Corpus Christi 2008: Pope Benedict’s Eucharistic Teaching Moment

I receive Holy Communion only kneeling and on the tongue. Recently, I mentioned this on Facebook, and a friend said 'Just wait 20 or 30 years until you have bad knees or arthritis!' I had to laugh! I'm 70, I've had arthritis since I was a boy, and a bad knee ever since I took a dashboard out with it in an auto accident over 20 years ago.

But as long as I can kneel to receive my Lord and King and still get back up, I will do so!

From Liturgy Guy

Ten years ago Pope Benedict XVI gave the world a teaching moment in Eucharistic reverence. On the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, 2008, the Holy Father restored the traditional practice of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue (while kneeling) at all papal masses. The below explanation, provided at the time by the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff, is still available at the Vatican’s website. What is so unfortunate to see, ten years later, is how Benedict’s brother bishops have completely ignored his beautiful example.

The most ancient practice of distributing Holy Communion was, with all probability, to give Communion to the faithful in the palm of the hand. The history of the liturgy, however, makes clear that rather early on a process took place to change this practice.

From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Saint Thomas Aquinas also refers to the practice of receiving Holy Communion only on the tongue. He affirms that touching the Body of the Lord is proper only to the ordained priest.

Therefore, for various reasons, among which the Angelic Doctor cites respect for the Sacrament, he writes: “. . . out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency” (Summa Theologiae, III, 82, 3).

Over the centuries the Church has always characterized the moment of Holy Communion with sacredness and the greatest respect, forcing herself constantly to develop to the best of her ability external signs that would promote understanding of this great sacramental mystery. In her loving and pastoral solicitude the Church has made sure that the faithful receive Holy Communion having the right interior dispositions, among which dispositions stands out the need for the Faithful to comprehend and consider interiorly the Real Presence of Him Whom they are to receive. (See The Catechism of Pope Pius X, nn. 628 & 636). The Western Church has established kneeling as one of the signs of devotion appropriate to communicants. A celebrated saying of Saint Augustine, cited by Pope Benedict XVI in n. 66 of his Encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis, (“Sacrament of Love”), teaches: “No one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it” (Enarrationes in Psalmos 98, 9). Kneeling indicates and promotes the adoration necessary before receiving the Eucharistic Christ.

From this perspective, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger assured that: “Communion only reaches its true depth when it is supported and surrounded by adoration” [The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 90]. For this reason, Cardinal Ratzinger maintained that “the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species” [cited in the Letter “This Congregation” of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 1 July 1, 2002].

John Paul II, in his last Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia (“The Church comes from the Eucharist”), wrote in n. 61: “By giving the Eucharist the prominence it deserves, and by being careful not to diminish any of its dimensions or demands, we show that we are truly conscious of the greatness of this gift. We are urged to do so by an uninterrupted tradition, which from the first centuries on has found the Christian community ever vigilant in guarding this ‘treasure.’ Inspired by love, the Church is anxious to hand on to future generations of Christians, without loss, her faith and teaching with regard to the mystery of the Eucharist. There can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery, for ‘in this sacrament is recapitulated the whole mystery of our salvation.’”

In continuity with the teaching of his Predecessor, starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling.

(Photo credit: CNS photo/Paul Haring)

Can a Pope Change Moral Truth?

Before I retired, I was a caregiver for an old friend of mine. He was famous for saying, 'Never ask Weismiller if the Pope is Catholic!' I have pointed out several times that that is a question with no easy answer these days, as Francis works tirelessly to undermine the Faith once for all delivered to the saints.

From One Peter Five

That joking retort we heard as children, “Is the pope Catholic?” is starting to look like a serious question.

Asked five years ago about a “gay lobby” in the Vatican, Pope Francis responded, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?”

As judgment was thought to be part of the papal job description, traditional Catholics were startled at what the new pope had volunteered.

Now the Holy Father has apparently fleshed out what he meant.

According to a childhood victim of a pedophile priest in Chile, Juan Carlos Cruz, a homosexual to whom the pope apologized, Francis said: “God made you like this and loves you like this and I don’t care. The pope does love you like this. You have to be happy with who you are.”

The Vatican has not denied what Cruz relates.

