Get Up, and Get Moving....

An opportunity for people of serious and orthodox Catholic faith of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to share the means to improve their own Churches.

Name:
Location: near Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States

Saturday, October 28, 2006

A mass of mess, a mess of a "mass"

So, next week Call to Action is going to have a druid, womenpriest, naturist bongo drums service that it wants to call a "mass". No surprise there. And I guess we should be proud that a local gal-made-good will be the preacher. Again, no surprise there...we all saw that coming.

The better question is not how big Madame Vandenburg's cajones are, we know that already, it is how courageous and forthright the leader of the Archdiocese of Milquetoast will be?

Since Madame Chancelloress may well be at the Mother Earth Mass, I offer the follow notes to His Excellency from the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law:

Can. 908 Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which are not in full communion with the catholic Church.

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 1365 One who is guilty of prohibited participation in religious rites is to be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1369 A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.

Just penalty? The leadership in this archdiocese seems to have about as much understanding of, or use for, the phrase "just penalty" as it does for "good liturgy". Zippo, nada, nunca, nothin'!

I won't be able to be there (my therapist recommends against going to these types of events ,as well as driving nails into my own eyeballs), but if any of you decide to sneak in, please take your camera phones and get pictures of our priests and parish lay ministers who participate. I would love to share them! I trust that Frs. Cooper and Mich might be there.

Mike

27 Comments:

Blogger Dad29 said...

Mike--Go to your Editing page, as this post posted about 6 times.

Ya--Blogger was flippin out this morning for a while.

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:55:00 PM  
Blogger Karen Marie said...

Also, the evidence for your accusation about the Chancellor of the Archdiocese, please. And I doubt that any of our archdiocesan priests would be so stupid as to get anywhere near the prayer sessions of Spiritus Christi on Saturday or of the river-ordained on Sunday. (unless, of course, +Timothy decides to send a spy in civvies.....)

Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well things in the MA just keep getting curiouser and curiouser.
I'm beginning to wonder if I have died and gone to HELL. Regarding "a mass of mess," I could have sworn someone told me that Weakland put the money up for securing the Midwest Center for the Call to Action Conference for like 10 years or so. I THINK, but am not sure that this money came from the DeRance Foundation. Do you remember how Weakland got his hands on the DeRance Money?

Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you have the central authority of a church just getting around to forgiving Copernicus and Galileo, it's easy to understand the impatience of females. WWII let 'em in to the male bastion of authority and they are not going to turn around and go back, plus you don't have the nuns doing the dogged work of indoctrination anymore. You're living in the past.

Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:50:00 PM  
Blogger Mike, the Faithful Catholic said...

There's the problem...some people think that the nature or ordination only requires patience because change will come. Patience is a virtue when fishing and in a traffic jam. It is not a substitute for theological understanding.

Mike

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:11:00 PM  
Blogger Dad29 said...

The DeRance case was a significant irruption of public policy and involved intrigue which could literally serve as the basis for a John LeCarre novel.

Harry John is half-dead; briefs are literally RACED to Madison courts to file them before he dies; accomodating judges rule (contra ALL precedent) that the man is insane...and voila! the money goes to Harry's wife and lesbian daughter for distribution--with Weakland serving as the third trustee of the Foundation.

Then the damn fools sold the Foundation's stake in a Caribbean gold-hunt...silly investment, right?

WRONG!! It paid out to the tune of $100MM when the expedition Harry staked actually found the richest Spanish-wreck ever found to date...

So Weakland & Co. sold their inheritance for a mess of pottage.

Heh.

Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I have heard that before that Weakland used money from the diocese or maybe it was DeRance to secure the Midwest Center for a number of year after he"retired for the Call to Action Conference."That would be true to form for him. He played free with the money of the archdiocese. Most other organizations have their meetings every year in a different city, but why should this bad group do that? They have such a base of support here.

I doubt very much that Archbishop Dolan would say or do anything to the priests or staff from the Cousins Center for going to the Call to Acton Conference. Look at last Friday's MJS and we can see that his latest dissident priest seems to have a cozy relationship with the archbishop. Then in todays MJS there is an article about a fund-raiser for the Cathedral. Dolan was there and who were the co-chairmen but none other than our notoriously pro-abortion mayor, Tom Barrett and his wife. How can that be? Does Dolan have any principles?

Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Mike, sorry this is so late, I got caught in a traffic jam after my fishing trip. The Church told Copernicus he could not teach that the earth was NOT the center of the universe because that was not part of theological understanding. It could not be debated, and he had to keep his mouth shut, science after all is not a substitute for good theological understanding. You were right about the patience thing though, Copernicus never did live to get his apology.

Monday, October 30, 2006 5:15:00 PM  
Blogger Mike, the Faithful Catholic said...

Dear Anonymous:

Please read "Galileo’s Daughter", by Dava Sobel (Walker & Company, New York, NY, 1999). There, two things are made clear: 1) All documentation points to the fact that Copernicus was never censured, but yesm he was asked to present his hypothesis as theory not fact. Certainly this is questionable in retrospect, but actually a proper reflection of the science to date at the time; 2) The supposedly more progressive thinkers, Martin Luther and John Calvin were both extremely vocal and vicious, moreso than anyone in the Church, in their condemnation of the Copernicus.

