It is utterly ironic to see the Evil Clown celebrate Mass for Pentecost. It must be clear to everyone that the “new Pentecost” peddled about is exactly the contrary of the real Pentecost.
The main message a Catholic gets of Pentecost is that of the Holy Ghost descending on the Apostles to help them to more fully understand and fearlessly defend the Truth. There can be no contradiction whatsoever with the Father and the Son. If it were so, Christianity would be the mockery of a religion, even more absurd than the cult of the Mohammedans.
However, the insistence with which Francis talks of a kind of new, revolutionary inspiration from the Holy Ghost is exactly the contrary of what Pentecost was. It is the obvious, open denial of the truth in favour of an “alternative” one, allegedly revealed to Francis and his in order to get rid of the mistake the Holy Ghost and with him Christianity as a whole believed since the very start. The problem with that is that by definition, truth can have no alternatives. Another problem with that is that too many so I-disant “c”atholics are too dumb to understand it or too rotten to admit it.
Francis wants to impose a de facto new religion. The only way to even try this is to give to the new religion the Nihil Obstat of the old one. “The Holy Ghost has changed his mind, and I am the one to tell you because I am in direct contact with Him”, is the clear message.
I am awfully sorry for the Evil Clown, but I will keep believing in the Pentecost of old; the one, I mean, which makes Francis a heretic and a liar, besides an idiot and an evil clown.
Father Z has a rather astonishing post about Paul VI discovering the abolition of the Octave of Pentecost, and the subsequent duty to wear green instead of red vestments, on the very morning of the fact.
One does not know whether to pity or despise more a man who, whilst in charge as Pope, is so disinterested in liturgical matters that he must be informed on the very morning of momentous liturgical changes he has himself approved. The show of culpable dereliction of duty and outright incompetence revealed by the episode is quite breathtaking.
Possibly even worse, though, is the man’s reaction at the discovery.
He weeps. And does nothing.
Paul VI was certainly conscious of being the Pope. He must have known, then, that the powers of a Pope go far beyond weeping; they extend, in actual fact, to reigning.
A Pope upset enough at the discovery of a liturgical opprobrium that he even weeps about it, but then does nothing about it albeit it is perfectly in his powers to act, shows a kind or ineptitude and a lack of resoluteness, an absence of the most basic qualities required in a Pope, that one can only see as do disgracefully unmanly as to border on sheer effeminacy.
Mind, I was never sold on the one of Paul VI’s homosexuality. It seems not realistic to me that Paul VI may have been homosexual without the facts leaking out with such self-evident force as to become a huge weapon in the hands of those who hate the Church, from common atheists to activist Communists to militant sodomites, to Protestants of all flavours.
But truly, reading episodes like the one above one understands how the suspicion could arise. This is not a worthy Successor of Peter, but a weeping girl so out of his depth that the evil people around him can do whatever they please undisturbed, and not even fearful of any of their changes being nullified by the Pope.
It is, to me, the source of ever renewed amusement that a Pope who was decent once in fifteen year of pontificate should by some be considered a sort of hero who stood firm like a rock on the impact of a huge wave of change.
The contrary is the case. Pope Paul stood like a frightened little girl in the midst of a marauding pack of Hell’s Angels bikers; pretty much always, with one notable exception; and remaining, as the little frightened girl, so shocked at the reaction to Humanae Vitae that he did not write any other encyclical letter for the following eleven or so years of his pontificate.
Pope Paul VI not only all but abdicated his social and political role, but he also oversaw the slow destruction of the church whilst doing pretty much nothing else but weep.
He will be beatified in October.
Such is the post conciliar church.
You may want to read here at Insight Scoop some interesting reflections about Pentecost. The links between the Old and New Testament are very neatly presented, as is the reference to the voice of God being, always in the Old Testament, associated with fire.
This could be the starting point of some short reflections about Pentecost. How many Catholics know what Pentecost is? Yes, the churchgoers are properly instructed in this matter and all of them would – I hope – answer without hesitation if asked. But we are talking of 20% of the Catholic population.
What do the others know about Pentecost? Have you tried a small mini-poll among your non-churchgoing friends? You might be surprised!
I hate quoting Martin Luther, but I must admit that the image of the good tree bearing good fruit is – if not abused theologically – a very powerful and efficacious one.
For one and a half generation we have been surrounded by clergy more worried with spreading social issues among the general public, than sound Catholicism. When the non-churchgoing Catholic hears about Catholicism, it will generally be on radio and tv, most often from non-Catholic sources. It would be, then, particularly important that the Catholic clergy tries to approach the mass media with the Catholic message, rather than doubling politicians’ issues.
If the press agencies were, on occasion of all important religious festivities, bombarded with press releases of bishops clearly centered on the religious feast at hand, no doubt some press agency would relaunch them and from there they would find echo in the mass media, even if only as an excuse for the wrong kind of debate. Similarly, if the bishops started making clear to the media outlets that they will only speak to them if the interview/program/initiative allows them to properly handle religious issues, there would certainly be those among the journalists ready to recognise a need among the public and deal with those issues. Little by little, the message would be out among non-churchgoers, and the general public would be regularly reminded of a world that is not dominated by social instances, but of something much more important: their own path to salvation.