What makes this remarkable is that the catechism of the Catholic Church, based on the Old and New Testament and tradition, has always taught that homosexuality is a moral disorder, a proclivity toward sexual relations that are unnatural and immoral.

The idea that God is responsible for homosexual orientations, that the pope and the Catholic Church are fine with men being attracted to one another, and that those so oriented should be happy with it, appears, on its face, to be heresy.

It implies that what Catholics regarded for centuries as moral truth was wrong, or that moral truth has evolved and must be made to conform to modernity. This is moral relativism: Truth changes with the times.

And if what Cruz reports is accurate, the pope’s position is close to Hillary Clinton’s.

In 2016, at a New York fundraiser, Clinton recited her infamous litany of sins common to the “basket of deplorables” backing Donald Trump.

Said Hillary, they are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.”

A phobia is “an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.” Clinton was thus saying that those who have an aversion to homosexuality are morally or mentally sick.

Yet, up until December 1973, homosexuality itself was listed as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association.

The new morality we hear from the pope and Hillary reflects a historic change in the moral thinking of the West. For the belief that homosexuality is normal and natural, and not only acceptable but even praiseworthy, has carried the day.

Legislatures and courts have written this “truth” into law. It has been discovered by the Supreme Court to be lurking in that Constitution whose authors regarded and treated homosexuality as a grave crime.

And, yet, from this historic change, questions naturally arise:

On the issue of homosexuality, have we ascended to a higher moral plateau? Or has America jettisoned the truths we believed and replaced them with the tenets of an ideology that may be politically and culturally ascendant but is rooted in nothing but baseless assertions and lies?

Consider the views of Cardinal Gerhard Muller, lately removed as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as to what is behind the drive to have “homophobia” regarded as a mental disorder.

“Homophobia (is) an invention and an instrument of the totalitarian dominance over the thoughts of others. The homo-movement is lacking scientific arguments, which is why it created an ideology which wants to dominate by creating its own reality.”

In short, cultural Marxists and their progressive allies have taken an ideological assertion — homosexuality is normal, natural and moral — without any historical, biological or scientific basis, and asserted it as truth, established it as law, and demanded that we accept and act upon this truth, or face the wrath of the regime.

Said Muller: “It is the Marxist pattern according to which reality does not create thinking, but thinking creates its own reality. He who does not accept this created reality is to be considered as being sick.

“It is as if one could influence an illness with the help of the police or with the help of courts. In the Soviet Union, Christians were put into psychiatric clinics. These are the methods of totalitarian regimes, of National Socialism and of Communism.”

As Russell Kirk wrote, ideology is political religion. And the dogmas of the political religion by which we are increasingly ruled have displaced the teachings of Christianity and tradition.

Since the Stonewall Riot of 1969, homosexual relationships have gone from being seen as indecent and immoral, to being tolerated, to being accepted, to being on the same plane as traditional marriage, to being a constitutional right.

And if you do not accept the new morality, you are a deplorable bigot. And if you act on your disbelief in the equality of homosexuality, you will be ostracized and punished.

The truths being jettisoned built the greatest civilization known to man. Will the invented truths of our new egalitarianism survive the arrival of the new barbarians? It’s not looking all that good right now.

An End to Corporate-Government Collusion

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with all of Mr Campbell's points, I especially appreciate the first, restoring justice for 'white collar crimes'. I am reminded of a verse in Woody Guthrie's song 'Pretty Boy Floyd': 

Yes, as through this world I've wandered, I've seen lots of funny men; Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen.

Those that rob with a six gun go to jail for a long time. Those that rob with a fountain pen, or today a computer, go to a 'country club prison' for a few months.

And, in point four, his idea of ending the 'revolving door' is vital! As long as corporate executives are tapped to head the Departments responsible for regulating their industries, and are assured of returning directly to their cushy job, or to a high paid lobbyist position for the industry, there is no hope of ending the crony capitalist government.

From the Distributist Review

The classic definition of fascism is a situation in which Big Business and Big Government are formally united in their aims and in many aspects of their administration. Government directs business toward what and how much to produce, and business looks to the authority of government to establish and protect its interests. Unlike communism, where the state owns industry, with fascism the state is independent from industry, but becomes its biggest customer. The aims of the two coalesce.

In Mussolini’s Italy, government officials and corporate heads often held conferences to decide what “they” were going to do with production in a given period. Because of this legal collusion, fascism has been defined, even by its own adherents, as “national corporatism.”

