Friday, July 11, 2003

"Lie to Me" Dept.

The Democrats are going to try to claim that President Bush has a credibility problem. Here is just a taste before I really blow my stack:

The ad continues, "a year earlier, that claim was proven false. The CIA knew it. The State Department knew it. The White House knew it."

Not only does the e-mail solicit money so the party can buy television time to air the ad, it urges Democrats to push for an independent, bipartisan investigation of Bush's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

"It's time to tell the truth," the ad said... For more, go here...

Let me get this straight, after all the crap of the Clinton years - including Filegate and Chinagate - both of which were FAR AND AWAY more credibility-challenged than any possible gaffes on the war as conducted by Bush, NOW it is time to "tell the truth"???

Where were these nitwits during Filegate when Clinton and his wife pilfered over 1,000 FBI files on political opponents??? Chuck Colson went to jail for a while in the 1970's for possessing just ONE of these kinds of files. But Clinton??? Nope, he and Moloch Hillary got off scott free because there is a clear and unmistakable double-standard here.

What about Chinagate where the safety of our nuclear secrets were sacrificed for re-election funds??? Anyone who thinks THIS can possibly be less problematical than any war mismanagement by the current president is in need of a SERIOUS reality transplant.

What about all the lies about reducing rates of budget increases being "cuts"??? Examples like THIS are legion.

What about how the Democrats lied to people like my late grandmother who were fooled by these lies to vote for the Devilcrats Democrats in elections??? Neither I nor my father could reason with her in her later years because these Devilcrat Democrat lying sons (and daughters) of bitches scared the hell out of her. (Pardon my French please people, the mere recalling of this is making my blood boil.)

Only an absolute IDIOT with an Arctic Circle IQ believes that reductions in increases constitutes a "cut".{1} But then again, we have a lot of idiots in Washington who call themselves "Democrats" and not a few who call themselves "Republicans."

What about the lie that abortion is a "Constitutional right??? I could go on and on but I think my point is adequately maintained.

"Time to tell the truth" they say??? Where have they been for the past few DECADES??? Fess up to your own lies and distortions before you start griping about this current president. He could be doing better in many areas but he is not remotely in the camp of these hypocrites.

A Brief Summation of the Crap of the Clinton Years (aka "No time for the truth" Dept)


{1} Or a person who has been so scared by lies that they cannot see the forest for the trees. (Because their emotions override their reasoning faculties.)

Labels: , , , , ,

"The Drudgeford Files" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Double Slam)

I am going to post the originally planned third part in a separate post. - ISM

It has been a while since we have checked in with Drudge. First we have news on the EU front:

EU constitutional convention signs final draft

I doubt this requires a "taste" to whet the appetite to read it so I will refrain. According to the article, the proposed Constitution for the EU is slated to take effect by the end of 2005.

"NostraShawnus" predicts that within forty years of that time, America will be at war with the EU: just in time to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of us bailing Europe out of the WW II. If memories are short over there at this time, there is no reason to presume that they will remember this in four decades time.

In other news, Senator Rick Santorum (aka "the Prophet" after the recent Supreme Court Abomination) proposes a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage as a bulwark of our civilization. Here is the link:

USA Today Op-Ed for 7/09/03

In light of the termites and the weasely whores who passed down that ruling,{1} it seems that something of this sort will be needed. Heck, previous generations saw it necessary to institute and then abolish Prohibition by amendment. Surely this is far more significant to the survival of our great nation than whether or not someone imbibes a few spirits here and there.


{1} This was one that transcends Roe v. Wade for the utter incongruity between the actual Constitution and the intention of its Framers.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, July 08, 2003

"It is About Damn Time" Dept.

He is not registered at the parish yet but give him time. Yes indeed The Secret Agent Man has finally gotten off of his secret keister and dusted off the old weblog and began posting. Did you know that he even HAD a weblog??? Of course not, its existence up until now was a secret. But no longer.

