We see apoplectic power plays from the church hierarchy enforcing the absolutely silent and therefore absolute non-blessing of ashes for Ash Wednesday (when nothing – nihil – is pronounced). No one will hear anything about sin in this ashes rite.
It’s the apoplectic bit that is stunning. It’s like, existential for them. If they’re not apoplectic in their bullying about the ashes, they will, like, die or something.
I mean, go ahead, see if you can find one of these power bullies all beside himself to enforce silence on sin and a non-blessing of ashes, who will also condemn the “vaccines” for having been developed from or tested on only super healthy developed babies, dissected and harvested. Will you find even one? No? They are too concerned about Wuhan Rites and masks and the laws of this world… They feel powerful when babies are murdered for them.
All I’ve heard is that they are breathlessly anxious to get in line to get their damned abortion tainted vaccines so that they can be heroes in their own eyes and in the eyes of Wuhan Joe – so that they can abuse these kids to death and FEEL THE POWER – even while playing the unbelieving bully with their abuse of office, smashing down priests because they actually bless the ashes on Ash Wednesday. Rather disproportionate: they sanction the murder of children, the priests they smash down just bless ashes for Ash Wednesday. Wait… What? Yep. It is these freak boys who are lining up for a non-merciful judgement, you know, which will have the same kind of dismissiveness used against them as they used for helpless babies in the womb. What a bunch of clowns, you know, the scary ones.
It’s to this that we have arrived. Murder is great! And forget about Jesus dying for our sins.
I am soooooooooooooooo psyched up for this weekend’s preaching.
I don’t care what any Pope or bishop or bully has to say, to get a “vaccine” into me you’ll literally have to kill me.
Having said that, I know how make for an effective deescalation and avoid awkward situations without compromise, without weakness, retaining honesty and integrity. It’s possible not because we are good or “special” but because Jesus allowed Himself to be tortured to death, innocent for the guilty, laying down His life for us, so that we wouldn’t continue to lay others’ lives down for ourselves, murdering littlies in the womb.
I’ve been in so very many truly impossible damned if I do and damned if I don’t situations, but not compromising, knowing that Jesus will save the day, and then watch Jesus smash down idiot ecclesiastics so that they themselves take me out of the traps they themselves had set, making fools – dare I say – clowns of themselves. Jesus doesn’t appreciate when His priests are suffering from the monsters.
And if I’m not rescued, but thrown on a trash heap, it is in that way that I will be saved, going to heaven. There is to be no compromise with murder of babies: it’s not to be done, ever. Looking to the things above, to being hidden with Christ in God, that’s what I want. I want that for everyone, including those who need conversion, be they priests, be they bishops.
I will preach about Christ our God, who was a Baby in the virginal womb of His Immaculate Virgin Mother. And there is no “power” on this earth or in hell which can steal me away from humble thanksgiving before the Lamb of God, who will come to judge the living and the dead and world by fire. Amen. Thanks be to God.
Let’s see how long we hear crickets. I would like to see bishops and priests defend life.
Judas betrayed Jesus and then committed suicide. Peter betrayed Jesus. All eleven had run away. John came back as did the others. I’m nobody, but I nevertheless invite them to get to know Jesus again or for the first time. Jesus is Eternal Life.
Back in the mid-1980s, I declined when a Bishop wanted me to get degreed out in Canon Law over in Rome, asking to be sent back over yet again to get degreed out in Sacred Scripture. He sent me instead to the brand new JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family, back when the on the ground founder Father Carlo Caffarra (+2017) was there I think in the second year of its operation. I eventually did get degreed out in all matters Biblical. Although at the same time – back in the day – I was trying to cross-index all the canons of Canon Law in my mind, heart and soul, I am not today any kind of Canon Lawyer at all. So, I’ll just notice some things about this “Note.” I stand to be corrected. Please, do so.
First of all, the CDW chose to publish this as a “Note.” Wait… What? It’s not a Motu Proprio, nor a Decree, nor a Directive, nor an Instruction, nor a Circular Letter, nor a Notification, nor a Declaration, nor a Response to a Doubt, but merely as a “Note.” So, the legislative umph that comes with this note is something like zero. It’s like a suggestion for priests who are wondering just how far they can go with absurdity, you know, with permission, pushing for the surreal capitalizing on a plandemic one of whose main purposes seems to have been – of all things – to kick religion in the face.
