Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Monday, February 4, 2013
Deacon Kandra goes "all in" for kneeling for Holy Communion
Well, Friends!!!
k.c. has featured Deacon Kandra before.....http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com/search?q=Kandra
...and not positively!!
Not that Deacon Kandra should care what my opinion of him is, but for what it is worth, I have a very high opinion of him! His 14 January article, quoted below -- [[Thanks again to Father Z for alerting us to Deacon Kandra's change of heart.]]-- is a blistering indictment of 'Communion-any-old-way'! Certainly k.c. in 400+ posts has never hit this nail so squarely!!!
It is time to revive the Don Camillo award!!!!......the winner is..............................................
>>>>>>>;Frankly, we should not only be humbled, but intimidated enough to ask ourselves if we are really spiritually ready to partake of the sacrament. Kneeling means you can't just go up and receive without knowing how it's properly done. It demands not only a sense of focus and purpose, but also something else, something that has eluded our worship for two generations.
It demands a sense of the sacred. It challenges us to kneel before wonder, and bow before grace. It insists that we not only fully understand what is happening, but that we fully appreciate the breathtaking generosity behind it. It asks us to be mindful of what "Eucharist" really means: thanksgiving.
I don't see that much today. It's gone. We need to reclaim it. Pope Benedict XVI seems to agree. He has decided he will only give communion at papal Masses to those who kneel and receive on the tongue. He was gently making a liturgical point. Are we paying attention?
After what I've seen, I agree with him. We need to get off our feet, and on our knees.
Bring back the communion rail. It's time. <<<<<<<
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Father Pacwa goes "all in" for kneeling
Father Pacwa hosted his Excellency, Bishop Athanasius Schneider on 09 January 2013.
Bishop Schneider was focused--as always!! Father Mitch has now hosted Bishop Athanasius at least twice.
It is interesting to see the EWTN audience's reaction. There were not many happy looking faces! Father received two call-ins and three studio audience questions. Here is the breakdown. Both phone-callers were very sympathetic to his Excellency. Of those in Birmingham, visiting EWTN, two, at 45:26 and 49:13 of the program, tried to put the bishop on the spot!! The last questioner, a young man, dispensed with politeness and didn't bother with saying 'Father', or even 'Bishop'. (you may advance 'the tape' by grabbing the end of the gray progress bar)
Please pray for EWTN's anti-kneeling people! If Father Pacwa and Bishop Schneider cannot even convince EWTN stalwart, that kneeling at Holy Communion is a more clear and intense gesture than queuing up and sticking your hand out ((as if you are waiting for change back from your dollar at a convenience store!!)), then how can we convince Catholics who don't even know who Mother Angelica is?
Bishop Schneider was focused--as always!! Father Mitch has now hosted Bishop Athanasius at least twice.
It is interesting to see the EWTN audience's reaction. There were not many happy looking faces! Father received two call-ins and three studio audience questions. Here is the breakdown. Both phone-callers were very sympathetic to his Excellency. Of those in Birmingham, visiting EWTN, two, at 45:26 and 49:13 of the program, tried to put the bishop on the spot!! The last questioner, a young man, dispensed with politeness and didn't bother with saying 'Father', or even 'Bishop'. (you may advance 'the tape' by grabbing the end of the gray progress bar)
Please pray for EWTN's anti-kneeling people! If Father Pacwa and Bishop Schneider cannot even convince EWTN stalwart, that kneeling at Holy Communion is a more clear and intense gesture than queuing up and sticking your hand out ((as if you are waiting for change back from your dollar at a convenience store!!)), then how can we convince Catholics who don't even know who Mother Angelica is?
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Hey, Mr. Romney! (Oops, I mean President Obama!!)
What Romney (oops I mean President Obama) should say about Afghanistan.... (Replace with "What President Obama should announce re: Afghanistan")
1. In retreating, we are hoping that the Afghanis can accomplish a task, i.e. anihilating the Taliban and Al Aqaeda, all by themselves EVEN THOUGH we-ourselves were unable to accomplish that with the help of the armed forces of the entire civilized world!!! We hope that "hope" works......!!!!
2. The Taliban are a vicious bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who believe that husbands should have the right to cut the noses off their wives and to stone their daughters if they think they are being disobedient.
3. America is finished turning the other cheek with regards to attacks on American troops. Given that we have decided to pull out out of Afghanistan--regardless of the facts on the ground--, any attacks on our troops and facilities need to be met with retaliation. This is not currently the case. Our casualties are being viewed by the President and State Dept and Dept of Defense as acceptable losses, bumps-in-the-road, so long as we can remain on station until the President's artificial deadline. Romney (Ooops, I mean President Obama) needs to clarify that if he becomes president, ANYONE caught attacking Americans will be treated as a POW and sent either to Gitmo or to one of our raspa factories in Antarctica and remain there until Jihad is declared 'over ' by every little imam in every little mosque in all the world.
K. C. is familiar with one troop who was in Iraq as the last troops left in 2011. At that time casualties were simply accepted and remote operating bases did not even maintain the capability to transfuse blood. This meant that if someone suffered massive blood loss, as did happen--especially with our .50 caliber gunners on top of our vehicles--, they died if weather forbade medevac flights to the nearest 'MASH'. Also the criminals which we captured planting IEDs were usually turned over to the Iraqi authorities---where the understanding was: as long as only Americans troops were the targets, the criminal would never be detained for very long.