We certainly do not have de jure fascism in the United States, but when we have so much collusion between the public and private spheres at every level of government, and in many cases the same individuals running things in both spheres, with identical aims, can it not be legitimately argued that what we have in the United States is a quasi-fascist system, an arrangement which increasingly resembles fascism as both government and business get larger while subsidiarity is stamped out?

How do we change this climate?

1. We restore justice in the handling of corporate crimes.

Too often petty criminals are given harsh sentences for stealing paltry amounts of money or possessing nominal quantities of drugs, while corporate criminals making out with billions of dollars (at the cost of thousands of jobs) frequently get away with minimal punishment. Stealing billions and driving the economy into the ground should be held criminally liable for their recklessness with prison terms at least as harsh as those meted out to small-time crooks.

2. We legally revisit the concept of limited liability.

While limited liability is helpful in encouraging entrepreneurs to take the risks, there should be extension boundaries to its legal designation. The calculations made by entrepreneurs driving small businesses are very different from those taken by executives in Fortune 500 companies. If the millionaire hedge fund managers and bankers who orchestrated the 2008 meltdown knew they could be held, to some extent, personally liable for damaging client portfolios with irresponsible investments, the meltdown might not have gone down the way it did.

3. Abatement incentives should be available to every business owner regardless of business size.

The lucrative and absurd 100% (12-year) abatement should be done away with altogether; instead, abatements should be capped at 10%, and this should simply be a flat rate available for any new business start-up, or to an existing business that, say, merits an abatement for operating a decade or longer. The duration of the abatement ought to be lowered to seven years, rather than twelve.

Another option might be to eliminate abatements altogether, or at least for businesses grossing over $2 million in annual sales. This ensures decisions are not made strictly at the behest of the largest firms. If a business does receive an abatement, it should be forbidden from challenging its tax record at state tax tribunals for a period of at least five years from the termination of the abatement; this would end the practice granting lucrative abatements only to have corporations turn around and sue municipalities when the abatement ends.

4. Terminate the influence of lobbyists.

“But how would corporations make their needs known to their duly elected representatives?” some might ask. The same way everybody else does: write letters to your representatives, make phone calls, sign petitions, send emails. We all communicate this way without having recourse to professional hired lobbyists. This will ensure corporations do not have special access to government unavailable to the rest of us.

This idea does suffer from a major drawback in that it is practically unenforceable. How would we tell who is or isn’t a lobbyist, what sort of communication would constitute lobbying, and what sort of enforcement mechanism would we need to catch offenders?

It is impractical to ban the activity entirely. But it could be regulated much more severely: for one thing, the revolving door needs to end. Many businesses already have “non-compete” forms that employees must sign, and this principle could be extended to lobbying—no legislator would be permitted to work as a lobbyist for ten years after the expiration of his legislative term (similar to the law they used to have in the Roman Republic), while any registered lobbyist would have to wait a similar period before he could stand for public office. This would do much towards breaking down the revolving door phenomenon.

Furthermore, there could be inaugurated a graduated system of lobbying fees for registering lobbyists. For companies with tax returns showing a gross annual income of $500,000 or less, the fee is waived. This at least ensures that, theoretically, smaller businesses can afford to register a lobbyist if they wanted to. But the biggest benefit of a graduated system of fees is not what it does for smaller businesses, but rather how it deals with the large. For companies grossing between $500K-$1million, the fee could be $1,000 annually (akin to what most states charge now). That figure could go up:

$1 million-$3 million: $5,000 annually
$3 million-$5 million: $10,000 annually
$5 million-$10 million: $20,000 annually
$10 million – $20 million: $50,000 annually
$20 million-$50 million: $100,000 annually
$50 million – $75 million: $150,000 annually
$75 million – $100 million: $250,000 annually
$100 million-$250 million: $500,000 annually
$250 million – $500 million: $1 million annually
$500 million – $1 billion: $5 million annually
$1 billion – $100 billion: $10 million annually
$100 billion and above: $25 million annually

The fee registers an individual as a lobbyist and does not take into account the salary the company would have to pay them. Furthermore, these fees are for each individual lobbyist—so if Wal-Mart wanted to hire ten lobbyists to represent it in Washington for five years, we would take a look Wal-Mart’s gross annual sales, which is approximately $405 billion. This puts Wal-Mart in the highest category, at $25 million per lobbyist per year. That would be $25 million x 10 lobbyists = $250,000,000 in fees Wal-Mart would have to spend to register these lobbyists. But then, since the registration needs to be renewed every year and Wal-Mart wants these lobbyists working on a five-year timetable, this brings their total registration fees to $1.25 billion dollars to hire ten lobbyists for five years.