So let me welcome him to the blogosphere with a little friendly interblog blog war. (Patience SAM, you will get the lingo down before long.) One of his first posts since deciding to finally start this process can be read HERE. Here is the text with his words in black font. My words will be in regular font:

SecretAgentMan Begins Blogging

For several months now, acquaintances and friends have been telling me I should have a blogspot. I. Shawn McElhinney was even kind enough to set this one up for me, since all I can do is type, and typing has no relationship to using a computer. They've been very kind in urging me to do this, especially since they've refrained from telling me all the reasons for their entreaties, which (I'm sure) include these: "Don't clog up our message board!" "Stop emailing me!" "Not again!" and "Go play in the street!"

Part of it is that SAM writes some very good stuff and it eventually will get lost on a message board. This format gives a wider audience for his musings. It is also a more enjoyable means IMO because one can let their hair down and discuss what they want without feeling constrained to adhere to a particular board "subject thread."

Since I'm a little slow on the uptake, the usual geologic age has passed between their suggestion and my response.

The jury is out on whether SAM is actually faster in policymaking than the Vatican is ;-)

But my Ice Age of contemplation has ended, my neanderthal ideas are venturing out into a new and brighter dawn, and I feel confident enough to display my attempts at flint-knapping to public view. So I am blogging.

About damn time...

What my kind friends don't realize, however, is that I take so much pleasure in discourse that I will no doubt continue to clog their message boards and pester them with jarringly-irrelevant emails. It has to be, unfortunately: How else can they publish a multi-volume edition of my Collected Works if I reduce my output of verbiage?

SAM, now we have gone over the artificial prot/trad dichotomy of "either/or" on message boards in the past. This is not an "either/or" but a very Catholic "both/and." As in you can blog on a subject and then post the link to a message board with a simple "I responded to you on my blog, here is the link" kinda response. That is what I tend to do now whenever I am involved in message boards.

Anyway, welcome to the list. I would add your blog link to my template but the new software is not allowing me to update this blog template. (Or the Lidless Eye blog template which I have revised and saved the new template to my notebook for later posting.) Any fellow St. Blog parishoners who know when the new blogger format will allow for template alterations, please let me know. But in the meantime, welcome The Secret One to the blogosphere in general and St. Blog's parish in particular.


Monday, July 07, 2003

Excerpts from Cardinal Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk on the Subject of Divided Allegiences:
(Part III of III)

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of the thread, please go HERE.

Mr. Gladstone asks us whether our political and civil life is not at the Pope's mercy; every act, he says, of at least three-quarters of the day, is under his control. No, not every, but any, and this is all the difference—that is, we have no guarantee given us that there will never be a case, when the Pope's general utterances may come to have a bearing upon some personal act of ours.

In the same way we are all of us in this age under the control of public opinion and the public prints; nay, much more intimately so. Journalism can be and is very personal; and, when it is in the right, more powerful just now than any Pope; yet we do not go into fits, as if we were slaves, because we are under a surveillance much more like tyranny than any sway, so indirect, so practically limited, so gentle, as his is. But it seems the cardinal point of our slavery lies, not simply in the domain of morals, but in the Pope's general authority over us in all things whatsoever.

This count in his indictment Mr. Gladstone founds on a passage in the third chapter of the Pastor aeternus, in which the Pope, speaking of the Pontifical jurisdiction, says,—"Towards it (erga quam) pastors and people of whatsoever rite or dignity, each and all, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and the regimen of the Church spread throughout the world; so that, unity with the Roman Pontiff (both of communion and of profession of the same faith) being preserved, the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme Shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation."

On Mr. Gladstone's use of this passage I observe first, that he leaves out a portion of it which has much to do with the due understanding of it (ita ut custodita, &c.) Next, he speaks of "absolute obedience" so often, that any reader, who had not the passage before him, would think that the word "absolute" was the Pope's word, not his.