Loyalty to our troops must to go both ways. These men and women are willing to sacrifice their all for America. I believe St. Thomas Aquinas counted patriotism as a virtue, if so, then they have checked-that-box.. America needs to be loyal and virtuous to them.
4. Trickling out does not work as a retreat. Robust protectionis needed to defend our 'stragglers' from being attacked.....We must present our stragglers as "hard targets".
1. In retreating, we are hoping that the Afghanis can accomplish a task, i.e. anihilating the Taliban and Al Aqaeda, all by themselves EVEN THOUGH we-ourselves were unable to accomplish that with the help of the armed forces of the entire civilized world!!! We hope that "hope" works......!!!!
2. The Taliban are a vicious bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who believe that husbands should have the right to cut the noses off their wives and to stone their daughters if they think they are being disobedient.
3. America is finished turning the other cheek with regards to attacks on American troops. Given that we have decided to pull out out of Afghanistan--regardless of the facts on the ground--, any attacks on our troops and facilities need to be met with retaliation. This is not currently the case. Our casualties are being viewed by the President and State Dept and Dept of Defense as acceptable losses, bumps-in-the-road, so long as we can remain on station until the President's artificial deadline. Romney (Ooops, I mean President Obama) needs to clarify that if he becomes president, ANYONE caught attacking Americans will be treated as a POW and sent either to Gitmo or to one of our raspa factories in Antarctica and remain there until Jihad is declared 'over ' by every little imam in every little mosque in all the world.
K. C. is familiar with one troop who was in Iraq as the last troops left in 2011. At that time casualties were simply accepted and remote operating bases did not even maintain the capability to transfuse blood. This meant that if someone suffered massive blood loss, as did happen--especially with our .50 caliber gunners on top of our vehicles--, they died if weather forbade medevac flights to the nearest 'MASH'. Also the criminals which we captured planting IEDs were usually turned over to the Iraqi authorities---where the understanding was: as long as only Americans troops were the targets, the criminal would never be detained for very long.
Loyalty to our troops must to go both ways. These men and women are willing to sacrifice their all for America. I believe St. Thomas Aquinas counted patriotism as a virtue, if so, then they have checked-that-box.. America needs to be loyal and virtuous to them.
4. Trickling out does not work as a retreat. Robust protectionis needed to defend our 'stragglers' from being attacked.....We must present our stragglers as "hard targets".
Sunday, September 16, 2012
EWTN TIES "FOR GREATER GLORY" STORY TOGETHER
Yes, I have been conspicuously quiet about “For Greater Glory”—a film I had high hopes for. Why? I guess I was a little disappointed. It is hard to put my finger on—but wait! I think I know some of the things that bothered me:
1. The only scene with Holy Communion---had the communicants STANDING. This anachronism was surely unintentional, but it does kind of undermine my blog!
2. The music. What was that anyway? It wasn’t Mexican! I had heard from antagonistic critics that the music was syrupy and intrusive. Alas, it was. Maybe they can re-score the film?
3. The loud, smacking kisses – mainly between Longoria and Garcia, you know, it sounded like someone chewing with their mouth open? There were only a few, but really!
4. The unhistorical attempt to introduce characters who didn’t know each other, to each other. E.g. Gorostieta and the boy. Or Catorce and the boy.
5. The unhistorical attempt to redeem Padre Vega. According to all accounts, he was "Pancho Villa in a cassock":: a vengeful, womanizing scoundrel. This was no secret to the brave men under his command. I think we're 'grown up' enough to deal with the truth.
6. The unfocused length. Keep in mind, my young’uns have been known to watch 4 hours straight of Ted Turner’s ‘Gettysburg’ and still cry at the end (for General Armistead). This film— they anticipated greatly—wore them out.
There WERE many things I loved about the film! The following ‘short’ video has most of them. Be sure and listen to the distinguished Frenchman in the sweater! That’s Jean Meyer. Professor Meyer is a real hero !e. His voluminous studies and interviews eventually overwhelmed the government’s AND the Church’s unwillingness to remember the Cristeros.
1. The only scene with Holy Communion---had the communicants STANDING. This anachronism was surely unintentional, but it does kind of undermine my blog!
2. The music. What was that anyway? It wasn’t Mexican! I had heard from antagonistic critics that the music was syrupy and intrusive. Alas, it was. Maybe they can re-score the film?
3. The loud, smacking kisses – mainly between Longoria and Garcia, you know, it sounded like someone chewing with their mouth open? There were only a few, but really!
4. The unhistorical attempt to introduce characters who didn’t know each other, to each other. E.g. Gorostieta and the boy. Or Catorce and the boy.
5. The unhistorical attempt to redeem Padre Vega. According to all accounts, he was "Pancho Villa in a cassock":: a vengeful, womanizing scoundrel. This was no secret to the brave men under his command. I think we're 'grown up' enough to deal with the truth.
6. The unfocused length. Keep in mind, my young’uns have been known to watch 4 hours straight of Ted Turner’s ‘Gettysburg’ and still cry at the end (for General Armistead). This film— they anticipated greatly—wore them out.
There WERE many things I loved about the film! The following ‘short’ video has most of them. Be sure and listen to the distinguished Frenchman in the sweater! That’s Jean Meyer. Professor Meyer is a real hero !e. His voluminous studies and interviews eventually overwhelmed the government’s AND the Church’s unwillingness to remember the Cristeros.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
