Unfinishable Poetic Attempt at Honor: Feast of St. Joseph

This past weekend I started a poem intended to be published today for the Feast of St. Joseph. My aim was to flash moments of Joseph's life and virtue, their relation to our Holy Queen, and Her Son our Lord. I wanted to start with the choosing of Joseph, and move through to the flight into Egypt. Ridiculously, I procrastinated despite the fact I was excited to work on it. The rushed effort started as well as it could have until I got to the Circumcision of our Lord. I could not push past it. One mangled stanza was not enough. (Three where not enough.) My thoughts on previous moments were juvenilely dull, and the evidence matched.

As Christ wished to fulfill the law and to show His descent according to the flesh from Abraham. He, though not bound by the law, was circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21), and received the sublime name expressive of His office, Jesus, i.e. Saviour.

A significant amount of art and imagery depicts the sacred event being performed by a priest in the temple, or in synagogue. However there are some paintings, and some Catholic authors who in fact have the event being performed by St. Joseph. It is my opinion, along with some of the Doctors of our Faith, that the later is the accurate. As my dribblings on St. Joseph are inadequate, I instead quote from Edward Healy Thompson's book titled: "The Life and Glories of St. Joseph". Emphasis mine:

But who was the minister of the rite? The Evangelist is silent on this point. Imagination has accordingly allowed itself full scope, and painters have been pleased to introduce into their representations a priest in his sacerdotal vestments; but we have no authority for supposing that any priest came to the stable of Bethlehem to circumcise Jesus. The opinion of those doctors who believe that the minister of the circumcision of Jesus was Joseph appears the most probable. St. Ephrem the Syrian, a most ancient writer and contemporary of St. Basil, one who was well acquainted with the traditions of his native land, and highly esteemed both for his science and his piety, says expressly that it was Joseph who circumcised Jesus. Writing in confutation of those heretics who ascribed to our Lord a phantastic body, he says: "If Jesus Christ had not true flesh, whom did Joseph circumcise?" Thus he refers to it as to an unquestioned fact. St. Bernard, Suarez, and many others also believe that Joseph circumcised Jesus, because he who circumcised an infant was the same also who imposed the name; and it was Joseph who gave Jesus His name. This opinion, then, has been generally adopted. The precept of circumcision was addressed to the heads of families; it was the office of the father, unless a priest took his place.

There is nothing written there that is overly remarkable. It contains evidence and facts or support for something much deeper. (Please pray to the Blessed Virgin before reading this next quote.)

Joseph, then, as Isolano says, circumcised Jesus as his son. On him we may believe devolved this solemn and painful duty. Jesus was circumcised by Joseph on Mary's knees, no other eyes beholding the first drops of the Precious Blood flow except those of the holy angels, and no other ears save theirs hearing the wail of the Divine Infant. In this act Joseph accomplished three sacrifices in one: the sacrifice of Jesus, who began the great work of our redemption by suffering in His innocent members; the sacrifice of Mary, who with indescribable sorrow, but with perfect resignation, offered her Son to the Eternal Father, and held, as it were, the victim bound; and the sacrifice of himself, who had to nerve his hand to perform an act so painful and repugnant to his tender heart. It was an act of heroic obedience and fortitude on his part, greater, St. Bernard says, than was that of Abraham in sacrificing his son Isaac; for Joseph loved Jesus incomparably more than Abraham did his son Isaac, and well knew the difference between the son of any mortal man and the Son of the Eternal God. Thus the knife which cut the flesh of Jesus wounded the heart and pierced the soul of Joseph. Here there was no angel to stay his hand. The act must be accomplished, and in performing it Joseph was, indeed, more than a martyr.

Then, too, was that name pronounced over the Divine Infant at which "every knee," as the Apostle tells us, should bow of those who are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth; and it was by the lips of Joseph that it was pronounced. St. Luke only says that His name was called Jesus, without specifying by whom; but from St. Matthew it would appear that it was Joseph; for the angel had said to him: "Thou shalt call His name Jesus". It was, indeed, no little glory to Joseph to receive an embassage from Heaven commissioning him to confer this name. Jesus is the Son of the Eternal Father; to the Eternal Father, therefore, it belonged to impose the name; and yet He commissioned St. Joseph to exercise that right in His place. Joseph, says Isidoro Isolano, is the Enos of the New Testament, who first began to invoke the Name of the Lord. That profound theologian, Salmeron, who was present at the Council of Trent, did not scruple to say that in this sole act of giving to Jesus His name was declared the whole paternal office of Joseph, as by the sole act of feeding the sheep of Christ was signified the full power and jurisdiction of Peter over the Church. Whence Isidoro Isolano draws the conclusion that Joseph in God's sight is superior to all the other saints, because no other was exalted to so high a dignity.

