Sixth Sunday After Pentecost

The Lord is the strength of His people, and the protector of the salvation of His anointed: save, O Lord, Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance, and rule them for ever. -- (Ps. 27. 1). Unto Thee will I cry, O Lord: O my God, be not Thou silent to me, lest if Thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit. V.: Glory to the Father . . . -- The Lord is the strength of His people . . .

COLLECT.--O God of hosts, to whom all that is best doth belong, graft in our hearts the love of Thy Name, and grant us an increase of religion: that Thou mayest foster what is good, and with tender zeal mayest guard what Thou hast fostered. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth . . .

EPISTLE ¤ Romans 6. 3-11
Lesson from the Epistle of Blessed Paul the Apostle to the Romans.
[Dead through sin, we have been plunged and buried with Jesus in the baptismal water. Christ atoned for our sins, by dying on the Cross, and our old man (our evil nature) was crucified with Him. After the Resurrection Christ walks in a new life; we must also walk in newness of life.]
Brethren, All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized into His death. For we are buried together with Him by baptism unto death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, and that we may serve sin no longer. For he that is dead is justified from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ. Knowing that Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over Him. For in that He died to sin, He died once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God. So do you also reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God; in Christ Jesus our Lord.

GRADUAL:  Ps. 89. 13, 1:
Return, O Lord, a little: and be entreated in favor of Thy servants. V.: Lord, Thou hast been our refuge from generation to generation.
   Alleluia, alleluia. V.(Ps. 30. 2, 3). In Thee, O Lord, I have hoped, let me never be confounded: deliver me in Thy justice, and release me: bow down Thine ear to me, make haste to deliver me. Alleluia.

GOSPEL ¤ Mark 8. 1-9
† Continuation of the holy Gospel according to St. Mark.
[Jesus miraculously feeds four thousand men: He foreshows how He will feed the souls of men by means of the Holy Sacrament -- the True Bread from heaven.]
At that time, when there was a great multitude with Jesus, and they had nothing to eat, calling His disciples together, He saith to them: I have compassion on the multitude, for behold they have now been with Me three days, and have nothing to eat; and if I shall send them away fasting to their home, they will faint in the way: for some of them came from afar off. And His disciples answered Him: From whence can any one fill them here with bread in the wilderness? And He asked them: how many loaves have ye? Who said: Seven. And He commanded the people to sit down on the ground. And taking the seven loaves, giving thanks, He broke and gave to His disciples to set before the people. And they had a few little fishes, and He blessed them, and commanded them to be set before them. And they did eat, and were filled: and they took up that which was left of the fragments, seven baskets: and they that had eaten, were about four thousand: and He sent them away.

OFFERTORY Ps. 16. 5, 6, 7:

Perfect Thou my goings in Thy paths, that my footsteps be not moved: incline Thine ear, and moved: incline Thine ear, and hear my words: show forth Thy wonderful mercies, Thou who savest them that trust in Thee, O Lord.

SECRET.--Be appeased, O Lord, by our humble prayers, and favorably receive the offerings of Thy people: and that the prayers of none be vain, no one petition void, grant, that what we ask faithfully, we may obtain effectually. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost .

It it truly meet and just, right and for our salvation, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto Thee, O holy Lord, Father almighty, everlasting God; Who, together with Thine only-begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one Lord: not in the oneness of a single Person, but in the Trinity of one substance. For what we believe by Thy revelation of Thy glory, the same do we believe of Thy Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without difference or separation. So that in confessing the true and everlasting Godhead, distinction in persons, unity in essence, and equality in majesty may be adored. Which the Angels and Archangels, the Cherubim also and Seraphim do praise: who cease not daily to cry out, with one voice saying:
HOLY, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of Thy glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.
(The Sanctus has been a part of the Mass from the first century AD and its Jewish roots go back even farther. The first part of the chant is based upon Isaiah 6:3 and Daniel 7:10. The second part is based on Mt 21:9. The chant unites our voices with those of the saints and angels in heaven into one song of praise of God.)

