Monday, June 25, 2018

Prayer to St. Jude

O Holy St Jude!
Apostle and Martyr,
great in virtue and rich in miracles,
near kinsman of Jesus Christ,
faithful intercessor for all who invoke you,
special patron in time of need;
to you I have recourse from the depth of my heart, and humbly beg you,
to whom God has given such great power,
to come to my assistance;
help me now in my urgent need and grant my earnest petition.
I will never forget thy graces and favors you obtain for me and I will do my utmost to spread devotion to you. Amen.
St. Jude, pray for us and all who honor thee and invoke thy aid.
(Say 3 Our Father's, 3 Hail Mary’s, and 3 Glory Be’s after this.)

Cheeseburger Friday!

OK, as promised!  A little bit more notice on this one!  Friday, June 29, 2018 is the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul - and on a solemnity we do not adhere to the normal Friday penance.

What's this, a "Friday penance?" Many Catholics believe this was done away with after Vatican II, but they would be WRONG about this!  The only thing which changed is that it doesn't have to be abstinence from meat on Fridays anymore - but it still HAS to be SOMETHING offered up as a penance. You could choose to give up something else equivalent - OR - even do some act of charity, like visiting a nursing home or volunteering for a charity. It still CAN be, and in my humble opinion, SHOULD remain abstinence from meat. Why? because this was, for centuries, a Catholic identity - everyone knew Catholics abstained from meat on Fridays - which is one reason so many restaurants have fish fry's on Fridays. 

Anyway, on the 29th of June we can have that cheeseburger, or steak or not do the normal penance we would have done (and SHOULD be doing) on EVERY Friday throughout the year, not just for Lent.


Please share!

Saturday, June 23, 2018

Why Stay Protestant?

That's a GREAT question!  This article is in response to Matthew Schultz' article which asks the same question.  His article (which I will interject my responses to below) can be found at: https://medium.com/@MatthewSchultz/why-stay-protestant-435b5e1006a0 (you have to join medium.com to read there, but I have his whole article here in my response).

Schultz is a Protestant who has (so far) remained one. I am a former Protestant who is now a Catholic, so let's see if I can answer his question(s) and objection(s).
Why Stay Protestant?
Over the years, I’ve had several Catholic friends and converts ask why I ultimately didn’t convert to their denomination. During my first two years of college, I spent a significant amount of time with Catholics, including at the (then?) US Opus Dei headquarters in NYC. I attended these gatherings with a good friend, who eventually decided to convert from Evangelicalism. I came close to converting, but ultimately decided against it. This has surprised some Catholics. I suspect this is because the standard narrative is that Protestants, especially Evangelicals, are crossing the Tiber in great droves.
Statistically, the narrative isn’t quite so neat: in recent years, Catholicism has lost millions of adherents, most of these converting to a kind of nonreligious spiritualism/secularism or to Protestantism, while millions more Protestants remain Protestant. For every one person who converts to Catholicism, about six leave leave the church.
Still, the notion that Catholicism is attracting large numbers of Protestant converts, with no movement in the other direction, can create the impression that there is something irresistible about Catholicism to anyone who studies it. My reasons for remaining Protestant haven’t changed a great deal, although they have become more refined, especially since seminary. I would like to share some of them here.
I, for one Catholic, am not surprised by the numbers Schultz refers to (without references, I might add). I would also point out WHY you STAY or LEAVE should not be based upon a numbers game - you STAY or LEAVE because you've found and/or are seeking the ultimate TRUTH. 
Whenever I read Catholic apologists, I’m fascinated by the near-total absence of robust exegetical arguments. Most attempts to turn the discussion to Biblical passages result in either a denial that my “private interpretation” is reliable — thus shutting down an exegetical debate before it begins — or lay interpretations shared, as far as I can tell, by virtually no Biblical scholars who study these passages.
Again, Schultz leans on a numbers game - just because HE can't find very many biblical scholars who study these passages. He says "virtually no..." which implies he has found SOME. I would posit that if you find even ONE which proclaims the TRUTH - you have found enough. Don't play numbers games with the TRUTH, especially where your eternal soul, and that of others, weighs in the balance. I would venture to guess here too that Schultz may not be considering Catholic biblical scholars as scholars - but hard to tell, he doesn't give us any specific examples to deal with here. In short, that which Schultz is complaining about Catholic apologists - he's doing here!  No substance, nothing we can answer to - just vague comments. 
On the first measure — that I cannot interpret the Bible, so any defense of Protestantism I offer is just my own, unreliable judgment — epistemological objections to interpreting the New Testament strike me as self-defeating. God asks us to interpret him every time he communicates with us. How can we understand him if we don’t engage in interpretation? Or how does someone come to understand that their “private” interpretations are wrong unless they first interpret the speech that tells them so?
I really have no problem with this level of private interpretation - yes - ALL words, written or oral, require some level of decoding/interpretation. I have had this argument used on me by Protestant apologists stating private interpretation is necessary. The real point here is that while every word we hear or read has some level of decoding/interpretation by the brain - fundamentally we do not need to re-interpret statements like "the door is red," but there is some interpretation behind, "I am the Door" (John 10:9) since we know that Jesus is not like a door which is red with a knob and hinges, He still is the point of entry into Heaven. While Jesus doesn't have the appearance of a door, He literally IS the Door (some translate this as "gate") to Heaven - and that is the point of the context of that passage. In reality, the argument of "unless you first interpret the speech" is just a diversionary tactic to get one into a side discussion of interpretation rather than the contextual meaning of the text.
Since I don’t have a problem with issuing “private judgment,” here are some exegetical reasons I remain Protestant. Off the top of my head:
 1. Broadly Protestant notions of justification are clearly taught by the Bible.
"Broadly" speaking, one can find the Arian notions taught in the Bible too.
2. Pauline church government is authoritarian in some respects but is a distant cousin to the modern Magisterium.
The modern Magisterium is clearly begun in biblical teachings. Clearly bishops are mentioned in many places in the New Testament and clearly St. Peter was left to "Feed My sheep" (a command repeated three times by Jesus in John 21:15-17) and at the first Church Council at Jerusalem, which was hosted by St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the decisive word was given by St. Peter (Simon) in Acts 15:14ff. We also see that when St. Paul had a question, he went back to the other Apostles, and again this Council at Jerusalem is a prime example of that.