This scale would no doubt discourage large companies from flooding Washington with gobs of lobbyists and would encourage smaller-sized businesses to get into the game. But the best part is, a percentage of these fees (50%?) would return to the state, county and municipality where the company is headquartered in order to make sure that a portion of that money is going to be reinvested in the community that hosts that corporation. For example, in my hometown we have one large multinational corporation that grosses about $35 million annually. If this corporation hired a lobbyist, $50,000 of their registration fees would come back to the community every single year.

In our current state of affairs, we have a real and vital collusion between Big Government and Big Business united by Big Finance. This is an inherently dangerous position for our society to be in, as the common good is subordinated to the private good of business through business’s intimate relationship with government. We can’t trust our economy and society to the whims of big businesses, nor our government, when they make decisions in the interest of corporate behemoths.

Phillip Campbell
Phillip Campbell holds a BA in European History from Ave Maria University and a certificate in Secondary Education from Madonna University. He has a background as a Youth Director and RCIA instructor. He teaches history and Scripture for the St. Augustine Homeschool Enrichment Program and Homeschool Connections. He is the author of several books and articles, most notably through his blog and website Unam Sanctam Catholicam. From 2011 to 2015, he served as the Mayor of Howell, MI. Phillip and his wife of fourteen years homeschool their five children.

Catholic Condemnation of Socialism in 5 Papal Quotes

Since Distributists are often, falsely and unjustly, accused of being socialists (I was once accused of being a 'secret marxist, out to infiltrate the Church' because I quoted His Holiness Pope Leo XIII!), I want to share this article which shows that one cannot be a Catholic and a socialist at the same time!

From Dr Taylor Marshall

Pope Leo XIII Puts the Smack Down on Socialism

HH Pope Leo XIII

Sometimes you hear Christians says, “We can be faithful Catholics and Socialists with regard to economics, because we aren’t atheists like Marx.”

Actually, that’s not true. The Popes have spoken explicitly and condemned “Socialism” on the economic grounds and in terms of social justice.

Socialism was condemned explicitly by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum.

I’ve included 5 quotes to help you understand how socialism is situated and condemned by Catholic theology. All the text in red is my commentary:

4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich [this has often been the strategy – to employ “covet thy neighbors goods” as a lever for social revolution], are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer [the Pope says the working man is the first to suffer in Socialism – and history proves His Holiness correct]. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, [it is “distorted” to ask the State to ‘transfer private property to the community”] and create utter confusion in the community.

The second quote emphasizes how the wage-earner is abused by Socialism:

5. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner [wage-earners are abused], since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages [a person has right of liberty to use his wages as he sees fit], and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life [the wager earner has the right to seek to better his condition].

The third quote from Rerum Novarum condemns the Socialist principle that children belong to the State and not the father – and Pope Leo XIII quotes Saint Thomas Aquinas to validate his point:

14. “The child belongs to the father,” and is, as it were, the continuation of the father’s personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that “the child belongs to the father” it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, “before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents.”(4) The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice [it’s against social justice to replace parental supervision with State supervision], and destroy the structure of the home [hmmm…as socialism takes root, is it not historically evident that the domestic structure crumbles?].

The fourth quote regards the just due to labor:

15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord [This happened in Russia and Cuba. When social change is depended on covetousness of one class against another, hatred and murder follow]; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry [Yep, why work hard when you get paid the same for the chump doing nothing? It’s entirely unjust!]; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation [Socialist communities always lead to the poverty of all – not to a stable middle class]. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected [Did you get that? “utterly rejected”], since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind [it’s directly against natural law and social justice], and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property [Private property, not shared property, IS THE FIRST AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE to alleviate poverty]. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.