Thirdly, three times (at pp. 38, 41, and 42) does he make the Pope say that no one can disobey him without risking his salvation, whereas what the Pope does say is, that no one can disbelieve the duty of obedience and unity without such risk. And fourthly, in order to carry out this false sense, or rather to hinder its being evidently impossible, he mistranslates, p. 38, "doctrina" (Haec est doctrina) by the word "rule."

But his chief attack is directed to the words "disciplina" and "regimen." "Thus," he says, "are swept into the Papal net whole multitudes of facts, whole systems of government, prevailing, though in different degrees, in every country of the world," p. 41. That is, disciplina and regimen are words of such lax, vague, indeterminate meaning, that under them any matters can be slipped in, which may be required for the Pope's purpose in this or that country, such as, to take Mr. Gladstone's instances, blasphemy, poor-relief, incorporation, and mortmain; as if no definitions were contained in our theological and ecclesiastical works of words in such common use, and as if in consequence the Pope was at liberty to give them any sense of his own.

As to discipline, Fr. Perrone says, "Discipline comprises the exterior worship of God, the liturgy, sacred rites, psalmody, the administration of the sacraments, the canonical form of sacred elections and the institution of ministers, vows, feast-days, and the like;" all of them (observe) matters internal to the Church, and without any relation to the Civil Power and civil affairs.

Perrone adds, "Ecclesiastical discipline is a practical and external rule, prescribed by the Church, in order to retain the faithful in their faith, and the more easily lead them on to eternal happiness," Pr?l. Theol., t. 2, p. 381, 2nd ed., 1841. Thus discipline is in no sense a political instrument, except as the profession of our faith may accidentally become political.

In the same sense Zallinger: "The Roman Pontiff has by divine right the power of passing universal laws pertaining to the discipline of the Church; for instance, to divine worship, sacred rites, the ordination and manner of life of the clergy, the order of the ecclesiastical regimen, and the right administration of the temporal possessions of the church."—Jur. Eccles., lib. i. t. 2, § 121.

Thus, as I hope it is adequately made clear, the notion that submission to ecclesiastical authority is somehow an "infringement on our liberty" or an "infringement on our ability to think or reason" is nothing but a bunch of sophistic drivel. Catholics of ANY stripe (so-called "progressivist" or so-called "traditionalist") who seek to defend their dissidence with recourse to such arguments, well as Newman makes eminently clear, that dog does not hunt.


Excerpts from Cardinal Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk on the Subject of Divided Allegiences:
(Part II of III)

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE.

So little does the Pope come into this whole system of moral theology by which (as by our conscience) our lives are regulated, that the weight of his hand upon us, as private men, is absolutely unappreciable. I have had a difficulty where to find a measure or gauge of his interposition.

At length I have looked through Busenbaum's Medulla, to ascertain what light such a book would throw upon the question. It is a book of casuistry for the use of Confessors, running to 700 pages, and is a large repository of answers made by various theologians on points of conscience, and generally of duty. It was first published in 1645—my own edition is of 1844—and in this latter are marked those propositions, bearing on subjects treated in it, which have been condemned by Popes in the intermediate 200 years. On turning over the pages I find they are in all between fifty and sixty.

This list includes matters sacramental, ritual, ecclesiastical, monastic, and disciplinarian, as well as moral, relating to the duties of ecclesiastics and regulars, of parish priests, and of professional men, as well as of private Catholics. And these condemnations relate for the most part to mere occasional details of duty, and are in reprobation of the lax or wild notions of speculative casuists, so that they are rather restraints upon theologians than upon laymen.

For instance, the following are some of the propositions condemned:—"The ecclesiastic, who on a certain day is hindered from saying Matins and Lauds, is not bound to say, if he can, the remaining hours;" "Where there is good cause, it is lawful to swear without the purpose of swearing, whether the matter is of light or grave moment;" "Domestics may steal from their masters, in compensation for their service, which they think greater than their wages;" "It is lawful for a public man to kill an opponent, who tries to fasten a calumny upon him, if he cannot otherwise escape the ignominy."