But, more to the modern day point: you present a false example. I will concede to you that the Church treads beyond its jurisdiction when it seeks to regulate the presentation of matters astronomical. But, by definition, it does not go beyond its jurisdiction when presenting the paramenters of matters theological.

You may think this is a question of who gets to think they are the center of the universe...but I disagree. It is a matter of how Christ is realized as the center of all things.

Mike

Monday, October 30, 2006 7:07:00 PM  
Blogger Terrence Berres said...

"I trust that Frs. Cooper and Mich might be there."

Fr. Mich will be the guy in the Brett Favre replica jersey.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike:
"You may think this is a question of who gets to think they are the center of the universe...but I disagree. It is a matter of how Christ is realized as the center of all things." You anticipate rational thought well, but you don't understand intuitive thought (It's OK, most males don't). Like you, my hero is Christ, but I get irritated because this institution since about the second century has coopted the message of Christ and made it about male dominance within the "Princely" heirarchy of priests suggesting that women could no longer fully participate because unlike Christ, they are female. Christ's example is one of inclusion of the female in spite of the culture of the day. My personal favorite: The woman at the well.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:42:00 AM  
Blogger Mike, the Faithful Catholic said...

It seems that "intuitive thought" poses certain risks. Fine, reject that observation as chauvanism if you wish, but...

The American Heritage Dictionary defines intution (the noun form of intuitive) as: The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.

Then where does that leave us in a world that needs systematic theology in order to be a Church. Theology is faith seeking understanding, not faith seeking feeling. To premise great meaning upon "intuitive thought" may allow for a cute poke at percieved chauvanism, but it seems to concede that there is no per se theological argument to be made in support of your underlying thesis.

It further seems to me that the work of theology requires, by definition, a systematic rational argument or at least, in practice, a balance between rationale and intution.

Sorry, you can't choose the latter alone.

Mike

Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:56:00 PM  
Blogger Mike, the Faithful Catholic said...

By the way...yes, the story of Jesus and the woman at the well has great meaning. But what do you mean by "inclusion" and how does it connect with the question here about Holy Orders? Does this divinely included woman later appear at the Last Supper, in the Upper Room, among the disciples at Pentacost? Inclusion? To what extent?

Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike, you keep me so busy. I don't mean to exclude rational thought. But you guys seem to think you have an edge on this whole business,"theology requires, by definition, a systematic rational argument." Do you really think you can reach an understanding of God through this process? And what I am really arguing is that rational thought is only one way of thinking while intuitive thought is another. Women understand this, no amount of rational thought has ever gotten our bodies to accept pregnancy, even when a woman desperately wants to have a child. But once pregnant,it is like witnessing a miracle to "feel" this child grow and be nurtured within. No rational understanding ever leads to how this is so and how our bodies know how to do it. I believe, not think, that combining our rational thought with intuitive awe may lead to a better understanding of theology. And theology would be enhanced if all gifts were brought to bear in this "systematic rational (and intuitive) argument".

Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike, two comments at once, I'm exhausted. OK, on the Last Supper thing, you know this was cultural. There were probably many women in the other room preparing this meal for the men, (and probably having a fairly great time themselves. And knowing Jesus, he probably went into this other room and expressed his love and concern for them, and shared bread and wine with them as well).
Now the Pentecost thing, Please read Elaine Pagels GNOSTIC GOSPELS. Mary Magdelene is sometimes called the apostle to the apostels. But once Christ was no longer present to the men, Peter went off as usual and chastised Mary in the old ways. Peter by the way seems to be a lot like you in his understanding of things, everything was black or white, subject only to deductive reasoning, and he just did not get how Mary Madelene was ever part of the life of Jesus. The church has done its best to make us believe she was a whore. (And I'm not even going into the fictional writing of Dan Brown on this, there is absolutely no need to do it even though his fiction is based on his own biblical investigations).

Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:35:00 AM  
Blogger Mike, the Faithful Catholic said...

So, let me get this straight...you want to depend upon Elaine Pagels, her Mary Magdelene theory and yet try to distance yourself from Dan Brown? My intuition (male as it is) tells to be wary of equivocation.

As to Madame Pagels, check this out: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2006/04/jesuit_scholar_.html

Be careful, the Albino monk might hunt you down.

Mike

Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Mike:
OOoohh! "naughty" (that's the best the SJ has?) Elaine Pagels, give the gal a break: what can you expect when the "authorities" of the day actually went out of their way to destroy manuscripts. And by the way, isn't your recent blog which relies on "natural law" a bit below your usual high standards for rational thought?

Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:25:00 PM  
Blogger Mike, the Faithful Catholic said...

Again, you betray your bias. What makes natural law anything less than rational thought?

Mike

Thursday, November 02, 2006 5:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Brutus, It's not I that betray a bias, for I am intuitively in tune with what is natural, it is you who seemed afield, thou doth protest too much!

Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:30:00 PM  
Blogger Mike, the Faithful Catholic said...

That is not an answer to the question. Or is that the methodology of the intuitive mind?