There is no time stamp for “the pandemic,” you know, like someone deputed by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church who is taking responsibility for making a scientific decision for the “end of the pandemic” when scientists have been lying and playing politics over against religion all along. The Covid-19 drama threatens to go on for many years to come. So…? Some dioceses very many hundreds of miles in length and breadth, having wildly diverse circumstances regarding geography, demography, (non-)movement of populations, and regarding how many enjoy immunity in whatever community for whatever reason, age, history of having gotten and gotten over the virus (I know some who got it in Italy and had to stay there until it was all over), and so on. So, the “sacerdos” on the ground is to make the decision.
There is no language such as “anything to the contrary notwithstanding,” nothing about penalties, no change in the General Institution of the Roman Missal for any future or continuing epidemics, no extra rubrics. Zippo. It’s a “Note”, right now, that is offered to “the priest.” Period.
Enough of that. Let’s move on to an analysis of the text, you know, the only official, signed text, in Latin. The other languages are not signed, so I’m thinking no one is wanting to claim those as “official translations.” It’s the Latin that has claim to being the “Note.”
“Dicta oratione ad benedicendos ceneres, et aspersis eis aqua benedicta, nihil dicens…” /// In my more pedantic and correct translation than that which is otherwise proffered, the meaning is as follows: “Having said the prayer for the blessing of the ashes, and with [ashes] having been sprinkled with blessed water, saying nothing…” /// Syntactically, the entire first paragraph is one sentence. This is merely the introduction to the rest of the sentence. But so far what we have are two past participles of whatever “voice” being subordinate to the present participle which carries, as it were, both of the other preceding participles. What this means is that although the first “dicta” (having said) would otherwise also mean “having pronounced”, being that it is subject to the present participle in the phrase “nihil dicens” (saying nothing), the reference to “dicta” at the beginning actually means something along the lines of “having made pretend to say”, so that the entire blessing is not pronounced except in the priest’s head, you know, because he actually is saying nothing – “nihil dicens” – for the actions of both preceding past participles of whatever voice. There are no words provided for the ashes having been sprinkled. No pronouncement = no blessing. The content of this note is fraudulent.
This first sentence continues as follows: “…sacerdos semel pro omnibus astantibus formulam ut in Missali Romano profert:…” /// [having wrought the preceding fakery mentioned at the beginning of this sentence…] …the priest once for all of those present pronounces the formula in the Roman Missal… /// So, now, the priest is actually to speak for the first and only time.”Sacerdos” is the subject of the main verb – profert – that carries the immediately preceding present participle in the phrase – “nihil dicens” – which in turn carries both past participles of whatever “voice” in the opening clauses.
The first sentence continues with its conclusion with references to options of what the priest is to pronounce just the one time for everyone: “Paenitemini, et credite Evangelio,” or “Memento, homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.” /// “Repent, and believe in the Gospel,” or “Remember, man, that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
So, what we have are non-blessed ashes that have holy water sprinkled on them to an unknown effect for the Novus Ordo blessing of water or to the effect of an exorcism for the traditional formula, but nothing as a particular sacramental calling on the merits of Christ and the saints (as real sacramentals do): nothing about repenting specifically from sin. And how many people in the entire world go to Confession? A few hundred? A few thousand? Out of more than a billion? I note about this note, say, in the English “translation”, that the translator found it so very absurd that he broke up the first sentence into three, changed the participles to active verbs, and changed the meanings. But as I have noted previously, even that wasn’t good enough to overcome the surreal nature of this note.
Also, to repeat what I’ve said before, if mere ashes are disrespected and at the same time subjected to hyperventilating fake rubrics, what are we to do to make this consistent with the actual rubrics of Holy Mass about Him, who is infinitely more important, Jesus, Christ our God. Are the consecrations to have been said without saying anything – Nihil dicens – so that there are no actual consecrations of any bread or wine, so that there is, then, no Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ present, so that it is all a simulation of a Sacraement? Is the instruction about the “Body of Christ” or “Corpus Domini Iesu Christi…” therefore an encouragement to commit idol worship, something that we’ve already seen with the Pachamama fiasco?