3. NT (and OT) ethics support the implementation of the death penalty in ways that are alien to (Pope) Francis’s ethical statements and implications.
Pope Francis' views on the death penalty represent his own, personal opinions as a theologian but are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church. This is not really a very good reason to not become a Catholic. 
4. Contra the post-Vatican II ethos, Christ and Paul are utterly unsympathetic to salvation for those who refuse to submit directly and openly to Christ and his Gospel.
There are many in Traditional Catholic movements which share this sentiment. However, the fundamental teaching in Catholicism remains unchanged, so again, not a very good reason for not becoming a Catholic.
5. Biblical unity is defined by adherence to core doctrine. Organizational fealty is never primary in the NT’s exposition of authority and unity.
Oh? Jesus expressly states His desire that His Body (the Church) be one body, one fold under one shepherd. John 10:16, John 11:52, John 17:21-23, 1 Cor. 12:12, Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, Eph. 2:16, Eph. 4:4, Eph. 4:13, Col. 3:14-15, and Gal 3:28 to name many of the Bible verses which teach we are to be one. We also have the creeds of early Christendom, still professed in all Catholic Churches AND in many Protestant churches as well where the "Four Marks of the Catholic Church" are confessed - three of which do not apply to Protestantism at all! Those Four Marks are: "one, holy, catholic and apostolic." Protestantism is not one, it is fractured into literally thousands of sects and denominations; it is not catholic, which relates to the one, for it is not universal; it is not apostolic for there is no direct apostolic link/succession, at least not a valid one, for any Protestant sect. You're left with "holy," and I've heard good arguments against that as well - but for the sake of this posting, let's grant "holy." So, while still professing these Four Marks, at best they can claim one of them.
6. Related: when I read the church fathers, I don’t think many of them would recognize some of the core beliefs of modern Catholicism.
But again, no examples! I posit that the "core beliefs" of Catholicism have not changed. So, without examples not much more can be said here.
I think there are creative, (probably) internally consistent ways for Catholics to overcome these exegetical concerns and remain faithful Catholics. 
I haven't yet really seen any "exegetical concerns!"
Maybe reading Cardinal Newman allows converts some measure of intellectual peace when comparing the first three centuries of the early church’s views on, say, ecumenicism and what is taught by the modern Magisterium. Development is a powerful notion that can erase apparent or actual contradictions. But as a Protestant, I see no reason to appeal to something like Newman’s sense of doctrinal development, and so what is claimed as development really looks, from the outside, like a set of socially and politically conditioned deviations and contradictions from the earlier deposit of faith.
I have to wonder, when Schultz states he sees no reason, "as a Protestant" to appeal to something like Newman's sense of doctrinal development, is that because he, "as a Protestant" just accepts the doctrinal development of the first 1500 years of the Church prior to the uprising of Protestantism in the 16th century? Here again, no examples.
Perhaps my greatest reasons for staying Protestant are practical. The refrain of lay Catholic apologists is that Protestants must submit to the Magisterium. Yet if the primary lens of theological inquiry is authority, why is so much of the heavy lifting done by Catholic laypersons? In the time I spent considering conversion to Catholicism, every single apologetics book, essay or article recommended to me was written by a lay Catholic. Why aren’t the bishops engaged in apologetics? Aren’t they the authoritative teachers within Catholicism? If so, why would I trust the exegetical, theological, and philosophical arguments put forth by lay Catholics who have no direct oversight or approval of bishops? To trust these arguments would be to trade one set of private interpretations for another.
Might I suggest: Archbishop Fulton Sheen?  How about Bishop Barron? The fact of the matter is we are ALL called to answer for the hope which is within us (1 Peter 3:15) this is not something reserved to bishops, but indeed, bishops are engaged in apologetics too.
This is downstream of another problem. As a Protestant, I have two basic options when informing my study of the Bible. The first is consulting scholars who think the text is inspired and more or less inerrant. This comes with arguments or assumptions about the nature and quality of the Bible’s authorship: Matthew really did write Matthew, the disciples’s memory of Jesus’s teachings is entirely or almost entirely accurate, Jesus really did make accurate prophecies, he really did miracles as described, and so forth.
The other option is consulting scholars who doubt or actively disbelieve all of the above propositions. They approach the text with a hermeneutic of suspicion. They doubt Matthew wrote Matthew. They doubt Jesus said and taught everything ascribed to him. Many claim that Jesus’s teachings were issued as a fallible man: given perhaps as a (mostly) good man, but certainly not as a divinely inspired God-man.