I have taken these instances at random. It must be granted, I think, that in the long course of 200 years the amount of the Pope's authoritative enunciations has not been such as to press heavily on the back of the private Catholic. He leaves us surely far more than that "one fourth of the department of conduct," which Mr. Gladstone allows us. Indeed, if my account and specimens of his sway over us in morals be correct, I do not see what he takes away at all from our private consciences.

But here Mr. Gladstone will object, that the Pope does really exercise a claim over the whole domain of conduct, inasmuch as he refuses to draw any line across it in limitation of his interference, and therefore it is that we are his slaves:—let us see if another illustration or parallel will not show this to be a non-sequitur.

Suppose a man, who is in the midst of various and important lines of business, has a medical adviser, in whom he has full confidence, as knowing well his constitution. This adviser keeps a careful and anxious eye upon him; and, as an honest man, says to him, "You must not go off on a journey today," or "You must take some days' rest," or "You must attend to your diet." Now, this is not a fair parallel to the Pope's hold upon us; for the Pope does not speak to us personally, but to all, and, in speaking definitively on ethical subjects, what he propounds must relate to things good and bad in themselves, not to things accidental, changeable, and of mere expedience; so that the argument which I am drawing from the case of a medical adviser is à fortiori in its character.

However, I say that though a medical man exercises a "supreme direction" over those who put themselves under him, yet we do not therefore say, even of him, that he interferes with our daily conduct, and that we are his slaves. He certainly does thwart many of our wishes and purposes; and in a true sense we are at his mercy: he may interfere any day, suddenly; he will not, he cannot, draw any intelligible line between the acts which he has a right to forbid us, and the acts which he has not.

The same journey, the same press of business, the same indulgence at table, which he passes over one year, he sternly forbids the next. Therefore if Mr. Gladstone's argument is good, he has a finger in all the commercial transactions of the great trader or financier who has chosen him. But surely there is a simple fallacy here.

To be Continued...


Excerpts from Cardinal Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk on the Subject of Divided Allegiences:
(Part I of III)

These are some passages that dissidents love to pass over when I bring them up in discussion. In light of an email received last night, these seem appropriate to post at this time.

Is there then such a duty at all as obedience to ecclesiastical authority now? or is it one of those obsolete ideas, which are swept away, as unsightly cobwebs, by the New Civilization? Scripture says, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God, whose faith follow." And, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you." The margin in the Protestant Version reads, "those who are your guides;" and the word may also be translated "leaders." Well, as rulers, or guides and leaders, whichever word be right, they are to be obeyed.

Now Mr. Gladstone dislikes our way of fulfilling this precept, whether as regards our choice of ruler and leader, or our "Absolute Obedience" to him; but he does not give us his own. Is there any liberalistic reading of the Scripture passage? Or are the words only for the benefit of the poor and ignorant, not for the Schola (as it may be called) of political and periodical writers, not for individual members of Parliament, not for statesmen and Cabinet ministers, and people of Progress? Which party then is the more "Scriptural," those who recognize and carry out in their conduct texts like these, or those who don't? May not we Catholics claim some mercy from Mr. Gladstone, though we be faulty in the object and the manner of our obedience, since in a lawless day an object and a manner of obedience we have?

Can we be blamed, if, arguing from those texts which say that ecclesiastical authority comes from above, we obey it in that one form in which alone we find it on earth, in that one person who, of all the notabilities of this nineteenth century into which we have been born, alone claims it of us? The Pope has no rival in his claim upon us; nor is it our doing that his claim has been made and allowed for centuries upon centuries, and that it was he who made the Vatican decrees, and not they him. If we give him up, to whom shall we go?

Can we dress up any civil functionary in the vestments of divine authority? Can I, for instance, follow the faith, can I put my soul into the hands, of our gracious Sovereign? or of the Archbishop of Canterbury? or of the Bishop of Lincoln, albeit he is not broad and low, but high? Catholics have "done what they could,"—all that any one could: and it should be Mr. Gladstone's business, before telling us that we are slaves, because we obey the Pope, first of all to tear away those texts from the Bible...