We can clearly see from historical sources that exactly this used to be the case. The Church was very attentive to go to the media for the right reasons. Look at this and notice how the Church was clearly bent on reaching the faithful – and the non faithful – in their cinema seats, all over the country.
After Vatican II, this assertive communication of the Catholic message outside of the Church has been greatly lessened. Nowadays the Catholic clergy is too often Catholic from the pulpit, but they become only a pale, vaguely religious “social presence” when outside of the church, seemingly uninterested in promoting and spreading the Catholic message among non Catholics and non churchgoers. The priest as vehicle of Catholic values has become, once outside the church, the priest as the defender of social justice or, even, the environment.
Can we honestly say that the tree of Vatican II is bearing good fruit? Can we, comparing with two generations ago (many of us still vividly remember people born at the end of the last XIX century, and have through them a clear idea of how the world was organised then), honestly say that feasts like Pentecost are now better appreciated than this used to be the case? Can we say that there is not enough discussion about social justice so that we need our bishop to comment on the government’s policy? Can we say that there is enough discussion about Pentecost, and about salvation, so that there is no need for the clergy to talk to the public about them?
Without aggressive spreading of a Catholic message, Pentecost will be vastly ignored by the media and its message will therefore fail to reach – even if only as foot note, or as question mark – the great, non-churchgoing or non-Christian public.
The tree of Vatican II is giving no fruit.
Messa In Latino invites the faithful Catholics to pray for the full reconciliation between the FSSPX and Rome.
After consultation with priests collaborating with the site, the following prayer has been published:
V/.Veni, Sancte Spiritus,
R/. Reple tuorum corda fidelium, et tui amoris in eis ignem accende.
V./ Emitte Spiritum tuum et creabuntur;
R./ Et renovabis faciem terrae.
Deus, qui corda fidelium Sancti Spiritus illustratione docuisti, da nobis in eodem Spiritu recta sapere, et de eius semper consolatione gaudere. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
My unworthy translation:
V. Come, Holy Ghost,
R. Fill the heart of your faithful, and kindle in them the fire of your love;
V. Send your Spirit, and it will be a new creation;
R. And you will renovate the face of the earth.
Let us pray
O Lord, who with the light of the Holy Ghost instruct the faithful, grant us to taste, through the same Spirit, what is right* and to always enjoy His comfort. For Christ our Lord. Amen.
The prayer should be recited between Pentecost Sunday and Trinity Sunday.
Those who recite the Rosary daily are asked to offer the rosary for this intention.
Priests are asked to add this to their intention during Mass.
* the site’s italian translation of recta is given with “la vera sapienza”, “the true wisdom”.
Soon the Feast of Ascension will be upon us; it will be followed, soon after, by Pentecost.
When I used to live in Germany, these were both public feast days. Actually, at Pentecost the festivity was the following day.
I never can understand when even people who consider themselves religious manage to separate the calendar from their religious convictions. Religion is not a private matter, something that you remember only when you are closed in your own bedroom and pray. Religion is very much a public matter, and Christianity, with its inherent claim to evangelisation and expansion, is the most public matter of them all.
It is true that Christians would celebrate Christmas even if it wasn’t a public festivity; but it is also true that when a Christian festivity is a feast day the following happens:
1) the Christian character of a country is reaffirmed;
2) Christianity is forcefully put to the attention of non-Christians;
3) the Christian calendar moulds collective identity, even for non-churchgoers.
The idea that it be all right for Christians to celebrate, say, Labour Day or those insipid, utterly stupid, PC-stinking “bank holidays” we have here in the UK without pushing for their substitution with Christian holidays is, in my eyes, not very Christian. In my opinion, public feast days on, at the very least, Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Domini and Assumption should be in the private list of grievances of every UK Catholic, and the first two in that of every Christian. The Catholic – and not only Catholic – hierarchy should push for the recognition of at least the first two in lieu of those stupid, politically correct, tofu-like “bank holidays” or, in case and when necessary, through the reduction of statutory holiday rights. They might, admittedly, not succeed in this generation, but their assertiveness would put Christianity high on the agenda and force the country to think about what it want to be, and what price it would pay if the wrong decision is taken.
These days, middle ways are difficult to maintain and – as I have heard saying – he who stays in the middle of the road risks ending up under a truck. Cue the calls for the abolition of Christmas as a festivity, or the renaming of Christmas markets as “winter lights” – or such bollocks – already seen all over England.
Christianity can’t be protected by half, and neutrality is of no use. You either fight for the Christian values of your country, or you will be forced in a rearguard battle by the ever complaining, now more and more aggressive atheists.
In countries like Italy – where the situation is not ideal, either – every city has a feast day on the day of his patron saint. Think of what this means: that the city puts itself under the protection of a saint, and that this is made clearly visible as a social, and not merely religious, event.
Feast days alone will, admittedly, not cause a country to become more Christian. But by clearly marking the Christian ground, they will at least make it more difficult for it to become less Christian, and will be a public call to conversion in times of licence and unbelief.
Christianity is not a private matter.