COMMUNION:  Ps. 26. 6  I will go round, and offer up in His tabernacle a sacrifice of jubilation; I will sing, and recite a psalm to the Lord.

POSTCOMMUNION.--We have been filled, O Lord, with Thy Gifts: grant we beseech Thee, that we may both be cleansed by their effects, and defended by their aid. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth . . .

Something About Mary

Jamin Hubner on the AOMIN Blog (linked above) wrote:
Just finished reading through White's Mary - Another Redeemer? for the first time. I admit, despite my own experience with Roman Catholicism and its teachings about Mary, it was an eye-opening book. Two quotes from St. Maximillian Kolbe (canonized by Pope John Paul II) were particularly concise in summarizing Rome's absolutely incredible beliefs:

"The third Person of the Blessed Trinity never took flesh; still, our human word "spouse" is far too weak to express the reality of the relationship between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit. We can affirm that she is, in a certain sense, the 'incarnation' of the Holy Spirit." (133)

"The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is the mediatrix of all graces given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose."
White asks the obvious and necessary question in response: "Who can hold the Bible to be the authoritative Word of God and still believe this?" (134) The answer, of course, is no one.
The personal revelation of someone, even a saint, is not an Article of Faith for the Catholic.  Just because St. Maximillian Colbe explains things this way does not make it a binding belief upon Catholics.  A faithful Catholic MAY see things this way - but it is not necessary.

The underlying TRUTH here is that the Blessed Virgin Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost - that would make her the spouse of the Holy Ghost.  Protestants seem to overreact to such a concept - but it IS quite scriptural!  "And she conceived by the Holy Ghost..." is not a verse they can deny!  Now, speculation that this may be why she dispenses graces - take it or leave it - it is a private revelation.

Casey Anthony and Abortion Comparison

Rush Limbaugh makes an interesting point in an article relating what he said about Casey Anthony and abortion :  click here : regarding the Casey Anthony trial.  He states "They would not care if Casey Anthony had an abortion."  Casey Anthony DID have an abortion - about 2 years after the fact, but the end result was the same.  Rush's attention is pointed toward the mainstream/liberal media - and he makes the same statement I made regarding the parallel between abortion and what happened to Casey Anthony's beautiful little girl.

Rush's transcript from his site: 

Attacking the Vulgate

A quick viewing of several of the non-Catholic blogs I visit from time to time shows a recent attacking of the Latin Vulgate and it makes one think, why attack the Vulgate?  Well, the answer is quite obvious - our detractors seem to be figuring out that THEY are dependent upon the Catholic Church for THEIR Canon of Sacred Scripture!  Their first objection will be that the Catholic and Protestant canons are different - which is true... for the Old Testament, but IDENTICAL for the New Testament!  Therein lies their conundrum.  Prior to the 4th century there were several variants of the New Testament Canon, however IN the 4th century at least three Catholic councils convened (Hippo, Carthage, and Rome) declaring the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture which culminated in St. Jerome's translation of the Old Latin Vulgate under papal order.  From that point forward the Christian Canon remains relatively untouched until the dawning of the Protestant revolt beginning in the 15th and 16th centuries.  For over 1000 years the Latin Vulgate goes essentially unchallenged by Christendom.

Prior to the 4th century, books included in the Christian Canon were The Shepherd of Hermes, The Epistles of Pope St. Clement, The Didache (The Teaching of The Twelve) among others - but these books (including some Gnostic writings) did not make the final editorial inclusion as canonical.

The problem sola scriptura Protestants have here is that Scripture itself does NOT declare exhaustively which books should be canonical and which should not - which is the reason for the flux of the canon for nearly 400 years in the Early Church.  It would be an authority, not apart from Scripture - as this authority is declared BY Scripture, outside the confines of Scripture which would declare the canon.  If Protestantism accepts that the New Testament Canon is without error (infallible) then the concept of Scripture being the sole infallible source for Christianity is refuted right there - for (again) Scripture does not define its own canon - the Church did!

