Tag Archives: holy communion

American Catholic Council — Before and After…

No, Sophia is not presenting herself for Holy Communion, she's snoring...

In April of 2009 I posted an article warning about a small dissident group from Minnesota calling itself the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform and its support for the formation of the American Catholic Council. The article was entitled “St. Joan of Arc Mpls. – Dialogue on difficult church issues, or advertisement to subvert the Catholic Church in America?“. In it I said:

“Simply put, there will be no effective American Catholic Council if reformers can’t somehow hoodwink laity and bishops into believing that their illegitimate goals are, well, legit…”

They weren’t, they couldn’t , and the council was…well, ineffective.

With the exception of a 78-year-old Priest from someplace called Ferndale, (not sure if this isn’t the name of a local retirement home or suburb of Detroit), the visible-active presence of any hierarchal authority capable of providing momentum for the movement was non-existent. After 2+ years of long hard planning and promoting the event  by various dissident groups throughout the country, this “spirit driven” council celebrating the 35th anniversary of the now infamous Call To Action Conference led by the late Cardinal John Dearden, former Archbishop of Detroit, would in the end produce a whopping 1500 participants…

Snore.

Waking up to Good Friday — Boston Cardinal O’Malley’s need for guidance on pro-abort Catholic politicians reception of holy communion

 “We have not had the kind of clear response that we need…”

Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston     

Vice President Joseph Biden (L), Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr. (D-MA), Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) (2nd-R) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

  

EDITOR NOTE: I woke up to the following angry e-mail on this first Friday of Lent:      

Since when has Cardinal O’Malley been concerned about Catholic politicians who support the killing of unborn children not being allowed to receive Communion? He even gave Ted Kennedy a saint’s send off, as he presided over his funeral services. Kennedy, a man who not only supported the killing of unborn children, but even while they were being born — the barbaric and excruciating painful partial-birth abortion.     

If that wasn’t enough, you have Kennedy’s support of homosexuality. Two of the greatest sins in the Bible are killing and homosexuality and Kennedy supported both of them.     

O’Malley wrote in a blog that he disagreed “in the strongest terms” with those who argued that Kennedy did not deserve a Catholic funeral, and he said such critics do “irreparable damage to the communion of the Church.”     

No, O’Malley, it is YOU who have done irreparable damage to the communion of the Church. You claim that Canon Law is not clear in denying Communion to Catholic pro-abortion politicians.     

I don’t know how it can be any clearer: Canon 915 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law states, in part: “Those…who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Communion.”     

Is not supporting killing a grave sin? I guess not, to O’Malley.   

***     

Let’s simplify with some questions: On January 2, 1960, John F. Kennedy officially declared his intent to seek the Democratic nomination for Presidency of the United States of America; if at that time he declared to do so on a plank supporting homosexuality and the killing of unborn children, including those being born, would he have:     

1. Won the Democratic nomination?     

2. Become President?     

3. Been allowed by his bishop to receive Holy Communion if found obstinate in promotion of such grave moral sin?     

So, what has changed?   

For Cardinal O’Malley to claim confusion in this matter is something akin to Moses retracing his steps back up Mt. Horeb in order to re-confirm with the All-Holy God on the religious and moral imperative to follow the 5th Commandment… 

Geth·sem·a·ne (gěth-sěm’ə-nē) Meaning:  Oil press.   

A poem for the sleeping…    

  

Down shadowy lanes, across strange streams  

Bridged over by our broken dreams;  

Behind the misty caps of years,  

Beyond the great salt font of tears,  

The garden lies. Strive as you may,  

You cannot miss it on your way.  

All paths that have been or shall be,  

Pass somewhere through Gethsemane.  

All those who journey, soon or late,  

Must pass within the garden’s gate;  

Must kneel alone in darkness there,  

And battle with some fierce despair.  

God pity those who cannot say,  

“Not mine but thine,” who only pray,  

“Let this cup pass,” and cannot see  

The purpose of Gethsemane.  