St. Joseph, circumcisor of God, Pray for us.
St. Joseph, name conferrer of God, Pray for us.

Why the Holy Father Really Chose the Name Francis

Which St. Francis is it?

From which saints did our Holy Father name himself? St. Francis of Assisi? St. Francis Xavier? There are many other Saints by that name. This is a shortened list.

1. St. Francis Ch’oe Kyong-Hwan
2. St. Francis Trung Van Tran
3. St. Francis Xavier Bianchi
4. St. Francis of Assisi
5. St. Francis Borgia
6. St. Francis Caracciolo
7. St. Francis Chieu Van Do
8. St. Francis de Morales
9. St. Francis de Sales
10. St. Francis Fasani
11. St. Francis Ferdinand de Capillas
12. St. Francis Galvez
13. St. Francis Gil de Frederich
14. St. Francis Isidore Gagelin
15. St. Francis Jaccard
16. St. Francis Jerome
17. St. Francis Nagasaki
18. St. Francis of Paola a good friend!
19. St. Francis of Pesaro
20. St. Francis of St. Bonaventure
21. St. Francis of St. Mary
22. St. Francis of St. Michael
23. St. Francis Pacheco
24. St. Francis Page
25. St. Francis Rod
26. St. Francis Solano
27. St. Francis Tchang-Iun
28. St. Francis Trung
29. St. Francis Xavier
30. St. Francis Xavier Can
31. St. Francis Xavier Mau

All of the above?

Pope Francis: First Sermon

The text that follows is quote from the Holy Father Pope Francis' first sermon. Can you say "New Evangelization"? The rest of his sermon with my emphasis and links are after the break.

...we can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. When one does not walk, one stalls. When one does not built on solid rocks, what happens? What happens is what happens to children on the beach when they make sandcastles: everything collapses, it is without consistency. When one does not profess Jesus Christ - I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy – "Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil." When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.

My 'trad' Thoughts on Pope Francis

I have started, and then trashed this post multiple times now. Every time I have started this post, I do so in response to emails, chats, G+ comments and conversations where it has been pointed out that some 'trads' online are posting opinions and speculation about Pope Francis. I get almost all the way through writing the post, and then sense that the storm has passed... so I delete the draft. This afternoon I received too many comments in too close a time period to believe that this is stopping.

Yes, I saw some of the bitter hateful comments posted by various Catholics yesterday and today. I saw the same people making the same comments under multiple venues. Shame on them, but is this a surprise? I bet you can't guess what the perpetual sedevacantists are saying? (I honestly have a hard time understanding, why they even care?) Thank goodness we are not like them -- right?

There are a number of blogs that, with Charity, have called out the bitter minded fellow Catholics on their actions. However, there are also those who have taken the opportunity to act just as bitter in their rants on traditionally minded Catholics.

I emphasize that there is no universal 'trad' creed other than the Creeds of our Catholic Faith. There are some obvious similarities between traditional minded Catholics, but stop presuming that you have them all figured out because you attend a parish that was in the same city of an 'Indult' Mass back in the 1980's; or because you once got in an argument with someone over chapel veils. (Will chapel-veil-Nazis ever learn?)

Show some reserve before you pick off the low hanging fruit that some bitter Catholics leave dangling. Many of these bitter individuals can be likened to the way a child acts when they have been abused or neglected by a parent, such as their father. Some of these people have been neglected and abused by their spiritual fathers. (No, I am not talking specifically of sexual abuse.)

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that 'bad' actions are 'good', or that misguided 'intentions' somehow magically make their actions 'sweet'. I agree that people need to accept crosses that have been given to them instead of letting it crush them in sadness and despair.

Do you really care what I think about Pope Francis? To answer the question-- in spite of my latent stoicism, I am overwhelmed with joy that we have a pope. I was welled up with it during the papal blessing. What do I think about our Holy Father who used to be a cardinal? Before yesterday I knew hardly a thing about him. What about the Jesuit background? It gives me pause, but I actually know of some good Jesuits. What do I think about him now that he is Pope Francis? I hardly know him, he has only been our pope since yesterday. I am excited to see what Pope Francis does to live up to the name he chose. I am excited to pray and fast for him -- and as it is still the Holy Season of Lent, I plan on doing quite a bit of that.

White Smoke!

"Miserando atque eligendo"

Francis, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio on 17 December 1936) is the 265th and current pope of the Catholic Church, elected on 13 March 2013. In that role he is both the leader of the Church and Sovereign of the Vatican City State. Francis is the first Jesuit pope, the first from outside of Europe in more than a millennium, the first from the Americas, and the first from the Southern Hemisphere.