The fifth and final quote for today comes from paragraph 17 and shows how Socialists “strive against nature”:

17. It must be first of all recognized that the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be borne with, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain [Socialists strive against nature!]. There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition [we have different aptitudes, assets, and liabilities]. Such unequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition [handicaps do not prevent humans from the dignity of work and production]. As regards bodily labor, even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have remained wholly idle [work is not evil – it’s part of the pre-sin vocation for humans]; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation for his disobedience. “Cursed be the earth in thy work; in thy labor thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life.”

So what can we summarize about the condemnation of Socialism from Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum:

1. Socialism promotes envy between classes. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods.”
2. The transfer of private property to community property is against nature and justice.
3. Socialism hurts the working man first and foremost.
4. A person has the right to improve his social condition through labor. His social condition should not be taken away from him.
5. Socialism perceives children as belonging to the State chiefly, and thus the State has a prior right over the father of the child with regard to guardianship, education, and labor. This the Pope condemns.
6. Socialism must be “utterly rejected.”
7. Socialism leads to “condition of misery and degradation.”
8. The Pope recognizes that not every human has equal aptitude in this life for wage-earning.
9. Labor is good and not evil. Socialism wrongly presumes that work is always an exploitation of one class serving another class.
10. It is evident in these quotes, but especially elsewhere, that those who have acquired private property should share their goods with those who are in need. This is the call to almsgiving that Proverbs and Christ repeatedly exhort us to practice.

Please share this post with others so that they can see that Socialism per se is condemned by Catholic social teaching.

Godspeed,

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 31 MAY – SAINT PETRONILLA (Virgin)

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 31 MAY – SAINT PETRONILLA (Virgin): Petronilla is said to have been a spiritual daughter of Saint Peter, who took her with him to Rome where she became paralysed. Simon Magus...

IN LUMINE FIDEI: THE HISTORY, MYSTERY AND PRACTICE OF TIME AFTER PE...

IN LUMINE FIDEI: THE HISTORY, MYSTERY AND PRACTICE OF TIME AFTER PE...: THE HISTORY, MYSTERY AND PRACTICE OF TIME AFTER PENTECOST Dom Prosper Gu é ranger The History of Time after Pentecost The Sol...

31 May, A Chesterton Calendar

MAY 31st

Our civilization has decided, and very justly decided, that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. If it wishes for light upon that awful matter, it asks men who know no more law than I know, but who can feel the things that I felt in the jury-box. When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity.

‘Tremendous Trifles.’

Chesterton, G. K.. The G. K. Chesterton Collection [50 Books] (Kindle Locations 44265-44270). Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.

The Feast of the Queenship of Mary

Today, in the Traditional Calendar is normally the Second Class Feast of the Queenship of Mary. However, this year it is replaced by the First Class Feast of Corpus Christi. In the Novus Ordo Calendar of Pope Paul VI, it has been moved to 22 August, the Octave Day of the Feast of the Assumption.  It was instituted by Venerable Pope Pius XII with the Encyclical, Ad Cæli Reginam, On Proclaiming the Queenship of Mary, on 11 October 1954.

The Scriptural Readings at Matins are taken from Ecclesiasticus and Sirach, the same passages that are used in the Little Office of the BVM. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Readings are From a Sermon of St Peter Canisius and an excerpt from Ad Cæli Reginam:

Reading 4
Sermon of St. Peter Canisius, Priest
On the Incomparable Virgin Mary, Mother of God
If we follow St. John Damascene, St. Athanasius and others, are we not forced to call Mary Queen, since her father David receiveth the highest praise in Scripture as a renowned king, and her son as King of kings and Lord of lords, reigning forever? She is Queen, moreover, when compared with the Saints who reign like kings in the heavenly kingdom, co-heirs with Christ, the great King, placed on the same throne with him, as the Scripture saith. And as Queen she is second to none of the elect, but in dignity is raised so high above both Angels and men that nothing can be higher or holier than she, who alone hath the same Son as God the Father, and who seeth above her only God and Christ, and below her creatures other than herself.
V. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us.
R. Thanks be to God.