Mr. Gladstone says that "the Pontiff declares to belong to him the supreme direction of Catholics in respect to all duty," p. 37. Supreme direction; true, but "supreme" is not "minute," nor does "direction" mean "supervision" or "management." Take the parallel of human law; the Law is supreme, and the Law directs our conduct under the manifold circumstances in which we have to act, and may and must be absolutely obeyed; but who therefore says that the Law has the "supreme direction" of us? The State, as well as the Church, has the power at its will of imposing laws upon us, laws bearing on our moral duties, our daily conduct, affecting our actions in various ways, and circumscribing our liberties; yet no one would say that the Law, after all, with all its power in the abstract and its executive vigour in fact, interferes either with our comfort or our conscience.

There are numberless laws about property, landed and personal, titles, tenures, trusts, wills, covenants, contracts, partnerships, money transactions, life-insurances, taxes, trade, navigation, education, sanitary measures, trespasses, nuisances, all in addition to the criminal law. Law, to apply Mr. Gladstone's words, "is the shadow that cleaves to us, go where we will." Moreover, it varies year after year, and refuses to give any pledge of fixedness or finality. Nor can any one tell what restraint is to come next, perhaps painful personally to himself. Nor are its enactments easy of interpretation; for actual cases, with the opinions and speeches of counsel, and the decisions of judges, must prepare the raw material, as it proceedsfrom the Legislature, before it can be rightly understood; so that "the glorious uncertainty of the Law" has become a proverb.

And, after all, no one is sure of escaping its penalties without the assistance of lawyers, and that in such private and personal matters that the lawyers are, as by an imperative duty, bound to a secrecy which even courts of justice respect. And then, besides the Statute Law, there is the common and traditional; and, below this, usage. Is not all this enough to try the temper of a free-born Englishman, and to make him cry out with Mr. Gladstone, "Three-fourths of my life are handed over to the Law; I care not to ask if there be dregs or tatters of human life, such as can escape from the description and boundary of Parliamentary tyranny?" Yet, though we may dislike it, though we may at times suffer from it ever so much, who does not see that the thraldom and irksomeness is nothing compared with the great blessings which the Constitution and Legislature secure to us?

Such is the jurisdiction which the Law exercises over us. What rule does the Pope claim which can be compared to its strong and its long arm? What interference with our liberty of judging and acting in our daily work, in our course of life, comes to us from him? Really, at first sight, I have not known where to look for instances of his actual interposition in our private affairs, for it is our routine of personal duties about which I am now speaking. Let us see how we stand in this matter.

We are guided in our ordinary duties by the books of moral theology, which are drawn up by theologians of authority and experience, as an instruction for our Confessors. These books are based on the three Christian foundations of Faith, Hope, and Charity, on the Ten Commandments, and on the six Precepts of the Church, which relate to the observance of Sunday, of fast days, of confession and communion, and, in one shape or other, to paying tithes.

A great number of possible cases are noted under these heads, and in difficult questions a variety of opinions are given, with plain directions, when it is that private Catholics are at liberty to choose for themselves whatever answer they like best, and when they are bound to follow some one of them in particular.

Reducible as these directions in detail are to the few and simple heads which I have mentioned, they are little more than reflexions and memoranda of our moral sense, unlike the positive enactments of the Legislature; and, on the whole, present to us no difficulty—though now and then some critical question may arise, and some answer may be given (just as by the private conscience itself) which it is difficult to us or painful to accept.

And again, cases may occur now and then, when our private judgment differs from what is set down in theological works, but even then it does not follow at once that our private judgment must give way, for those books are no utterance of Papal authority.

To be Continued...

Labels: ,

Since it has gone into the Encore archives now, perhaps many people who follow those threads missed my response to the lies of Brian "Herr" Mershon. Here is the relevant text in the event that Encore again has an archives problem. (I will add the links here that I could not add there.):

In light of this question, what theological education or background does "I. Shawn" have? I have asked this question repeatedly, and have receive NO response.