—Ella Wheeler Wilcox  

This story from Peter J. Smith at Life Site News explains the holy anger on this first Good Friday of Lent…   

WASHINGTON, DC, February 17, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The best way for the Church to ensure pro-abortion Catholic politicians do not receive Communion would be through a change in the Church’s Canon Law, or an official directive from the Pope himself, Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston told LifeSiteNews.com.      

LifeSiteNews.com caught up with O’Malley in Washington, DC last month, where he was among the concelebrating bishops for the Vigil Mass for Life at the National Basilica of the Immaculate Conception. LSN asked O’Malley what he considered the appropriate pastoral response to pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion.       

“Well, I think that the only way that that solution [denying communion] should be invoked is if there were a large catechesis or if it was universal for the whole church,” the cardinal responded. “You can’t have people doing things in one parish and another, you would only divide the Church hopelessly.”       

(To view the full LSN interview transcript with Cardinal O’Malley, click here)       

For several years, the US Catholic Bishops have actively engaged the problem of how to correct the scandal of pro-abortion politicians receiving Holy Communion – but developed no consensus on a uniform pastoral approach. Many orthodox Catholics continue to protest against pro-abortion politicians presenting themselves to receive the Church’s holiest sacrament, yet the practice is widespread.       

O’Malley said an official papal directive or change in Canon Law would be “the only way it is really going to work.”       

“That would be helpful if they did it,” he continued. “But if it is not done – to make it look like it’s an individual bishop sparring with the people of particular parties is only going to divide the Church in a very terrible way. Then you’ll have some priest who will obey and others who won’t, other divisions of the Church, more scandal, and undermining the authority of the bishops.”       

O’Malley revealed that he had been concerned about the issue for a long time, and asked Pope John Paul II for guidance when the pontiff was soliciting input from bishops for his pro-life encyclical Evangelium Vitae.       

“I wrote to him and asked him to please give us very clear direction on how to deal with politicians who will be pro-abortion and will be Catholic,” related O’Malley.       

“We have not had the kind of clear response that we need.”       

However, it seems the Vatican has already attempted to give the US bishops guidance on how to deal with the issue, through a 2004 letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – now Pope Benedict XVI – entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles.”       

The memo states that, once persistently pro-abortion Catholic politicians had been warned by their respective bishops not to approach the altar, they “must” be denied Communion.       

Unfortunately, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) never received the letter as Ratzinger intended. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, chairman of the USCCB task force on the issue, only referenced the document as an afterthought in his 12-page report to that committee.       

Later – in what may have been a Vatican end-run around McCarrick – Ratzinger’s letter hit international headlines after being leaked to Roman media.       

In the end, the US Bishops task force put out more generalized guidelines in the document “Catholics in Political Life,” which leaves the appropriate pastoral response towards pro-abortion politicians – including denial of Communion – to the prudential judgment of the individual bishop. Ratzinger would later affirm to the USCCB that the document was “very much in harmony” with his general principles.       

(To view the full LSN interview transcript with Cardinal O’Malley, click here)     

POEM CREDIT: LIVING SACRIFICE BLOG  

END OF POST

Waiting Room Conversation — ‘Mrs. Pelosi, Doctor Vasa will see you now.’

 

“When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription…”

ED. NOTE: Bishop Robert Vasa on Excommunication/Catholic Sentinel

Excommunication is a declaration of acts that severs ties

BEND — During the course of this past year there have been a number of occasions when bishops have hinted to laity that being Catholic involves a bit more than claiming the title. This has been done, in particular, with regard to politicians who may, in their own way, love Jesus, who may attend Sunday Mass and who do identify themselves as “faithful” Catholics. The press usually hints at the big “E” word, excommunication. The question of when a Catholic should be excommunicated has even been asked quite frequently and very seriously. While bishops are extremely reluctant to take the seemingly dramatic step of excommunication, I think there is very good reason for us to explore more thoroughly what excommunication really means and why it might be considered in certain circumstances.