When it comes to Catholicism, most or all of the NT Catholic scholars I’m aware of fall somewhere in the second camp. Why would I follow a denomination that approves of or passes over scholars within its own ranks that seem to deny or doubt the reliability and authority of the Bible on such a regular basis? Consider, for example, how the NAB and the USCCB hedge on Pauline authorship. If Paul didn’t author some of the letters purported to be his, that raises questions about their inspiration and, therefore, divine authority.
Again, no examples. I can assume Schultz refers to dissidents like "Fr." Matthew Fox, or the ultra liberals like Fr. Raymond Brown. Yes, I am aware of some fringe "Catholics" or some who still claim to be "Catholic" but when we look at what they teach and compare to what was always taught - we find these novel concepts to be lacking and even heretical at times. Like I said, I'm aware of a select few - but the majority of Catholic theologians I know of do NOT "fall somewhere in the second camp." How about some examples? Or, does Mr. Schultz refer to these two examples I have provided?
If the intellectual leaders of Catholicism have a fairly low view of Scripture, that directly undermines the lay Catholic apologists who appeal to the Bible as if it actually teaches what Jesus and Paul really said. Who am I to believe? The Catholic scholar who questions whether half the Pauline corpus was really written by Paul or the lay Catholic apologist who argues assuming traditional authorship? If I take Catholicism at face value, then I would have to believe the intellectual over the lay apologist. And that would mean there’s no reason to take the lay apologists seriously if their arguments appeal to suspect passages written by someone pretending to be Jesus or Paul.
I say, stop making excuses based upon fringe "Catholic" arguments. If you want to focus on these sorts of arguments I can only say that you're looking for excuses and not seeking the TRUTH.
In my experience, lay Catholic converts and apologists aren’t even aware of these scholarly issues, even though they ultimately undermine their Biblical arguments for Catholicism.
As I said, I am aware of these pseudo-arguments - and I we're really not that far apart on our opinions of them. I am a lay Catholic convert and an apologist, so Mr. Schultz cannot honestly continue to make that claim. (grin)
It would be easy for a seminarian to fault them for this. But I am less critical: virtually no one converts for purely intellectual reasons. As an outsider looking in, I think the great draw of Catholicism is social stability in an increasingly anti-religious culture. It’s certainly what attracted me — far more than any particular intellectual idea.
Well, that certainly is A reason to be attracted - but there are so many other reasons! I mentioned earlier the "Four Marks of the Catholic Church," so there are four more excellent reasons. Another big one is Jesus' command in John 6:53 that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us. Many of His disciples who had been following him could not handle that teaching, and they "turned and walked with Him no more" (John 6:66). Do you also have trouble with this teaching? Do you also refuse to follow the Truth because this statement is too difficult to accept? Jesus, without changing the statement in the least, without stating that was a figurative parable turns and challenges His Apostles, "Will you also leave?" (John 6:67) To which the leader of the Apostles responds, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life" (John 6:68). Certainly, on face value, this IS a hard teaching, but to those who have True Faith, we find that Jesus Christ provides the means. Later, on the night in which He was betrayed, He took bread and declared in no uncertain terms, "This IS My body" and similarly He took wine and also declared, "This IS My blood" (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; and also 1 Cor 11:23-26). This is why Catholics, and very few others, believe that the bread and wine actually become His body and blood when they are consecrated by Christ through one of His valid priests. While still maintaining the appearance of bread and wine, the substance is miraculously changed into His flesh and blood, just as He declares it to be. Historically speaking, there are many Eucharistic Miracles (several linked here) which testify to this Real Presence. I would be more than willing to discuss these further.
In terms of social desirability, Catholicism offers several important features that are often (but not always!) lacking in Protestant circles:
  1. a deep sense of historical continuity
  2. a sense of personal contribution to or cooperation with salvation
  3. a robust and prestigious intellectual tradition, especially when it comes to social and political theory
  4. intellectual and spiritual assurance that troubling theological issues will ultimately be resolved by God-approved authorities
  5. spiritual and theological comity with the world’s second largest denomination (Eastern Orthodoxy)
  6. a strong, aesthetically pleasing liturgy
  7. a faith that spans most major culture groups
  8. opportunities to regularly and confidentially confess personal sin
Furthermore, in the American context, any form of Protestantism that takes the Bible “literally,” is basically despised. In all the important circles, there is enormous social pressure to hide one’s identity as a bigoted, backwards, intellectually inferior, uneducated, and politically conservative Evangelical Protestant.