Reading 5
The great Athanasius said clearly: Mary is not only the Mother of God, but also can be properly and truly called Queen and Lady, since in fact the Christ who was born of the Virgin Mother is God and Lord and also King. It is to this Queen, therefore, that the Psalmist's words are applied: The Queen taketh her place at thy right hand in garments of gold. Thus Mary is rightly called Queen, not only of heaven, but also of the heavens, as the Mother of the King of Angels, and as the Bride and beloved of the King of the heavens. O Mary, most august Queen and most faithful Mother, to whom no one prayeth in vain who prayeth devoutly, and to whom all mortal men are bound by the enduring memory of so many benefits, again and again reverently I beseech thee to accept and be pleased with every evidence of my devotion to thee, to value the poor gift I offer according to the zeal with which it is offered, and to recommend it to thine all-powerful Son.
V. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us.
R. Thanks be to God.

Reading 6
From the Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XII
Ad cæli Reginam, diei 11 Octobris 1954
From the documents of ancient Christianity, from the prayers of the liturgy, from the innate religious sense of the Christian people, from works of art, from all sides we gather witnesses which assert that the Virgin Mother of God excelleth in queenly dignity. And we have set forth the reasons which sacred theology deduces from the treasury of divine faith to confirm the same truth. All these witnesses form a sort of chorus, proclaiming far and wide the supreme queenly honour granted to the Mother of God and man, who is above all created things and exalted over the choirs of Angels to reign in heaven. Thus it is that after mature and thoughtful consideration we have been persuaded that great benefits would flow to the Church if, like a light that illumines more brightly when placed in its stand, this solidly proved truth were to shine out more clearly to all, and so, by Our Apostolic Authority, we decree and institute the feast of Mary, Queen, which is to be celebrated every year on the thirty-first day of May throughout the world.
V. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us.
R. Thanks be to God.

The last three Readings are from a Sermon of St Bonaventure on the text From the Holy Gospel according to Luke
Luke 1:26-33
In that time: In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And so on

Homily of St. Bonaventure, Bishop
Sermon on the Royal Dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of the great King by reason of a noble kind of conception, according to the message given her by the Angel. Behold, he said, thou shalt conceive and shalt bring forth a son; and again, the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he shall be king over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end. This is as if to say in so many words, Thou wilt conceive and bear a son who is King, eternally reigning on the royal throne, and as Queen thou wilt be seated on the royal throne. For if it becometh a son to give honour to his mother, it is also fitting that he share his royal throne with her; and so the Virgin Mary, because she conceived him on whose thigh was written, King of kings and Lord of lords, was Queen not only of earth but also of heaven as soon as she conceived the Son of God. This is indicated in the Apocalypse where it saith: A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

Mary the Queen outshineth all others in glory, as the Prophet clearly showeth in the Psalm which particularly concerns Christ and the Virgin Mary. It first saith of Christ: Thy throne, O God, standeth forever and ever, and shortly thereafter of the Virgin: The Queen taketh her place at thy right hand, that is, in the position of highest blessedness, for it referreth to glory of soul. It continueth: In garments of gold, by which is meant the clothing of glorious immortality which was proper to the Virgin in her Assumption. For it could not be that the garment which clothed Christ, the garment completely sanctified on earth by the incarnate Word, should be the food of worms. As it was fitting for Christ to grant the fullness of grace to his Mother at her Conception, so was it fitting that he grant her the fullness of glory at her Assumption. And so we are to hold that the Virgin, glorious in soul and body, is enthroned next to her Son.

Mary the Queen is also the distributrix of grace. This is indicated in the book of Esther, where it is said: The little spring which grew into a river and was turned into a light and into the sun. The Virgin Mary, under the type of Esther, is compared to the outpouring of a spring and of light, because of the diffusion of grace for two uses, that is, for action and for contemplation. For the grace of God, which is a healing for the human race, descendeth to us through her as if through an aqueduct, since the dispensing of grace is attributed to the Virgin not as to its beginning, but because of her position through merit. By position the Virgin Mary is a most excellent Queen towards her people: she obtaineth forgiveness, overcometh strife, distributeth grace, and thereby she leadeth them to glory.
V. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us.
R. Thanks be to God.

The Feast of Corpus Christi

Despite what your Church bulletin might have told you, today is the Feast of Corpus Christi! It was instituted in the 13th century, with the Mass and Office composed by the Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas.

It was set on the Thursday after Trinity for a very good reason. The Holy Eucharist was instituted on Maundy Thursday, but because of the penitential character of the Sacred Triduum there can be no joyful celebrations of this saving Sacrament on the day of its institution. However, in these lax, modern times, Bishops in many countries have moved the Feast to an External Solemnity kept on the Sunday following. 