The press would undoubtedly accuse Bishops who talk or even think about excommunication as being tyrannical power mongers but this is unfair. Excommunication is a declaration, based on solid evidence, that the actions or public teachings of a particular Catholic are categorically incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct. Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful. This is no small matter. The Church, and particularly bishops, have an obligation to defend the faith but they also have an obligation to protect the faithful. We do not generally see the dissidence of public figures as something that harms the faithful but it has a deleterious effect upon them.

I find, very frequently, when I speak a bit more boldly on matters of morality or discipline, there are a significant number of the faithful who send messages of gratitude and support. It is their gratitude which stirs my heart for it makes me realize how much there is a need to support and affirm the clear and consistent teachings of our Catholic faith for the sake of the faithful. While the press may caricature such bishops in rather uncharitable fashion, I trust that they are men devoted to true compassion and to the truth itself. Their compassion extends to those who are misled and to those who, while not misled, are discouraged when their faith is attacked without rebuttal. This discouragement of the faithful is not insignificant. When we look at the word itself we see that its root is “courage” and allowing someone’s courage to be dissipated, or “dissed” as the young might say, is harmful to the person. En-couragement, by contrast, builds up the courage of the faithful and increases their strength for doing good. It is life giving and revitalizing. Allowing error, publicly expressed, to stand without comment or contradiction is discouraging.

When that moral error is espoused publicly by a Catholic who, by the likewise public and external act of receiving Holy Communion, appears to be in “good standing” then the faithful are doubly confused and doubly discouraged. In that case, the error is certainly not refuted. Furthermore, the impression is given that the error is positively condoned by the bishop and the Church. This is very dis-couraging to the faithful. In such a case, private “dialogue” is certainly appropriate but a public statement is also needed. In extreme cases, excommunication may be deemed necessary.

It seems to me that even if a decree of excommunication would be issued, the bishop would really not excommunicate anyone. He only declares that the person is excommunicated by virtue of the person’s own actions. The actions and words, contrary to faith and morals, are what excommunicate (i.e. break communion with the Church). When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription. Accusing the doctor of being a tyrannical power monger would never cross anyone’s mind. Even when the doctor tells the patient that they are “excommunicated” from sugar it is clear that his desire is solely the health of his patient. In fact, a doctor who told his diabetic patient that he could keep ingesting all the sugar he wanted without fear would be found grossly negligent and guilty of malpractice.

In the same way, bishops who recognize a serious spiritual malady and seek a prescription to remedy the error, after discussion and warning, may be required to simply state, “What you do and say is gravely wrong and puts you out of communion with the faith you claim to hold.” In serious cases, and the cases of misled Catholic public officials are often very serious, a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.

Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.

The adage usually attributed to Edmund Burke was correct: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The Lord has called bishops to be shepherds. That shepherding entails both leading and protecting. In an era when error runs rampant and false teachings abound, the voice of the Holy Father rings clear and true. The teachings of the Church are well documented and consistent. Bishops and the pastors who serve in their Dioceses have an obligation both to lead their people to the truth and protect them from error.

END OF POST

Francis Cardinal George asked to ban Senator Richard Durbin from receiving communion

“If you allow Durbin to defy and mock church teaching, and to glory over his victories in defeating the most precious right to life, you allow a sinner to elevate himself over the church and over the authority of the Holy Father.”

Andy Martin

U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin responds to Pope Benedict’s invitation to Anglicans (in the United States: Episcopalians) to join the Roman Catholic Church by asking how Cardinal George can tolerate the open defiance of church doctrine by Senator Durbin.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: ANNOUNCEMENT OF FRIDAY NEWS CONFERENCE IN CHICAGO

December 11, 2009

Francis Cardinal George
Archbishop of Chicago
835 N. Rush Street
Chicago, IL 60611-2030
HAND DELIVERY

Re: Senator Richard Durbin/Holy Communion

Dear Cardinal George:

I am a member of the Episcopal Church. Some years ago I studied for Holy Orders in my church, but I ultimately elected not to enter the ordained ministry. I though my secular work fighting corruption and working for the improvement of this state and the United States was an honorable calling.