If you’re a Protestant who attends a church that lacks unity, gives almost no opportunity for confession, and is devoid of intellectual and artistic communities, yet you still believe in God and are looking for a unified force to push back against the secular world that doesn’t have “Evangelical” cultural baggage, you will find Catholicism very attractive.
I think it’s true that you can find the above features in many non-Catholic, even non-Christian, communities. These aren’t intellectual clinchers; the fact that American Catholicism enjoys them more than many Protestant churches is historically conditioned. Yet social appeal isn’t undermined by intellectual persuasion. The best arguments can do is prepare someone to persevere in their current religious circumstances or give them permission to leave for something else. Movement from one to the other is an act of the will.
To all this I must respond with the fact that one should NOT follow a given religious movement based upon social acceptance. If this were a good reason, NO ONE would have come to the Church in the first 300 years of her existence - or very few anyway - because Christianity was socially unacceptable and even mandated against during this period. We are even seeing a growth in this religious intolerance in modern times, not to the extreme of the Romans... yet, but it is there and growing. Again, one should not follow any given religion based solely on cultural acceptance - but one should continue to seek the Truth, the Ultimate Truth, the Whole Truth and not be satisfied with a mere portion of the Truth. I freely and openly admit that there IS truth among Protestant religions. It was through my Lutheran upbringing that I fell in love with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - but there was something missing, there was not the fullness of the Truth in Lutheranism. When I realized this, I could not remain in a group which just came close - I had to move to where the Fullness of Truth is taught and believed.  
I say all this because, as far as the social reasons to convert, I am fairly happy in the Presbyterian Church in America. I have found many of the above features in this community. That insulates me from their expressions in other religious (and non-religious) organizations.
For both intellectual and social reasons, I am comfortable remaining Protestant. The obstacles to conversion are just too great. As I used to hear in New England: “You can’t get there from here.”
Well, there is truth in that statement too! "You can't get there (to the fullness of Truth) from here (the Presbyterian Church in America)" because the PCA does not have the fullness of the Truth. Yes, they have truth - in part - but not the fullness of Truth. I did not move to the Catholic Church because it was comfortable, in fact, I am the only one in my family (so far!) who has made this move (though I did have an aunt who converted for a time, but slipped back into Protestantism - and on her deathbed there was a desire expressed for her to see a priest, but her Protestant husband refused to allow that). The point is, this was not a comfortable decision for me to make. I agree with Mr. Schultz too, this decision is an act of the will and I urge him not to "settle" with what he's that found allows him to be "fairly happy," but to continue to challenge himself and seek the Fullness of the Faith, the Fullness of Truth - which can only be found in the Church which Jesus Christ Himself founded and built nearly 2000 years ago. It will not be an easy decision to make, to come out of the PCA to go to Catholicism, as I'm sure he has many friends and family there who will shun him if and when he does - but such temporal comforts are wholly outweighed by eternal grace.