We need to emphasize that the authority of the Church is not something foreign to Scripture!  Not only is infallible authority given to the bishops as a group (Matthew 18:18) but is also given to our first pope, St. Peter, in singularity (Matthew 16:18-19).  Yes, we realize that Protestants irrationally deny this infallibility - but they cannot deny that the authority to bind or loose "whatsoever" they chose to bind or loose is not only bound or loosed on Earth, but also in Heaven.  Now since we would all agree that no error could be bound or loosed in Heaven - then this authority MUST be infallible authority.

So why attack the Latin Vulgate?  The answer is simple, it was the papal commissioned work which presented THE Christian Canon and did so in the 4th century - over 1000 years prior to the dawning of Protestantism.  When Protestantism, primarily Martin Luther, denied PART of the Christian Canon it became necessary to present an alternative authority to the Catholic Church and thus the previously unheard of concept of "sola scriptura" is born, but I digress.  It would be the Latin Vulgate which the Council of Trent would infallibly declare as THE Canon of Sacred Scripture.

Protestantism would rely upon a wholly different authority - and that would be the authority which rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah - and wholly rejected the New Testament as any sort of canon - the Jews.  At the time of Jesus and the Apostles (the "time of enscripturation") the Jews had at least TWO canons (the very terminology of "canon" is relatively foreign to Judaism, I might add).  The Jews had the Palestinian (Hebrew) Canon and the Alexandrian (Greek) Canon.  The Alexandrian Canon includes the Deuterocanonical books (often erroneously called "Apocrypha" by Protestants) and the Palestinian Canon did not.  The Deuterocanonicals were in Greek.  By the time the Jews would settle upon any sort of canon - it would be in the age of Christendom, when the Jews no longer had ANY authority over God's People (His Church).  The Jews, struggling to maintain any sort of identity in the Diaspora (the dispersion of the Jews after the fall of Jerusalem) went with the canon in their Hebrew tongue - the Palestinian Canon whereas Christendom, by this time largely Greek and Latin speaking, went with the Alexandrian Canon.

So while Protestants may CLAIM to rely upon sola scriptura - at the very ROOT of Scripture itself they have relied upon an extra scriptura authority - and a non-Christian, even anti-Christian authority at that!
The bottom line is Protestants rely on the Catholic Church for the Canon of the New Testament.  They can hem and haw all they want and deny this easily seen truth, but they're only fooling themselves.  The FACT is there were several New Testament "canons" prior to the 4th century - but not after the 4th century.  What happened in the 4th century?  As mentioned earlier, three different Catholic councils met AND Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original tongues into Latin, which he did and that became the "Old Latin Vulgate" which is affirmed, infallibly, by the Council of Trent.

Some blogs making recent attacks on the Vulgate and/or Trent's validation of the Vulgate as the version/canon for the Christian Church: (same article as posted to "TurretinFan's" blog)

Addendum, Saturday, July 9, 2011:
Steve Hays of Triablogue (taking his points in reverse order) says:
vii)... Unless it already had a canon, independent of the church, it can’t use Mt 16 to prooftext the papacy. For the canon is supposedly a product of the very church that authorizes the canon. How can the church authorize the canon if the canon must authorize the church?
That's a rather silly argument.  Just because the book, written by a Catholic, refers to the point where Jesus confers infallibility upon our first pope - that does NOT invalidate the Catholic position in the least!  The ONLY point Mr. Hays could POSSIBLY have here is if he contends St. Matthew, and thus Scripture, got it wrong when "Whatsoever you shall bind/loose on Earth shall be bound/loosed in Heaven" (paraphrased a bit) was recorded.  IF that were so then HIS premise of Scripture being the sole infallible source for the Christian has been destroyed - for he would be contending Matthew 16:18-19 is in error.
v) And it’s not just the canon. Catholics also try to prooftext the papacy (among other things) from the church fathers. But where’s the infallible list of church fathers?

vi) Likewise, is there an infallible list of papal encyclicals? And even if there were, how do we know that the listed encyclicals refer to the same encyclicals that happen to go by that name? What if some encyclical by that name is misattributed?