But I take my lay ministry very seriously. While I am unhesitating in seeking to be a servant of the people, I am always first and utmost a servant of Jesus Christ. The energy and grace which Jesus imparts to His believers allows me to continue the war against corruption in Illinois and Washington.

Two months ago the Holy Father invited Episcopalians (Anglicans) such as me to rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. I was startled by the boldness of Pope Benedict’s invitation. And I have studied his words carefully.

In the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Father, the first paragraph challenges all of us “who wish to enter into full visible communion The Note confirms that the holy sacrament of communion is a visible manifestation, perhaps the most visible manifestation, of our call to follow Christ.

But before I can accept the Holy Father’s invitation to join the church, and before I can even make an informed and intelligent decision on how to decide, I need to ask you a clear question.

If Holy Communion is such a “visible” and universal sacrament of the Church, how can you allow apostates such as Senator Richard Durbin to receive communion when Durbin mocks the church’s teachings on abortion and the right to life, both for the unborn and those facing the end of life? How indeed?

Recently Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island became engulfed in a controversy involving the bishop’s private communication to Patrick Kennedy to refrain from accepting the sacrament because of Kennedy’s pro-abortion views.

Earlier this week, Senator Durbin was on national television gloating over his success in defeating an anti-abortion provision for the so-called health care reform proposed by the president. In other words, Durbin not only acts contrary to church teaching, he visibly and openly defies church doctrine and gloats over his success in mocking and denying the teachings of his church. Durbin is no ordinary sinner.

So when is the Archdiocese of Chicago going to follow the Diocese of Rhode Island and request that Senator Durbin refrain from receiving the sacrament in this archdiocese?

If you allow Durbin to defy and mock church teaching, and to glory over his victories in defeating the most precious right to life, you allow a sinner to elevate himself over the church and over the authority of the Holy Father.

I ask you to consider requesting that Senator Durbin refrain from receiving the sacrament of communion. I most respectfully ask you to explain to me how any church leader can tolerate the defiance of mockery for church teaching manifested by Senator Durbin.

As a former U. S. Senator said on February 17, 2008, “Words? Just words? Don’t tell me words don’t matter

Well, do they matter? Do the teachings of the church matter?

Are your teachings as Archbishop “just words Or do your words regarding the sanctity of life have real meaning? If you believe in the truth behind your own words, how can you allow Senator Durbin to receive communion in your archdiocese even one more time? The Advent scripture for today invites us to reflect on the Gospel passage: “Wisdom is vindicated by her works [Matthew 11:19]

Faithfully Yours in Christ,

ANDY MARTIN

AM:sp

December 11th news conference details:

WHO:

U. S. Senate candidate and Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin

WHERE:

Sidewalk news conference, SE corner of Huron and Wabash,
Chicago

WHEN:

Friday, December 11, 2009 1:00 P.M.

WHAT:

Internet Powerhouse and U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin challenges Francis Cardinal George to ban Senator Richard Durbin from receiving communion in the Archdiocese of Chicago

MEDIA CONTACT:

(866) 706-2639; Cell (917) 664-9329 (not always turned on)

WEBSITE:

www.AndyforUSSenator.com

E-MAIL:

AndyforUSSenator@aol.com

Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask and producing the new Internet movie “Obama: The Hawai’i years.” Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of http://www.ContrarianCommentary.com.

Martin comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of experience. He has over forty years of experience in Asia and the Middle East, and is regarded overseas as America’s most respected independent foreign policy, military and intelligence analyst. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York.

UPDATES:
http://www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
http://www.facebook.com/AndyMartin

Andy’s columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329 (cell not always on)
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2009.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy chooses abortion over Communion…

Sunday, Solemnity of Christ the King…

From the Providence Journal:

WASHINGTON — Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy to receive the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights, the Rhode Island Democrat said Friday.

“The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion,” Kennedy said in a telephone interview.

Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him “that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I’ve taken as a public official,” particularly on abortion. He declined to say when or how Bishop Tobin told him not to take the sacrament. And he declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop’s injunction.

Bishop Tobin, through a spokesman, declined to address the question of whether he had told Kennedy not to receive Communion. But the bishop’s office moved quickly to cast doubt on Kennedy’s related assertion about instructions to the priests of Rhode Island.

