

Use your phone’s camera!
Was there a GOOD point made in the sermon you heard at the Mass for your Sunday (obligation or none), either live or on the internet? Let us know what it was.
Too many people today are without good, strong preaching, to the detriment of all. Share the good stuff.
What was attendance like?
Tell about attendance especially for the Traditional Latin Mass. I was getting reports that it was way up. But now COVID… again…. Tell me it doesn’t have a demonic component.
Was the Motu Proprio mentioned? Any local changes or news?
For those of you who regularly viewed my live-streamed daily Masses – with their fervorini – for over a year, you might drop me a line.
I have some remarks about the TLM – HERE
From a reader…
A former parishioner of mine asked me to come and bless/pray/cleanse the Masonic Temple he just purchased at auction. I said I’d research and prepare and get back to him with a date to do so.
I’ve reviewed the prayers for a person or family member who wishes to renounce all things Masonic but what about the temple itself?
If burning the place isn’t an option, then ask for permission from the bishop to say “Exorcism of Place”. It’s a useful appendix in the new rite, recently published (and the only useful part in that book).
There are several exorcisms of place in Fr. Ripperger’s book HERE.
A priest can enthrone the Sacred Heart there and say a Mass of the Sacred Heart, preferably on a first Friday (but any liturgically free day would be fine).
The new owner should pray his Rosary there frequently and track any wacky stuff that might happen. If he doesn’t notice anything, great. If he does, the priest can come back and do some more minor exorcisms.
Decades ago the National Catholic Reporter (these days more the National Schismatic Reporter aka Fishwrap) was commanded by the bishop where they are established to stop using the word “Catholic” in their title. The bishop was met with defiance. Fishwrap has been one of the foremost organs of catholic hypocrisy, distorting the Faith, ever since.
Today, at Fishwrap, we find this, from someone named Art Blumberg, who is going for the coveted MDiv at Jesuit Run Loyola University in Chicago.
As part of his course work he wanted to attend a Hindu Temple puja ceremony. He was scared of COVID so he watched a video.
As you peruse this, think of the snarky comments made at Fishwrap about the Traditional Roman Rite, all the “smells and bells” comments, the “couldn’t understand”, the “it’s only sentimentality that draws” B as in B, S as in S. Now, proceed at your own risk, possible with an emesis basin at hand.
My emphases.
A postmodern Catholic divinity student lets go for a moment of grace
[…]
The video of the puja begins with a closed red curtain. A voice is chanting. Then someone makes a few announcements in English and Hindi. The same voice chants again. He stops. Then another person chants as the curtain is opened by the priest (pujari). Behind the curtain is a statue of Ganesha, the Hindu god with a man’s body and an elephant’s head. Hindus revere Ganesha as a remover of obstacles to the soul’s spiritual journey. The pujari makes ritual offerings of food to the statue. As the offering continues, another voice takes over the chanting.
I watch and listen. Although I can’t understand the language, I find its tone uplifting. I recognize the word, “Aum.” The way “Aum” is chanted reminds me of the way “Amen” is spoken or chanted in Hebrew prayers.
As the puja continues, the curtain in front of the statue of Ganesha, standing in what I think of as the tabernacle, is closed and then opened. As I take notes, I think that there is something inspiring and satisfying about seeing a religious observance done well. The pujari waves a short-handled stick with flowing tassels. I watch this intricate ritual, wondering what it all means.
It’s then I realize I am doing this all wrong. I am observing, taking notes like a field anthropologist. I am drawing parallels to Christian and Jewish practices.
I am distancing myself.
I am not part of the puja.
I pause the video. Take a deep breath. Exhale slowly. Take another deep breath. Exhale slowly. And again. And again. I restart the video. Shift my focus from the pujari to the motion of the tassels. Listen to the chanting. Then I stare into Ganesha’s eyes.
And something wonderful happens. I am entranced, mesmerized. Ganesha’s eyes seem to stare back as the chanting wafts over me. I slide into its rhythm. One voice, then another, then two together. Not trying to understand. Just breathing. Just being.
Silence. I am startled.
The two voices begin a new and joyous chant. Is that a bell tinkling?
The statue of Ganesha.
The chanting. The distant dance of bells.
Ganesha.
For a moment, the eyes of Ganesha are all that exists, all that is there in my world.
As the puja ends, I am still staring into Ganesha’s eyes.
The video stops.
I sigh.
What just happened?
The short answer, in Christian terms, is that I experienced a moment of grace, even as it was in a non-Christian setting. I know that experiencing the divine cannot be confined to a Christian box. But I must find a deeper answer that goes beyond imposing Christian theology and values on a Hindu puja.
[…]
I go for dar?an and watch the puja again, tamping down my conscious mind, leaving myself open for the experience.
And I stare into Ganesha’s eyes.
And I breathe.
And I be.
A great feeling of peace comes over me as I surrender to the puja.
For the moment, the story becomes a little more my own.
The pandemic has upended the way we live. Yet even a pandemic cannot stop our seeking, our questing for signs of the Divine.
He surrendered, while staring into the eyes of a representation of a demon. As he did that, and afterward, he felt great.
And Fishwrap wants you to know about this great opportunity, so they posted the video too!