Here is the text of the Bull, Transiturus de Hoc Mundo, issued by His Holiness Pope Urban IV on 11 August 1264.

Urban Bishop,

servant of the servants of God, to the venerable brothers, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and other prelates of the Church, health and the apostolic blessing.

About to pass from this world to the Father, our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, since the time of his Passion was at hand, instituted the great and wonderful Sacrament of his Body and Blood, bestowing his Body as food and his Blood as drink. For, as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we announce the death of the Lord. Indeed, at the institution of this Sacrament, he himself said to the Apostles: Do this in memory of me: so that for us the special and outstanding memorial of his love would be this venerable Sacrament; a memorial in which we attain the corporeal Presence of the Saviour himself.

Other things which we remember we embrace spiritually and mentally: we do not thereby obtain their real presence. However, in this sacramental commemoration, Jesus Christ is present with us in his proper substance, although under another form. As he was about to ascend into heaven, he said to the Apostles and their helpers, I will be with you all days even unto the consummation of the world. He comforted them with a gracious promise that he would remain and would be with them even by his corporeal presence. Therefore he gave himself as nourishment, so that, since man fell by means of the food of the death-giving tree; man is raised up by means of the food of the life-giving tree. Eating wounded us, and eating healed us. Thus the Saviour says, My Flesh is real food. This bread is taken but truly not consumed, because it is not transformed into the eater. Rather, if it is worthily received, the recipient is conformed to it.

We should celebrate continuously the memory of this memorial, because the more frequently his gift and favour are looked upon, so much the more firmly are they kept in memory. Therefore, although this memorial Sacrament is frequented in the daily solemnities of the Mass, we nevertheless think suitable and worthy that, at least once a year – especially to confound the lack of faith and the infamy of heretics – a more solemn and honourable memory of this Sacrament be held. This is so because on Holy Thursday, the day on which the Lord himself instituted this Sacrament, the universal Church, occupied with the reconciliation of penitents, blessing the chrism, fulfilling the Commandments about the washing of the feet and many other such things, is not sufficiently free to celebrate so great a Sacrament.

Moreover we know that, while we were constituted in a lesser office, it was divinely revealed to certain Catholics that a feast of this kind should be celebrated generally throughout the Church. Therefore, to strengthen and exalt the Catholic Faith, we decree that, besides the daily memory that the Church makes of this Sacrament, there be celebrated a more solemn and special annual memorial. Then let the hearts and mouths of all break forth in hymns of saving joy; then let faith sing, hope dance, charity exult, devotion applaud, the choir be jubilant, and purity delight. Then let each one with willing spirit and prompt will come together, laudably fulfilling his duties, celebrating the Solemnity of so great a Feast.

1 June, The Roman Martyrology

Kalendis Juniis

June 1st anno Domini 2018 The 17th Day of the Moon were born into the better life: 

At Rome, the holy martyr Juventius. 
At Caesarea, in Palestine, [in the year 308,] the blessed martyr Pamphilus, the Priest. He was a man wonderful for his holiness, his teaching, and his goodness towards the poor. In the persecution under the Emperor Galerius Maximian, he was first tortured for Christ's faith's sake, under the President Urban, and cast into prison then under Fermilian he was called back again to suffer, and then along with others finished his testimony. There then suffered also the Deacon Valens, Paul, and nine others whose memory is celebrated upon other days. 
At Autun, [in the year 273,] holy Reverian, Bishop [of that see,] the Priest Paul, and ten others, who were crowned with martyrdom under the Emperor Aurelian. 
In Cappadocia, the holy martyr Thespesius, who, after being tortured, was beheaded under the Emperor Alexander Severus and the Prefect Simplicius. 
In Egypt, the holy martyrs, the sergeant Ischyrion, and five other soldiers, who were put to divers kinds of death, under the Emperor Diocletian, for believing in Christ; also the holy martyr Firmus, who, in the persecution under Maximian, was terribly scourged, bruised with stones, and at last beheaded. 
At Perugia, the holy soldiers Felin and Gratinian, who were diversly tormented under the Emperor Decius, and by a glorious death obtained the palm of martyrdom. 
At Bologna, the holy martyr Proculus, who suffered under the Emperor Maximian. 
At Amelia, the holy martyr Secundus, who was thrown into the Tiber, under the Emperor Diocletian, and so finished his testimony. 
At Citta-di-Castello, in Umbria, the holy Roman soldier Crescentian, who was crowned with martyrdom under the same Emperor Diocletian. 
In Umbria also, [in the year 400,] the holy Priest Fortunatus, famous for graces and wonders. 
At the Monastery of Lerins, [in the year 430,] the holy Abbot Caprasius. 
At Trier, [in the year 1035,] the holy monk Simeon, who was enrolled among the Saints by Pope Benedict IX. 
At Burgos, in Spain, [in the year 1037,] in the Monastery of Ogna, the holy Benedictine Abbot Enecon, illustrious for his holiness and the fame of his miracles. 
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day