“Bishop Tobin has never addressed matters relative to public officials receiving Holy Communion with pastors of the diocese,” spokesman Michael K. Guilfoyle said in an e-mailed statement.

This latest exchange between Bishop Tobin and Kennedy, the only remaining public official in the nation’s most prominent Catholic family, escalates their heated public debate over how the eight-term congressman’s work for abortion rights bears on his standing in the church.

Their dispute comes against the backdrop of the national debate about whether U.S. taxpayers should subsidize abortions in the new health-care system that President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have labored for months to create.

The episode adds another volatile element to a highly emotional dispute that has complicated Mr. Obama’s pursuit of his top legislative priority.

For Catholics, the debate could scarcely be more visceral. The church holds that abortion is a taking of human life that is intrinsically evil. Exclusion from the Holy Eucharist — bread that the faithful believe to have been transformed into the body of Christ — is a rare and serious penalty to impose on any Catholic.

Over the past few weeks, Kennedy and Bishop Tobin have shown glimpses of their dealings in piecemeal fashion, revealing only a sketchy picture of the congressman’s status as a member of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.

In an October interview about the opposition of the nation’s bishops to any health-care overhaul that did not include a strict ban on federal subsidies for abortion, Kennedy called into question the “pro-life” credentials of the churchmen. Health care for millions of uninsured is at stake, he said. Bishop Tobin shot back with a sharply worded statement, noting that the bishops are staunch and longtime supporters of reforming the health-care system. He said, however, that the bishops will not support a health-care bill that fails to include a ban on taxpayer subsidy of the procedure.

The exchange, via open letters and interviews, has continued, with Bishop Tobin pointedly suggesting that “obstinate” opposition to church doctrine on abortion should cause a Catholic public official to reconsider his membership in the church.

On Friday, in response to questions from a reporter, Kennedy asserted that Bishop Tobin had told him not to receive Communion. But like the bishop, Kennedy withheld key details about their discussions.

Asked how he reacted as a Catholic, Kennedy would say only that he has “personal feelings of disappointment” about the matter, but he declined to elaborate.

For his part, the bishop declined to be interviewed. Spokesman Guilfoyle said in an e-mail: “Bishop Tobin has nothing more to add to the current discussion for the time being. Any previous correspondence or conversations between the Bishop and the congressman is still considered private at this time.”

While the teachings of the church and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are clear on abortion, there is much disagreement on the issue of whether Catholic legislators should be penalized for action contrary to the doctrine.

“The vast majority of bishops don’t want people denied Communion” over the abortion issue, said Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit scholar at the Woodstock Theological Center in Washington. “But the problem is, every time an individual bishop does it — especially if the public official has a high-profile name like Kennedy — it’s going to make headlines across the country and every bishop is going to suffer because of it,” Father Reese said.

Because every bishop has wide latitude in his own diocese, the controversy between Kennedy and Bishop Tobin is likely to be greeted with silence from other bishops — even if most would disagree with action to deny Communion to a Catholic legislator, according to Father Reese.

“We don’t comment on the individual actions of bishops because they are authoritative in their own dioceses,” said Deirdre McQuade, of the bishops conference, when asked about the exchanges between Kennedy and Bishop Tobin.

For the policy of the bishops conference, McQuade referred to a 2006 writing on how a Catholic maintains his or her worthiness to take Communion. If a Catholic were “knowingly and obstinately to repudiate … definitive teaching on moral issues,” the document says in part, then receiving Communion “would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

Orders by bishops to deny Communion to Catholic public officials are very unusual but not unprecedented. In 2003, another prominent Catholic Democrat with a mixed voting record on abortion, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, was admonished not to take Communion in his congressional district by Bishop Raymond Burke of LaCrosse.