Friday, November 03, 2006 12:55:00 AM  
Blogger Terrence Berres said...

"But once Christ was no longer present to the men ..."

Sounds like you're asserting there was a universal apostasy from apostolic times until now.

Friday, November 03, 2006 8:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this tag team wrestling?

To Terrence, for Peter to respond to Mary the way he did, would not have been how he would have responded had Christ been there; the suggestion by that naughty Elaine Pagels was that it was a response of jealousy on Peter's part.

To Mike, all right I have to discuss this in your language: rational thought. To use Natural Law as your starting point creates nothing but hypotheticals since there is no definition as to what is Natural Law: it is anything anyone wants to say it is. If you want to argue that being homosexual is against natural law, and that the church's teacings are consistent with natural law then it follows that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. If you define Natural Law as inclusive of homosexuality, you reach a different conclusion.

The methodology of the intuitive mind would be to be open to the particular individual: It starts with the individual and tries to understand their needs. If one's sexual identity is homosexual, is their ability to have a life-long partner and significant other a forbidden fruit? If one is willing to make a commitment to another, do you deny this happiness because it is not consistent with Natural Law as you define it? Really, life is not so well defined by black and white rules, so why do you want to relegate about 10% of the population to live unfulfilled lives, I would not wish that upon you as my brother.

Friday, November 03, 2006 9:07:00 AM  
Blogger Mike, the Faithful Catholic said...

Irealize that actual, rational thought is diffucult for some, but it is the system by which there can be a dialogue and can support a universal notion of anything: Whether that be a unversal theology within a universal Church, or a notion of universals rights. "Intuitive thought" (a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it) cannot serve those ends.

As to natural law, one would think that you would like something without definition. But, in truth there is a working criteria that you can familiarize yourself with> Please check your Catechism # 1954 - 1960.

Friday, November 03, 2006 9:36:00 AM  
Blogger Mike, the Faithful Catholic said...

I apologize for the misspellings in my last post. These Blackberry things can be so difficult to use when driving. Just kidding.

Mike

Friday, November 03, 2006 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger Terrence Berres said...

I notice in verse 114 of the Gospel of Thomas (translated by Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer) "Simon Peter said to them, "'Make Mary [Magdelene] leave us, for females don't deserve life.' Jesus said, 'Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.'" It's not an obviously superior alternative to Galatians 3:28

Friday, November 03, 2006 12:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am duly impressed with all the scholarly references and by the mere fact that both of you can put your fingers on such appropriate passages in such a short period of time.
(Mike, I never did find your reference to Catechims #1954 - 1960.; can you help me with that one, I'd love to see the definition of Natural Law).
But as to a "system by which there can be a dialogue and can support a universal notion of anything: Whether that be a unversal theology within a universal Church, or a notion of universal rights. "Intuitive thought" (a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it) cannot serve those ends" I refer you to the Gospel in the Heart, 2 Corinthians 3.
But if such wonderful dialogue leads to an end that is not charitable to others, one might as well quote Mickey Mouse.

Friday, November 03, 2006 3:30:00 PM  
Blogger Mike, the Faithful Catholic said...

Thank you for proving the weakness of your premise by your owm response.

"Intuition" is a wonderful tool when it allows you to disregard the elements of a "rational" dialogue which you are unwilling to consider.

Leaving aside your conscious effort to place the Catechism of the Catholic Church beyond your own reach, let us move on to the scripture quotation you want to depend upon.

While you, in your notion of "intuition" (see definition above) will use this passage as an apologetic of your point of view, I can read it as an affirmation of the firmity (whether by virtue of natural law or rational systemology) of revealed faith (i.e. doctrine).

In your cited passage, the great saint writes: "For if what was going to fade was glorious, how much more will what endures be glorious." That which is "intuitive", by definition, cannot exist beyond the reflection of the one who is intuitive. For an understanding of God, the encounter must have elements that endure. The enduring, the trandscendent, the immutable and the incarnate realities of God and of Christ, cannot, in your own citation, be merely intuitive. The enduring, the transcedent, the immutable, and the incarnate must be have a primary quality of rationality.

Your theological worldview would presumptively allow you to abandon the scriptural criteria that you yourself cite about endurance. By resorting to a primacy of an indivdual's intuitive experience, you selfishly give yourself permission to disregard that same mandate for an enduring principle.

Denigrate fifty percent of the People of God if you wish, but I acknowledge that I cannot hand on to others my "intution". The most respectful thing that I can do for others is to pass on the rational, systematic theology which endures. That is the parameter of what is a Church. From there, anyone can have an intuitive experience of spiritual encounter, but that is within the Church, it is not Church in and of itself.

My focus is Christ entering our lives (that is the essence of the incarnation) you focus seems to be our expectant, experience of Christ. Such is the essence of many a heresy. My model of Church has something to hand on; yours something to take. But certainly you are made uncomfortable by the great saint when he writes to us that when the option is giving versus taking, is the case that "Not that of ourselves we are qualified to take credit for anything as coming from us; rather, our qualification comes from God."

You ay be be happy in the quaintness of your Church of One...I cannot.

Mike

Friday, November 03, 2006 10:31:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home