I must say, I do appreciate Schutlz' candidness and even openness, and I hope this leads to a deeper discussion.

May God continue to guide you to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.   
AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<

Friday, June 22, 2018

Beyonce Mass?

Well, unlike the way I was introduced to this video - let me be fair with you - this is NOT a Catholic Mass!
This "Mass" is an Episcopal service in a San Francisco "church." I found this disturbing and was quickly reminded of the First Commandment, "You shall not have strange gods before Me." What this "Mass" does is make a goddess out of Beyonce. It's just wrong. We do not go to Mass to be entertained - we go to adore the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ present in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. We don't need some sort of "show" when we go to Mass, we just need a humble spirit and an attitude of adoration of Christ - and NOT Beyonce.

Monday, June 18, 2018

Bao - Inappropriate for Children

SPOILER ALERT

OK, so I took the grandkids to see Incredibles 2 last weekend. Pixar typically (always?) has a little "short" at the start of Pixar movies, and Incredibles 2 was no different. This one, however, seems totally inappropriate for children. It starts off with a Chinese woman preparing dumplings for her husband. She feeds them to him and he inhales them quickly as he runs out the door, presumably running late for work. She then starts eating her dumplings, of which there are three of them. She eats the first two and then when she puts the third into her mouth, it starts crying! She spits it back into the dumpling dish and it morphs into a little, living baby dumpling...


This is all that is available on the Internet for now, but then the story continues... 

The little dumpling baby grows up, and she takes it out on walks, and shopping, etc. but never lets it go run on his own. (It is a "him" as we find out later). There are a couple scenes involving donuts, a donut shop and sitting on a train or bus sharing donuts. We're getting kind of attached to this little dumpling child by this point. 

Then, the dumpling has some facial hair on his chin... goes out with friends even though the mom does not want him to. Later, he comes back, with a girl, he runs upstairs and packs his bags and while he's heading for the door - "mom" pushes the girl out - slams the door and the little dumpling is still fighting with her to leave - and she reaches down and EATS the dumpling!  At this point, my grandson lost it... he was bawling. I held him on my lap until Incredibles started, and then he settled down and watched the movie. I must say, while I didn't get emotional over this - I was quite startled and  even shocked when she ate the dumpling! My grandson was quite traumatized over this scene.

At the end of Bao, we see the mother laying in bed, depressed - and then the silhouette of the dumpling, only as a full-sized person now, is standing in the doorway. He comes up to his mom, sits on the bed - she ignores him at first and then he offers donuts and she eventually warms up to him and sits with him to eat a donut. 

So, I had to go look this up.  As it turns out, the director of this short is from Canada, but from a Chinese culture there - and she grew up with an over-protective mom. This short was a representation of her life growing up with her mom.  OK, it makes more sense now - but to coldly throw that at children in a theater who are their to watch a fun movie - that was quite inappropriate. @DisneyPixar, give us a head's up, or better yet, don't put something so disturbing at the start of a movie for children.

If you agree, please share and/or comment below.  If you disagree, I'd still like to see your comments below.

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Ordinal or Ordinary?

Words Mean Things...

Is there anything "wrong" with using the term "ordinary" to refer to the counting days in the liturgical year?  Well, yes and no. We'll start with the "no" reason.

