Benedict XVI decrees the return of Latin Masses. The Pope has decided to sign and publish the text with an illustrative note written by liturgical experts and theologians 7-February-07 Pope Benedict XVI took the decision of publishing the motu proprio decree on the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass, the ceremony in Latin according to the Missal of Saint Pius V, that is, the pre-Conciliar Mass, which was celebrated up to 1962, with the priest turned towards the east, popularly defined as with the back [of the priest] turned to the people. The Pope decided to sign and publish the text along with an illustrative note written by liturgical experts and theologians. The news comes from Rome and was confirmed yesterday in the Sacred Halls. In fact, the definitive text of the Motu Proprio was handed to the Pope in late January by the Ecclesia Dei Commision, the Vatican organ charged with examining dealings with the Lefebvrists. Not all clerics are pleased with the measure, particularly the French Episcopal Conference. The Tridentine Mass will not be obligatory, but the priests who wish to celebrate according to the old rite will now be able to do it, without asking permission to the diocesan bishop, as before. The decision of the Pope seems guided by common sense, because it ensures sobriety and spirituality.

We live in an age when modernists regard religion with something approaching panic. It is like the Devil’s attitude to Holy Water. The world needs religion to address the moral issues. In the advanced societies it is these moral issues that now mock us. Europe and North America are hugely wealthy regions, but they are morally impoverished. Broken families, drugs, booze, youth gangs, crime, neglect of children and the old, the sheer boredom of shopaholicism, terrorism, the inner-city slums, materialism itself, are all the marks of a global society in decline. Societies can be judged by their care for children. Social education must start in the family and must have a moral basis. Children need to be taught to distinguish between right and wrong.

A tiny baby girl born at just over five months has defied medical expectations by surviving, in a case that reinforces arguments against gestational abortion laws, the Daily Mail reported earlier today. Amillia Taylor was born at a Miami hospital one month earlier than the date considered viable for most babies, at just 21 weeks and six days gestation. She weighed less than 10 oz and was just nine ½ inches long. Babies born earlier than 25 weeks are generally classed as medically “non-viable,” while just half of the babies born at 25 weeks manage to survive. Abortion legislation often relies on that cut-off to determine when abortions can no longer be carried out, with the procedure commonly permitted up to the 24th week. Amillia is the youngest known baby worldwide to survive premature birth, although medical advancements continue to improve the chances of early survival for infants who leave the womb ahead of schedule. The survival of such a young baby undermines justification of later-term abortions considered acceptable because the child is too immature to survive outside the womb. As well, improvements in preterm care have led to difficult questions about the treatment of late-term babies who survive abortion attempts, since there is often no difference in the physical development of a child born alive after an abortion attempt and a child born early through premature delivery.

Anyhoo, the Most Reverend Daniel N. DiNardo succeeded his excellency last year with great fanfare. I've personally met his excellency, read his many statements, and have listened to many of his speeches and talks as well as heard from many others close to him of his modus operandi. Archbishop DiNardo seems very orthodox in his Catholicism, for instance he voted for all the proposed amendments to the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) translation of the Order of Mass (all passed except the consubstantialis, which his excellency argued for while Bishop Trautman rebuffed him arguing that us American Catholics were to stupid to understand consubstantialis - final vote 81 for, 109 against). I also want to add that the good Archbishop DiNardo is an ardent liturgist that has made it clear to all parish priests that liturgical purity is one of his highest priorities in the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. Thus he joins a growing chorus of bishops in the United States for a reform of the reform of Vatican II. Not necessarily rejecting Vatican II, but perfectly implementing what Vatican II was all about, a return to the early Church to better engage the post-Christian world. Thus the gross miscalculations of many misguided clergy and laity in incorrectly implementing these 'reforms' will be turned back. And the correct implementation of Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes will bring a springtime in the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. A boom in vocations and a rise in conversions to the Bride of Christ.

To read my posting on Vatican II click here.

To read the Curriculum Vitae of Archbishop Fiorenza click here.

To read the Curriculum Vitae of Archbishop DiNardo click here.

To read about the new Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart click here.

To read Lumen Gentium click here.

To read Gaudium et Spes click here.

To read The State of the Catholic Church in America, Diocese by Diocese click here. (Hat Tip: The Cafeteria is Closed)

To read Built on a Rock's posting on this study click here.

"The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal," . . . "where god (sic) is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels."

If that wasn't enough, take a look at these nuggets of wisdom from sbh of Rational Rant:

". . . I'd prefer to believe that the majority of Roman Catholics aren't hate-filled antisemitic homophobic bigots of the Catholic League stripe."

"Church is once again mired to her hips in this moral filth."

"Apparently it is all right for them to say any evil or disgusting thing they like about people they oppose for whatever reason"

"I know for a fact that Custos Fidei is full of crap on this point."

"It is thus Custos Fidei who comes off in this as ignorant, misinformed--or a liar."

Then Mr. John Whiteside chimes in with this well-informed comment:

"Honestly, it didn't make much sense to me, and surrounded by an ad hominem attack as it was, it was pretty hard to take seriously."

My posting was an ad hominem attack. So quoting Mr. John Whiteside is considered an ad hominem attack. Let's take a closer look at what he had to say. But I need to remind my readers that Mr. Whiteside did not object to Mr. sbh's 'ad hominem' attacks on Catholicism nor on me.

Number one: “Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who often can be found saying nasty things about gay people and warning that the Jews run Hollywood” Unsupported evidence. And if you were to find these ‘allegations’, I’m sure you would have to edit his comments about the Jews and explain that ‘Church teaching’ says nasty things. Again a double standard in the media, specifically you. Number two: “Criticizing the Catholic Church or its beliefs is not "anti-Catholic bigotry.”

Because you say so makes it so? So if I were to deny that the holocaust actually occurred I wouldn’t be called a bigot? Your logic is irrational and contradictory. It’s irrational because you are unable to step away from your comments and see it for what it is, bigotry and hate. It’s contradictory because you equate the difference between hate speeches that if it’s Catholicism its ok, but if it’s Judaism it’s not ok. Number three: “if a church is going to act like a political action committee, those activities are a valid target of criticism.”

The Church does not act like a political action committee. Just because you disagree with the teachings of the Church doesn’t give you the pretext to ‘assume’ it is acting like a political action committee and then run your diatribe of hate and bigotry. You create a straw man argument so as to excuse yourself from being called what you are, an anti-Catholic bigot. Number four: “bunch of scary lunatics,”

That pretty much explains itself. Though you were quoting your alleged Catholic friends you followed up by explicitly affirming it with the following statement… “The Catholic League is a political group that represents a pretty extreme fringe” Number five: