgiving before departing. Even children receiving in hand do this. I know every priest out there who distributes Holy Communion to small hands know that their hands are a moving target when they come forward and remain in motion and walk off with the host in their hand until they pop it into their mouth.  Kneeling at the railing with the communicant remaining still makes Holy Communion in the hand even look reverent!

3. It takes less time for a priest and deacon (only two distributing Holy Communion) to distribute Holy Communion compared to having four (two Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion) distributing Holy Communion at four stationary  Communion stations. Yes, the priest and deacon get a workout going back and forth along the altar railing and yes they are moving fast to distribute, but the ironic paradox is that it is much slower and deliberate for the communicant who receives in the most unrushed manner! This is a mystery!

Thank Pope Benedict XVI for taking the stigma away from kneeling for Holy Communion by doing two things:
 1. allowing the more liberal celebration of the EF Mass where kneeling for Holy Communion at an altar railing is the norm.

 2. for distributing Holy Communion in the OF Mass to kneeling communicants.

Those who demanded that standing is better than kneeling up until Pope Benedict were fascists in demanding that everyone stand and would mock in the most cynical way those who would kneel and would see to it that a priest who allowed kneeling would be marginalized and ridiculed. Thus one sees the way of operating of liturgical progressives who in actuality are extremely narrow minded when in comes to the celebration of the Mass.