No: Both ordinal and ordinary come from the same root word in Latin, which is "ordo" and it is the same word we use for "order." So, fundamentally speaking, there is nothing "wrong" with using the term "ordinary" for the two times of year where we "count" the weeks.

Yes: While both come from the same root, in modern usage "ordinary" takes on quite a different meaning, which can mean "common" or "plain" or "undistinguished" (see http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ordinary?s=t ). As we have already demonstrated in this second season of counting, there have already been three quite extra-ordinary feast days! We've already celebrated the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity (May 27); the Feast of Corpus Christi (June 3) and the Feast of the Sacred Heart! (June 8). I hope you can see my point here - these are anything but "ordinary" in the common use of the word. Just because we CAN use "ordinary" doesn't mean we SHOULD use that term.

Now let's consider the use of the term "ordinal." It clearly refers to an "order" or "rank" or "position in a series" (see below). It was even used as the name of the Catholic prayer book for Mass (see below). The term "ordinal" clearly fits better and when we consider the ecclesial origin of the term, it causes us to question the wisdom in changing the terminology, at least in English, to "ordinary." I would urge you to urge our bishops and others in authority to go back to the use of "ordinal," it just makes more sense and does not sound "plain" or even "boring."



ordinal 1
[awr-dn-uh l]

adjective

    of or relating to an order, as of animals or plants.
    of or relating to order, rank, or position in a series.

Dictionary.com

noun

    an ordinal number or numeral.

Origin of ordinal1
1590–1600; < Late Latin ōrdinālis in order equivalent to Latin ōrdin- (stem of ōrdō) order + -ālis -al1
Related forms:  or·di·nal·ly, adverb

ordinal 2
[awr-dn-uh l]
noun

    a directory of ecclesiastical services.
    a book containing the forms for the ordination of priests, consecration of bishops, etc.

Origin of ordinal 2
1350–1400; Middle English < Medieval Latin ōrdināle, noun use of neuter of ōrdinālis in order. See ordinal1
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2018
Examples from the Web for ordinal
Historical Examples

    Phauloptera: an ordinal term for the scale insects (Laporte 1835).
    Explanation of Terms Used in Entomology

    John. B. Smith
    Ordinal—That form of the numeral that shows the order of anything in a series.
    Capitals

    Frederick W. Hamilton
    If the ordinal expression of number be used on the title-page, the figures may be given, and the ordinal termination omitted.
    Smithsonian Report on the Construction of Catalogues of Libraries and their Publication by Means of Separate, Stereotyped Titles

    Charles C. Jewett
    An 'ordinal' is a book showing the order of church services and ceremonies.
    Fourteenth Century Verse &amp; Prose

    Various
    Ordinal numerals are adjectives which answer the question "Which in order?"
    A Complete Grammar of Esperanto

    Ivy Kellerman Reed

British Dictionary definitions for ordinal
ordinal
adjective

    denoting a certain position in a sequence of numbers
    of, relating to, or characteristic of an order in biological classification

noun

    short for ordinal number
    a book containing the forms of services for the ordination of ministers
    RC Church:  a service book

Word Origin
C14: (in the sense: orderly): from Late Latin ordinalis denoting order or place in a series, from Latin ordō order
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

Word Origin and History for ordinal
n.

early 14c., "book setting forth the order of services in the Church," from Late Latin adjective ordinalis (see ordinal (adj.)).
adj.

late 14c., "regular, ordinary," from Old French ordinel and directly from Late Latin ordinalis ""showing order, denoting an order of succession," from Latin ordo (genitive ordinis) "row, series" (see order (n.)). Meaning "marking position in an order or series" is from 1590s.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ordinal


While We're On The Subject...

The first time of year we "count" the weeks are the Weeks After Epiphany - and traditionally speaking, we identified those weeks as such. The Weeks After Epiphany are the weeks between Epiphany and Lent. The second "counting" season are the Weeks After Pentecost and again, traditionally speaking, that is what we used to refer to these two seasons as (and still do where the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated). In the modern lectionary these two seasons become just one, separated by Lent and Eastertide. By combining the two seasons it does seem more "ordinary" by the common use of the term. If we continue the tradition of having two separate seasons, each season automatically takes on more meaning - and we have a constant reminder during that season of counting of a very extra-ordinary date. Each week during the first ordinal season we're reflecting on the weeks after Epiphany and then in the second ordinal season we're reminded each week of the Church's birthday, Pentecost. So again, we lose so much in the modern terms of "ordinary" and the combining of the two ordinal seasons.