Same thing with church councils. Is there an infallible list of church councils? And even if there were, how do we know what historical gathering that list refers to? How do we connect names on a piece of paper with historical events? The list itself doesn’t pick out the corresponding event. 
When Protestants are losing and/or have lost this debate this is one of their most common arguments/diversions - they can't demonstrate from THEIR OWN INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY an infallible Canon of Sacred Scripture - so they attempt to throw the argument back on Catholics and ask us "Where is your infallible list of (infallible) papal encyclicals?"  Such a ploy is invalid for it is not Catholics who claim to have a SOLE infallible source!  Just because the Church has never assembled an infallible list of infallible papal decrees does not mean she could not!  IF such a list were deemed necessary, she COULD present such a list.  Just because Protestants who have lost a debate demand such a list does not make it necessary for the Church or any Catholic apologist to present one.  The argument is simply a red herring argument, attempting to get the Catholic apologist off the scent/trail of the REAL matter at hand.  The Protestant using such argumentation THINKS they have avoided admitting to their defeat in this debate but in actuality the argument only confirms their defeat - they have lost and are attempting to change the subject.
iv) One traditional line of evidence for the NT canon are patristic attributions. Church fathers attribute certain books to certain authors.

But the Catholic objection to the Protestant canon undercuts that appeal. Before we know that Irenaeus attributed a certain book to the Apostle John, we must know if the book attributed to Irenaeus is authentic. Is there an infallible list of which church fathers wrote which books?
This is really the same argument as above - and I offer the same responses.  1) If Mr. Hays premise were to have any merit, he'd have to be assuming (in his example) that the book attributed to the Apostle John is a) not St. John's writing and/or b) that St. Irenaeus in referring to SCRIPTURE was not referring to the SAME book of St. John which has been included as SCRIPTURE.  Again, Mr. Hays destroys his own premise of sola scriptura IF we were to, for the sake of argument, accept his argumentation here.
2) It is not the Catholic Church which claims to have a SOLE infallible source for the Christian - PROTESTANTS claim this, and they CLAIM the Scriptures are that SOLE SOURCE - but their problem is they cannot infallibly know which books ARE Scripture - because Scripture doesn't tell them!  Yes, Scripture refers to SOME, even MANY other books included in the canon, but NOT ALL!
ii) Suppose the Bible came with a table of contents. An infallible list of the books comprising the Bible. How would a Catholic apologist respond? Would he withdraw his objection? I doubt it. 
iii) However, this merely pushes back the problem which the Catholic posed for himself.
a) Trent has a list of books. Even if (arguendo) the list is infallible, how do we know what the list refers to? How do we infallibly match the books on the list with a corresponding set of books to which the list ostensibly refers? The list itself doesn’t single out a physical book.
After all, different books can go by the same title. Moreover, what if the title is spurious?
b) Trent also mentions the Vulgate, but was there a uniform edition of the Vulgate? No. Was there an official, infallible edition of the Vulgate? No.
So to what edition of the Vulgate was Trent referring?   
The Council of Trent actually states which edition - it is the "Old Latin Vulgate."  That being said, Hays argument is spurious because while the differing "editions" of the Vulgate may have some slight variations in translation, the CANON of the Latin Vulgate regardless of edition REMAINS THE SAME!

As for point "ii)," the Catholic would not "withdraw" his objection if such a table of contents existed - for the objection would not have been raised in the first place!