Spokeswoman McQuade said the bishops conference could not give a count of how many times bishops have actually denied Communion to government officials. But a review of news accounts of the past two decades suggests that public impositions of the penalty are very uncommon. These are among the high-profile instances in contemporaneous news stories: a Sacramento bishop told Gray Davis not to take Communion when he was Democratic governor of California in 2003; in 2004, then-Gov. James McGreevey, of New Jersey, complied with the admonitions of three of the state’s bishops that he not take Communion.

Scholar Reese said the bishops have debated in previous years the issue of whether they should step beyond such appeals to the individual Catholic’s conscience. The context for the debate was the 2004 presidential candidacy of Sen. John F. Kerry, a Catholic Democrat from Massachusetts who supports abortion rights. Father Reese said fewer than 20 bishops supported a policy of denying Communion to such officials.

Early in that presidential campaign, Burke, who had become archbishop of St. Louis, told reporters that if Kerry were to approach him at a Mass in Missouri, “I would have to admonish him not to present himself for Communion.”

Last month, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Archbishop Burke to the Vatican’s Congregation of Bishops, a powerful body that helps the pontiff to select the world’s bishops. He also sits on the highest court of Catholic canon law.

According to the National Catholic Reporter, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, once urged Catholic officials who support abortion rights to refrain from Communion. But the newspaper said Cardinal O’Malley did not order Boston priests to deny them the sacrament. Kerry and the late Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Patrick Kennedy’s father and another supporter of abortion rights) both received Communion at Cardinal O’Malley’s installation as archbishop in 2003.

In 2004, a large majority of bishops “tried to persuade the minority not to do this — using Communion as a weapon,” Father Reese said, but the conference could not come to a consensus view on the issue.

Father Reese stressed that withholding Communion is not as grave a penalty as excommunication, which separates a Catholic from all the sacraments. If a bishop denies Communion to a Catholic, he or she “is still a Catholic,” Father Reese said. Indeed, he said “it would take a canon lawyer” to say whether a Catholic denied Communion in his own diocese would be free to receive Communion elsewhere.

With reports from Journal Staff Writer Karen Lee Ziner.

END OF POST

The First Communion of Gabriel Rene Evans

The Sacrament of Love…

017

Gabriel–

       The responsorial Psalm today cries out a simple but most important truth of our Catholic faith: By the LORD has this been done; it is wonderful in our eyes’. On this the day of your first communion, truly, your Mother and I both understand that all the grace, blessings, and peace our family has known is solely by the work of the Lord Alone, the Good Shepherd. And this day for you is for us wonderful in our eyes.

007       You are a child in love with swords, but today, by the action of the Sword of Love and Truth, the Holy Spirit, you will be introduced to the Man of All Sorrows–Jesus The Christ–the Only Saviour of the world.

Always remember:

  • How much the Father Almighty has loved you in giving you His Only-Begotten Son today. Look at His Cross.
  • Jesus deserves to be loved equally as much as He has been destroyed within the hearts and bodies of His children on earth, so love Him for those who do not, or cannot.
  • Jesus is the Good Shepherd. If you should ever find yourself lost in the world, or, do to sin and troubles find yourself astray from the one true fold, seek immediately the gate of the Good Shepherd–having recourse to the Sacrament of Reconciliation–Confession. He will meet you on your way, for He knows His own and He goes in search of them.
  • Receive as your very own the gift the Man of All Sorrows has given us as His final gesture of mercy before His death on the Cross–His Mother. To Jesus through Mary is no mere saying, as She is always found within the Heart of the Most Holy Trinity seeking and sharing with Her children all the spiritual graces necessary for their sanctification and entrance into Heaven. To her Immaculate Heart, the Garden of God, I entrust you today.
  • Allow the Gospel of Jesus Christ to lead you into that deep interior conversion of heart it calls for.
  • Love your faith, live your faith, share your faith; and above all, defend the faith with the Sword of Truth–Love.
  • Keep His Commandments.

You know how much I love you Gabriel: higher than the highest sky, and deeper than the deepest ocean… But God’s Love surpasses all these–remain in Him.