Actually Brian, I responded to you in detail on my weblog and also emailed you the link. This was back in April of this year. Amazingly you have again become as silent as a mime.

Since we cannot link to stuff here anymore, the readers can go to my weblog Rerum Novarum and search the margin for the link titled The Fisking of a Self-styled "Traditionalist". That link was a response to the overly cocky (and profoundly rude and ignorant) Brian Mershon.

I explain in that response (and in detail) why Brian's claim of interest in my credentials is not genuine. (And why it is an attempt on his part to avoid the very trenchant nature of my arguments.) For those who have difficulty locating it that way, they can click on the April 20-26 archive link.

In summary, stop lying to people Brian. It is not what a true Traditionalist worthy of the name would do.

Labels: ,

Sunday, July 06, 2003

Clarification on SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum Thread:

The initial response from The Secret One to my multipart response to his note was the following subtext. To those who have not read that thread yet, please read this note first as it provides an important nuance to the discussion. Those who read that thread, please interpret my response in light of what I will note here.


One subtext in my discussion with this fellow is that when he and I are saying "standing to during communion" we're referring not only to the Bishops' campaign against kneeling to receive the Host, but his order that no Catholic is to kneel and pray **at any** time during Communion. We are **ordered** to remain standing when we return to our pews and sing hymns. No private prayer is to be tolerated during this time. That's not clear from my letter...

No, indeed it is not clear from the letter. Nevertheless, the IGMR text on posture read as follows - with the specific amendments for the US dioceses as approved by Rome in bold font:

The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

The faithful should stand from the beginning of the Entrance chant, or while the priest approaches the altar, until the end of the Collect; for the Alleluia chant before the Gospel; while the Gospel itself is proclaimed; during the Profession of Faith and the Prayer of the Faithful; from the invitation, Orate, fraters (Pray, brethren), before the prayer over the offerings until the end of Mass, except at the places indicated below.

They should, however, sit while the readings before the Gospel and the responsorial Psalm are proclaimed and for the homily and while the Preparation of the Gifts at the Offertory is taking place; and, as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed.

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow while the priest is genuflecting after the consecration. The faithful kneel at the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal. [§42-43]

The following is under the heading "mass without a deacon":

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less, hand them on to one another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood. [§160,2]

Interestingly enough, the US Bishops amendment to the text on kneeling after the Agnus Dei refers to the judgment of the diocesan bishop as a possible alternative. But the GIRM itself refers to sitting or kneeling after communion. I may be mistaken but since the bishops did not reserve to themselves in their own amendments the regulation of posture at this point, it seems that they cannot turn around and then claim it for themselves.

My stance here would be the same as it is with the Constitution of the United States: either amend it according to proper procedure or adhere to it.

In the case of the bishops, draw up a rescript and submit it to Rome for recognitio. If such a recognitio was not given, the current prescription prevails. (The right to sit or kneel after communion is in the GIRM.) If such a recognitio was given, then the bishops have a platform for their stance. But they cannot legitimately claim contrary notions in the absence of such a rescript.

And of course there is nothing "pastoral" about what the diocesan paper you referred to had to say about those that kneel. But that is another subject altogether.

Labels: ,

Oh, Lest I Forget...

A significant formatting adjustment was made last night to the thread contra David Palm from June 30. (Those who thought they were experiencing a bit of "de ja vu" with parts of the thread: it was due to my editing gaffe.) Go HERE for details. (And please support our "sponsor" as well.)


Eucharistic March in Canada:

Please support my friend John Pacheco as he tries to organize with the consent of his local ordinary a Eucharistic March in October of this year. Please go to his page and sign the petition and do whatever you can to help make this a success.

Tantum ergo sacramentum
Veneremur cernui:
Et antiquum documentum
Novo cedat ritui:
Praestet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui.

Genitori, genitoque
Laus et iubilatio,
Salus, honor virtus quoque
Sit et benedictio:
Procedenti ab utroque
Compar sit laudatio.

Labels: ,