In topic "i)" Hays refers to RC Sproul's statement, "...the canon is a fallible collection of infallible books," but Hays dismisses this (without even a link) as something he claims to have already addressed and that the Catholic challenge to RC Sproul is "misleading."  Well, I for one believe Sproul's admission is quite telling - but since Hays has not addressed it, neither will I at this time.  Hays claims he "wants to make a different point" and while he actually presents several of them, I have addressed and exposed the fatally flawed nature of each of his points.  

Anarchy Comparisons?

I find it a bit interesting to watch Protestants attempt to defend their anarchist position by comparing their fundamental disagreements between sects of Protestantism to ignorance among Catholics who do not understand a part of the Catholic faith and/or by pointing to dissident Catholics who openly disagree with a point or more within Catholicism.  I stumbled across one such attempt to make precisely that sort of comparison by James Swan on Beggars All...  One of the points which Swan explicitly refers to mentions that another Catholic apologist admits that 70% of Catholics do not have a proper understanding of the Eucharist.
JS wrote: I'm arguing disunity or confusion in Romanists doesn't necessarily refute Romanism. The corollary though is that disunity or confusion doesn't necessarily refute sola scriptura either.

I respond: (Overlooking the indignant slurs of "Romanists" and "Romanism") The problem, James, is that your oversimplification ends up comparing apples to oranges. Yes, both apples and oranges are fruits but you speak of a disunity among Catholics due to a misunderstanding of what the Church really teaches on the Eucharist and compare THAT to the "anarchy" of Protestantism which has differing sects of Protestants in FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT with each other! In short, you make a comparison of Catholic ignorance to Protestant disagreement and the two cannot be compared by one with any amount of integrity.
The point is that all truly faithful Catholics do not willfully disagree with each other on matters of dogma, whereas faithful Protestants do disagree on matters like infant baptism, the number of sacraments and whether or not Holy Communion is a "Real Presence" or mere symbolism, to name but a few which fundamentally divide Protestants.  When Catholic apologists make statements about Protestant anarchy - we compare what we believe Protestantism REALLY TEACHES in the various sects to each other; we do not make comparisons based in say a Lutheran's ignorance to what their sect of Lutheranism really teaches.  Since I have brought up Lutheranism, let me posit as well that I believe most Lutherans would be shocked as to how "Catholic" many of their positions and theological teachings are!

What Swan is defending in his article is the concept of sola scriptura, the teaching that the Scriptures are the ultimate and sole infallible authority for the Christian (actually "ultimate" itself is a denial of "sola" but we'll save that for another discussion) and that the teaching of sola scriptura does unite Protestants - but does it really?  Just from the examples I mentioned above we can see that sola scriptura alone (no pun intended) does not provide unity!  Some sola scriptura Protestants believe in infant baptism, and support their belief with Scripture - others flatly deny infant baptism and condemn those who practice it.   Some Protestant sects accept 2 sacraments as being validly sacramental - others deny ANY sacramentalism.   Some sola scriptura Protestants accept a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion - and treat Communion as such; while others declare Holy Communion is simply a memorial of symbolism.  So the so-called "Blueprint For Anarchy" truly IS a blueprint for anarchy, regardless of Swan's rejection of the concept.


Third Sunday After Pentecost


Confessor and Doctor of the Church

Jesus, the pursuing shepherd of souls, follows and sustains each person in his worst battles with the world, the flesh, and the devil. Even when, ignoring Christ's presence and rejecting His grace, a man chooses to sin, Jesus does not abandon the sinner but gives him the graces of sorrow and of confidence in God's forgiveness. Following Christ's example, the Pope continues to shepherd souls by making himself the "servant of the servants of God."

INTROIT Ps. 24:16, 18
 Look upon me, O Lord, and have pity on me, for I am alone and desolate. See my poverty and my pain, and pardon all my sins, O my God.
Ps. 24:1-2. I have lifted up my soul to You, O Lord, in You I place my trust, O my God. Let me not be put to shame. 
. Glory be . . .

O God, You are the protector of all who trust in You, and without You nothing is strong, nothing is holy. Be even more merciful towards us, and rule and guide us that we may use the good things of this life in such a way as not to lose the blessings of eternal life. Through our Lord . . .