On the Fourth Sunday of Easter 2009–

Papa,

James Mary Evans

The Readings For Gabriel Rene Evan’s First Holy Communion

pieta_bouguer_lg

Reading 1

Acts 4:8-12

Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said:

“Leaders of the people and elders:

If we are being examined today

about a good deed done to a cripple,

namely, by what means he was saved,

then all of you and all the people of Israel should know

that it was in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean

whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead;

in his name this man stands before you healed.

He is the stone rejected by you, the builders,

which has become the cornerstone.

There is no salvation through anyone else,

nor is there any other name under heaven

given to the human race by which we are to be saved.”

Responsorial Psalm

Ps 118:1, 8-9, 21-23, 26, 28, 29

R. (22) The stone rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone.

or:

R. Alleluia.

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good,

for his mercy endures forever.

It is better to take refuge in the LORD

than to trust in man.

It is better to take refuge in the LORD

than to trust in princes.

R. The stone rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone.

or:

R. Alleluia.

I will give thanks to you, for you have answered me

and have been my savior.

The stone which the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone.

By the LORD has this been done;

it is wonderful in our eyes.

R. The stone rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone.

or:

R. Alleluia.

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD;

we bless you from the house of the LORD.

I will give thanks to you, for you have answered me

and have been my savior.

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good;

for his kindness endures forever.

R. The stone rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone.

or:

R. Alleluia.

Reading II

1 Jn 3:1-2

Beloved:

See what love the Father has bestowed on us

that we may be called the children of God.

Yet so we are.

The reason the world does not know us

is that it did not know him.

Beloved, we are God’s children now;

what we shall be has not yet been revealed.

We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him,

for we shall see him as he is.

Gospel

Jn 10:11-18

Jesus said:

“I am the good shepherd.

A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

A hired man, who is not a shepherd

and whose sheep are not his own,

sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away,

and the wolf catches and scatters them.

This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep.

I am the good shepherd,

and I know mine and mine know me,

just as the Father knows me and I know the Father;

and I will lay down my life for the sheep.

I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.

These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice,

and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

This is why the Father loves me,

because I lay down my life in order to take it up again.

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own.

I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again.

This command I have received from my Father.”

Fratres Sunday Mass Readings: 06.15.08

Reading 1
Ex 19:2-6a

In those days, the Israelites came to the desert of Sinai and pitched camp.
While Israel was encamped here in front of the mountain,
Moses went up the mountain to God.
Then the LORD called to him and said,
“Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob;
tell the Israelites:
You have seen for yourselves how I treated the Egyptians
and how I bore you up on eagle wings and brought you here to myself.
Therefore, if you hearken to my voice and keep my covenant,
you shall be my special possession,
dearer to me than all other people,
though all the earth is mine.
You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation.”

Responsorial Psalm
Ps 100:1-2, 3, 5

R. (3c) We are his people: the sheep of his flock.
Sing joyfully to the LORD, all you lands;
serve the LORD with gladness;
come before him with joyful song.
R. We are his people: the sheep of his flock.
Know that the LORD is God;
he made us, his we are;
his people, the flock he tends.
R. We are his people: the sheep of his flock.
The LORD is good:
his kindness endures forever,
and his faithfulness to all generations.
R. We are his people: the sheep of his flock.

Reading II
Rom 5:6-11

Brothers and sisters:
Christ, while we were still helpless,
yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly.
Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person,
though perhaps for a good person
one might even find courage to die.
But God proves his love for us
in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.
How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood,
will we be saved through him from the wrath.
Indeed, if, while we were enemies,
we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son,
how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.
Not only that,
but we also boast of God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Gospel
Mt 9:36-10:8

At the sight of the crowds, Jesus’ heart was moved with pity for them
because they were troubled and abandoned,
like sheep without a shepherd.
Then he said to his disciples,
“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few;
so ask the master of the harvest
to send out laborers for his harvest.”

Then he summoned his twelve disciples
and gave them authority over unclean spirits
to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.
The names of the twelve apostles are these:
first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew;
James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector;
James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus;
Simon from Cana, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him.

Jesus sent out these twelve after instructing them thus,
“Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town.
Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
As you go, make this proclamation: ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons.
Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give.”