Why Was Pope Francis Silent on Ireland Voting for Abortion?

Because to speak out might have caused him to be perceived as one of those 'rigid, fundamentalist' Catholics who actually believe and practice the Catholic Faith? You know, one of those people he loves to insult and denigrate.

However, an Anglican friend of mine, Mr Theodore Harvey of  the Royal World blog, had an interesting take, with which I agree (emphasis added),

My interpretation of Francis's apparent inconsistency (speaking up on Alfie but silent on the abortion referendum)--well, besides the fact that he's evil or deranged or whatever--is that "Catholic" liberals can criticize anti-Catholic actions of the State when they are "undemocratic" in character, as the treatment of Alfie and his parents was, but cannot criticize Democracy (their real religion), because that would open the way to questioning liberalism itself, and we can't have that!

From LifeSiteNews

Pope Francis at 2016 Rome consistory when "progressive" archbishops 

Cupich, Joseph Tobin and Farrell were made cardinals

May 30, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – While the world reeled at the alleged comments Pope Francis recently made on homosexuality, it also noticed the pontiff’s deafening silence on Ireland’s now-lost abortion referendum.

Pope Francis allegedly told a male victim of priestly sex abuse that God “made” him gay and that’s “okay,” which made headlines around the world. The Vatican press office wouldn’t confirm or deny the comment.

Many have noted the Catholic Church’s minimal role in the campaign to save the pro-life Eighth Amendment, partly because the homosexual sex abuse crisis was so bad in Ireland that it shattered the Church’s credibility. However, despite the pontiff’s “progressive” reputation, his opinion nevertheless may have been of some help to the pro-life side as it tried to win over voters.

“In 1983, the Catholic hierarchy played no little role in the passing of the Eighth Amendment,” the BBC reports. “However, in the intervening years, it has seen its standing greatly diminished with revelations about bishops not reporting paedophile priests to the civil authorities.”

The BBC contrasted Pope St. John Paul II’s “triumphal” visit to Ireland, which preceded the adoption of the Eighth Amendment, with Pope Francis’ upcoming visit, during which he will “find a country undoing part of the legacy of a previous papal visit.”

Ireland is “clearly part of Europe’s secular sprint out of the Roman Catholic fold,” the New York Times observed.

“Across Western Europe, the church’s once mighty footprint has faded, in no small measure because of self-inflicted clerical sex abuse scandals and an inability to keep up with and reach contemporary Catholics,” it continued. “Church attendance has plummeted, parishes are merging, and new priests and nuns are in short supply. Gay marriage is on the rise, and abortion is widely legal.”

“And yet, Francis is not sounding the alarm or calling the faithful to the ramparts,” the Times went on. “He seems resigned to accept that a devout and Catholic Europe has largely slipped into the church’s past...If the landslide vote in Ireland bothered Francis, he didn’t show it on Sunday afternoon.”

The pope’s silence as a formerly Catholic country voted on an intrinsic evil is reminiscent of his treatment of Italy’s same-sex unions debate.

Two situations of bio-ethical and moral importance in which Pope Francis has taken interest were the cases of Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard, a toddler and an infant whose respective parents fought English hospitals to be able to continue their sons’ care elsewhere. The pope’s support of the little boys included offering them spots at Rome’s Bambino Gesu hospital, and in the case of Alfie, readying a military helicopter to fly him there.

Pope Francis is scheduled to visit Ireland in August for the World Meeting of Families, an event which the bishops of Ireland have already used to push the LGBT cause.