You too can have your very own gateway moment for apostasy and demonic oppression.
Comment moderation is on.
May I suggest that you say the prayer to St. Michael for this man and any others who might be tempted to do what he did? He could be in trouble for what he did.
On the other hand, he might have a bigger and more immediate problem. He’s with Jesuits at Loyola in Chicago.
I recall a time when I was genuinely eager for the rumored release of papal documents. They would come out and I would read them carefully looking for the good stuff.
These days I don’t have that zeal and I admit that, when I look at them, I brace myself against what I hope I won’t find, but know that I will.
Today I saw a headline that an anthology – third in a series – of some of Benedict XVI’s writings was published on something that deeply concerned him over many years – the identity of Europe. This volume includes thoughts about a burning issue: same-sex marriage.
Mind you, we had just heard Francis during the latest airplane chat effectively approve of same-sex marriages.
Hmmm… did he know this book was coming out, so to speak? The article, below, says Francis penned the Forward, available in Italian HERE. For a rather grim view of Francis’ plane presser, in Italian, HERE.
If you have Italian, check out Benedict’s Introduction in the 16 Sept Il Foglio. The book is
La vera Europa. Identità e missione published by Cantagalli.
A news summary from CNA:
Benedict XVI: Legalization of same-sex marriage is ‘a distortion of conscience’
Pope emeritus Benedict XVI has said that the legalization of same-sex marriage in many countries is “a distortion of conscience” which has also entered some Catholic circles.
In an introduction to a new anthology of his writings on Europe, Benedict XVI said that “with the legalization of ‘same-sex marriage’ in 16 European countries, the issue of marriage and family has taken on a new dimension that cannot be ignored.”
“We are witnessing a distortion of conscience which has evidently penetrated deeply into sectors of the Catholic people,” the pope emeritus wrote. “This cannot be answered with some small moralism or even with some exegetical reference. The problem goes deeper and therefore must be addressed in fundamental terms.”
The introduction, published in the Italian newspaper Il Foglio on Sept. 16, was written for the Italian book “The Real Europe: Identity and Mission.”
[..]The pope emeritus wrote that the fundamental upheaval of this idea was introduced with the invention of the contraceptive pill and the possibility it gave of separating fertility from sexuality.
“This separation means, in fact, that in this way all of the forms of sexuality are equivalent,” he said. “A fundamental criterion no longer exists.”
[…]
That last bit it important. This is the goal of the homosexualist agenda and all who promote it: separate sex from procreation. Once you do that, anything goes… including lowering the age of consent.
Read the whole thing there.

Not sure that this is how it works.
There is an instructive post at NLM by Gregory DiPippo about Ecumencial Councils that failed but were, nonetheless, legitimate Ecumentical Councils.
Councils are called because there is a problem, not just for the heck of it. Or so it ought to be. Gregory uses the example of how the problem of clerics abusively holding multiple benefices had to be addressed. He explains what benefices are, btw. Lateran V addressed the problem of a plurality of benefices it but got the solution wrong (it still allowed four simultaneous benefices). That doesn’t make Lateran V a non-Council or illegitimate. The failure makes it a failed Council. Trent had to get the job done correctly down the line.
With that in mind, here are a couple of interesting paragraphs.
Here, then, is the second lesson to be drawn from this matter: it is perfectly possible for an ecumenical council (such as Lateran V) to correctly identify a problem within the Church (plurality of benefice), without correctly identifying the solution to that problem. Indeed, it is perfectly possible for said council to correctly identify a problem, and offer as a solution the exact opposite of what was needed to solve it, by de facto allowing it to continue. And it is perfectly possible to say this without denying the legitimacy of Lateran V as an ecumenical council.
Likewise, it is perfectly possible that Vatican II correctly identified a problem within the Church, the then-current state of its liturgical life, without correctly identifying the solution to that problem. Indeed, it is perfectly possible for said council to have correctly identified the problem, and offered as a solution the exact opposite of what was needed to solve it. (Of course, no two councils or the events that follow them are exactly alike, and so we must here once again note that the post-Conciliar reform is what it is in large measure because it rejected what Vatican II had said about the liturgy.) And it is perfectly possible to say this without denying the legitimacy of Vatican II as an ecumenical council.
Not all legitimate Councils were good. Not all succeeded in solving the problems of the day. Some solved some problems but not all. Some Councils failed. They are still legitimate Councils.
Not all priests, bishops or popes were or are good. Some fail. Some are even wicked.
Not all juridical and disciplinary decisions made by ecclesial authorities are good, simply by the fact that they were issued by an authority. Some are really bad. That doesn’t mean that the authority didn’t really have authority. Well… maybe he didn’t. My point is that just because an authority does something authoritative, that makes what he did good.
Our Church has a human dimension. That’s going to mean, over time, lots of screw ups and downright evil. The grace of orders does not overwhelm our fallen human nature and force men to become virtuous or intelligent. Vices can be overcome, of course, but stupid is forever.
It has ever been so. Happily, Our Lord knew this and, so, built in some fail safes to prevent total disaster.
Remember. Our Lord promised that Church would not fail, but He didn’t promise it would last in North Africa, Asia Minor, these USA or Vatican City.