In a climate where we should want to make the Mass and the liturgical year more meaningful, even exciting, why would we want to refer to it as "ordinary?"

Upcoming Extra-Ordinary Feast Days in Ordinal Time...


Sunday, June 24, 2018 – Solemnity of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist
Friday, June 29, 2018 – Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles
Wednesday, August 15, 2018 – Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Holy Day of Obligation
Thursday, November 1, 2018 – All Saints Day, Holy Day of Obligation 
Friday, November 2, 2018 – The Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed (All Souls’ Day)
Sunday, November 25, 2018Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe (Christ the King)





For a listing of this and other articles on this blog relating to this subject, please click this link:  http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/search/label/ordinal

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Feast of the Sacred Heart

Friday, June 8, was the Feast of the Sacred Heart - a solemnity. Usually I like to keep track of Friday solemnities because the Friday penance is not applicable on a solemnity. It also serves as a reminder to everyone that there still is a Friday penance to be observed by EVERY Catholic! Before the 1960's that penance was the same for all Catholics around the world - EVERY Friday, not just those in Lent, we were to abstain from meat. Yes, it was changed back then - but it was not removed! Every one of us MUST still observer SOME sort of penance which would be equivalent to abstaining from meat according to one's episcopal conference (like the USCCB for Catholics in the United States). My point remains - if it must be equivalent to meat - why not stick with meat?! 

Another example too of things not being so "ordinary" this time of year - and we're only to the 3rd Week After Pentecost! By the post-conciliar "counting" this was the 10th Sunday in Ordinary Time, more on that in an upcoming post.

Next time I'll try to give notice in advance to a "Cheeseburger Friday!"
Another nice reason to recognize a "Cheeseburger Friday" is the fact that those who know you don't eat meat on Fridays may see you enjoying that cheeseburger, or steak, or other meat - and ask you about it. This gives you the opportunity to tell them why you abstain from meat on Fridays and why that particular Friday is different from the rest.

AMDG,
Scott<<<



Monday, June 04, 2018

Feast of Corpus Christi

The Feast of Corpus Christi was celebrated last Sunday - the actual Feast Day was last Thursday, May 31st. Due to the nature of this Feast - the celebration is moved to a Sunday. It falls on the Second Sunday after Pentecost by the Traditional ordinal/counting; or by the post-concilliar "ordinary" counting, this year it was the ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time. (This can change, depending on how many Sundays there are after Epiphany before Lent begins).

This is a magnificent feast day for it is one in which we celebrate that which truly separates us from nearly all Protestants. It is on this day that we celebrate the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. This celebration is anything BUT "ordinary" by the "ordinary" use of the term (but I digress, more on this in a later posting).
We, Catholics, celebrate and honor the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist as truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ because that is what it is and what Scripture tells us it is! Scripture tells us to receive this Holy Communion "unworthily" is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord:
Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11:27).
And why?
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.  (1 Cor. 11:29 emphasis added). 
It has long puzzled me as to WHY most Protestants "don't get this!" This is not the use of symbolism, it is stating that the eating and drinking of THAT bread and drink (that which was just consecrated by the words a few verses earlier: 1 Cor. 11:23-25) in an unworthy manner brings judgment upon that person for what?  For not discerning the body of the Lord!  It doesn't get much clearer, my friends!

The logical conclusions we can draw from this are at least:

  1. That which Protestants celebrate in "Communion" is NOT "THIS bread or drink" for why would they deliberately eat and drink judgment upon themselves. I say this because Protestants, with very few exceptions (Anglican) deny that the bread and wine (if they even use real wine) are not REALLY the body and blood of Christ - but only symbols. Scripture does not say the unworthy reception of THIS bread and wine results in judgment for not discerning the symbols of Jesus' body and blood - but for not discerning His body and blood, period.
  2. That which Protestants celebrate is NOT "THIS bread or drink" because they have no authority to consecrate being that they are not part of a valid apostolic succession which has this authority. Thus, their celebration truly is "just a memorial" or is "symbolic."

By any logic it seems they should come home to that which their ancestors protested against when they LEFT the Catholic Church sometime within the last 500 years.