Commemoration of SAINT ANTHONY
Anthony Padua (1195-1231), a native of Portugal, was inspired to enter the Franciscan Order on the occasion of the translation of the relics of the first Franciscan martyrs from Morocco to Coimbra. Anthony was soon assigned to Africa, but he had scarcely landed there when he fell desperately ill. After his forced return to Europe, his superiors discovered his marvelous power as a preacher, and with it his profound grasp of Sacred Scripture ( later Pope Gregory IX called him the "Ark of the Testament"). Under the guidance of St. Francis, he began his phenomenal preaching apostolate in Italy and France. Although his life offers no satisfactory explanation for his subsequent cult as the saint to be invoked for lost articles, his sermons certainly brought immediate results in reformed lives. Anthony died at the age of 36, and was canonized within the year.

O God, let the Church rejoice on the occasion of the solemn commemoration of Your blessed confessor and doctor Anthony. May she always be protected by Your divine help so that her members may one day be worthy of eternal happiness. Through our Lord . . .

EPISTLE I Peter 5:6-11
Beloved: Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

GRADUAL Ps. 54:23, 17, 19
Cast your care upon the Lord and He will support you. 
. When I called upon the Lord, He heard my voice and delivered me from those who war against me.

Alleluia, alleluia! V. Ps. 7:12

God is a just judge, strong and patient. Shall He be angry all the time? Alleluia! 

GOSPEL Luke 15:1-10

At that time, the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them." So he told them this parable: "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.' Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. 
"Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.' Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
Let those trust in You who cherish Your name, O Lord, for You do not forsake those who seek you. Sing praise to the Lord, enthroned in Sion, for He has not forgotten the cry of the poor.

SECRETO Lord, look with favor upon the offerings of Your Church as she prays to You. Bless these gifts, that the faithful who receive them may attain salvation. Through our Lord . . .

Commemoration of SAINT 
May this offering aid the salvation of Your people, O Lord, for whom You have willed to offer Yourself as a living victim in sacrifice; who lives and rules with the same God the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God.

I say to you, there will be joy among the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

POSTCOMMUNIONO Lord, let the reception of Your Holy Sacrament bring us to life, atone for our sins, and prepare us to receive Your unfailing mercy. Through our Lord . . .

Commemoration of SAINT 
Nourished with Your Divine Gift, O Lord, we ask that we may feel the effect of Your life-giving sacrifice through the merits and intercession of Your blessed confessor and doctor Anthony. Through our Lord . . .


OK, the above is the lectionary according to the Extraordinary Rite, I take no credit for that, and now for my blog/commentary....
For "Traditional Catholics" this Sunday is anything but "ordinary."   It is the Third Sunday after Pentecost (a continual reminder during this season of the birth of the Catholic Church), plus it is the Commemoration of St. Anthony of Padua - AND it is within the octave (within 8 days) of the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus!  This Sunday seems a "special" day according to the Extraordinary Rite - but to look at what our bishops have in the Ordinary Rite - the "Fourteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time" does seem quite "ordinary."  Check out the link and see if you agree with me.  There are certain parts of our heritage which should not have been tampered with.  As more and more of us return to the Extraordinary Rite - perhaps more and more bishops will get the message. 

Have an Extraordinary Day!

Changing Face of Fr. Corapi

There has been a lot of scuttle about Fr. Corapi in recent months, especially the last couple weeks, but some have been noticing something about his appearance changing throughout the years.  Take a look yourself and see what you think...

I got this from: and you'll notice the date, this was back in October of 2010 that it was posted - months before the scandal broke recently.  That same sight makes another comparison - between Fr. Corapi and Anton LaVey (Satanist):

All I can say is... Wow.

Addendum July 9, 2011:
Or... maybe scarier yet...

James R. White of

Sorry, couldn't resist!  ;-)

Feast of the Assumption

 The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...