Commentary on the rest of this “Note” and the additional rubrics others have given – totally absurd – will have to wait for another day. I can only be fed so much feces before wanting to throw up. I’m too weak. Sorry.
(Vatican News) Ahead of the beginning of Lent, on Wednesday, 17 February, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has published a note detailing how Catholic priests are to distribute ashes. [What “Catholic priests”, of what rite? All? The article gives no link to the CDW. The instruction is not published at the CDW web site as of this writing, days later. I looked over the “Bollettino” for the last 10 days: nothing. We know how things have been manipulated in the past. I don’t trust this. Maybe the link will show up in the next few days, but the CDW hasn’t updated their site for a full month. Is this from the American Jesuit guy? Is this a testing of the waters before publishing something more official, a usual modus operandi? Well then, here’s my opinion for the Holy See:]
Instructions:[Note that this journo summary has few quotation marks. Therefore, we don’t really know what was said, do we? No, we don’t.] After blessing the ashes and sprinkling them with holy water in silence [What? Blessings are pronounced. Is this a way to avoid telling people that there is no sin from which to repent… on… Ash… Wednesday… ? The blessings recall repentance from sin and salvation from sin. Is that bad for people to hear?], the priest addresses those present, reciting once the formula found in the Roman Missal [edit!]: “Repent, and believe in the Gospel” [Why not “repent from sin”, since we missed out on that with the non-blessing of the ashes?] or “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return”. [Just once for everyone? Wait… What? Let’s continue…]
At that point, the note continues [I’m not taking this journo’s word for it], the priest “cleanses his hands, [Because you wouldn’t want the ashes to get dirty because – why? – they are Pachamama ashes?] puts on a face mask [And there it is, the liturgical face mask (barf, barf, barf…). I wonder if there is a liturgical barf bag], and distributes ashes to those who come to him or, if appropriate, he goes to those who are standing in their places.” [Yeah, you know, with zero social distancing because the mask makes it all better according to spin doctor Fauci who changes his mind as minutes go by.]
He then sprinkles the ashes on each person’s head “without saying anything.” [This is a custom in Italy, not so much in these USA. Does that mean that making the sign of the cross on the penitent’s forehead is forbidden? I’d like to see the exact language and the method by which this is promulgated.]
Here’s the deal: You don’t get to change liturgical law for the universal church by way of hearsay. This is bullying, pure and simple.
I will not comply. [edit!]
This will lead quite directly to desecration of the Blessed Sacrament:
If a priest is to wash his hands before touching the ashes which are only going to be sprinkled on the person’s head from on high, how is the Most Blessed Sacrament to be distributed in Holy Communion to the faithful? The hypocritical inconsistencies are, I’m guessing, quite purposed, so that the sacrilege we’ve seen with altar breads to be purchased already individually packaged in cellophane wrappers are what’s coming next, you know, a mask for Jesus, literally. All those particles of the Sacred Host? Thrown away? Or the cellophaned Jesus brought to satanic rituals or kept as a “memento.” Or, the priest is to wash his hands again after every communicant has communicated, you know, with ablutions the priest drinks himself? Every time? Or, a new pair of gloves – you know, with the particles clinging to the gloves like metal shavings cling to a magnet? Self-communication doesn’t work as you would have to have a different ciborium for each person present. And how are the ablutions to be made with no risk of desecration to the Blessed Sacrament except that the priest drinks these himself? Oh, that’s right: Kill the priests! That’s the goal! Actually not. The goal is to mock the liturgy, to mock God, right? Just a question, but please, explain all this to me.
So… I will not comply.
And if I’m dismissed from the clerical state because I insist that repentance is repentance from sin, or because I’m protecting the Blessed Sacrament from sacrilege, so be it. I want to go to heaven.
All that prayer and fasting and almsgiving: so annoying; so aggravating! ;-)
One of our elderly men in the parish was laughing throughout this homily, thinking that what it meant was – as he told someone after Mass – that there was no way that they’re ever going to move me from the parish!
I guess this homily is one of those realistic homilies. It made for a lot of laughter that was admitting that what I was saying is the truth of it.