Conclave: YouTubeLive Stream

Link

Past Sede Vacante periods

How long might we have to wait before we hear the Habemus Papam? The Transalpine Redemptorists have provided a list of some of the historic time periods. Keep in mind that these past periods started with the death of the preceding pope. Today, March 12th 2013, we are on the 12th day.

1799: Pius VI - Pius VII ~207 days (longest)
1823: Pius VII - Leo XII ~39 days
1829: Leo XII - Pius VIII ~49 days
1830: Pius VIII - Gregory XVI ~63 days
1846: Gregory XVI - Pius IX ~15 days
1878: Pius IX - Leo XIII ~13 days (shortest)
1903: Leo XIII - Pius X ~15 days
1914: Pius X - Benedict XV ~14 days
1922: Benedict XV - Pius XI ~15 days
1939: Pius XI - Pius XII ~20 days
1958: Pius XII - John XXIII ~19 days
1963: John XXIII - Paul VI ~18 days
1978: Paul VI - John Paul I ~20 days
1978: John Paul I - John Paul II ~18 days
2005: John Paul II - Benedict XVI ~17 days
2013: Benedict XVI - ??

Conclave: Live Video Link

I have embedded the live video feed from Vatican Radio. Be sure to change the audio to your preferred language.

Ballot 1: 3/12 ~1:40pm CST - Black Smoke
Ballot 2 & 3: 3/13 morning - Black Smoke
...
Ballot 5: Habemus papam!

1st Ballot

At 11:00am CST, the first ballot of the conclave will begin.  Prayers... fasting...

Prayer for the election of the Sovereign Pontiff
Novena for the election of the Supreme Pontiff
Novena to St. Joseph

Novena to St. Joseph

Today, March 10th starts the Novena to St. Joseph. The novena could also be started on March 11th. Consider the conclave in your intentions.

O Glorious St. Joseph, * faithful follower of Jesus
Christ, * to thee do we raise our hearts and hands * to
implore thy powerful intercession * in obtaining from
the benign Heart of Jesus * all the helps and graces
necessary * for our spiritual and temporal welfare, *
particularly the grace of a happy death, * and the
special intentions that have been committed to us.
O guardian of the Word Incarnate, * we feel animated
with confidence * that thy prayers in our behalf * will
be graciously heard before the throne of God.

(Then the following V. & R. are to be said seven times,
in honor of the seven joys or sorrows of St. Joseph.)

V. O glorious St. Joseph, through the love thou does
bear to Jesus Christ, and for the glory of His name,
R. Hear our prayers and obtain our petitions.

Let us Pray
O Glorious St. Joseph, * spouse of the
immaculate Virgin, * obtain for me a pure, humble, and
charitable mind, * and perfect resignation to the divine
will. Be my guide, father, and model through life, *
that I may merit to die as thou did * in the arms of
Jesus and Mary.

St. Joseph, friend of the Sacred Heart, pray for us.

(Novena Prayer [PDF] from Audio Sancto)

Conclave Begins on Feast of Pope St. Gregory the Great

The Transalpine Redemptorists have noted that the conclave is set to begin on March 12th, the feast of Pope St. Gregory the Great. I have included an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Pope St. Gregory the Great. I encourage you to read the article in its entirety.

Gregory and monasticism

Although the first monk to become pope, Gregory was in no sense an original contributor to monastic ideals or practice. He took monasticism as he found it established by St. Benedict, and his efforts and influence were given to strengthening and enforcing the prescriptions of that greatest of monastic legislators. His position did indeed tend to modify St. Benedict's work by drawing it into a closer connection with the organization of the Church, and with the papacy in particular, but this was not deliberately aimed at by Gregory. Rather he was himself convinced that the monastic system had a very special value for the Church, and so he did everything in his power to diffuse and propagate it. His own property was consecrated to this end, he urged many wealthy people to establish or support monasteries, and he used the revenues of the patrimony for the same purpose.

He was relentless in correcting abuses and enforcing discipline, the letters on such matters being far too numerous for mention here, and the points on which he insists most are precisely those, such as stability and poverty, on which St. Benedict's recent legislation had laid special stress. Twice only do we find anything like direct legislation by the pope. The first point is that of the age at which a nun might be made abbess, which he fixes at "not less than sixty years" (Epistle 4.11). The second is his lengthening of the period of novitiate. St. Benedict had prescribed at least one year (Reg. Ben., lviii); Gregory (Epistle 10.9) orders two years, with special precautions in the case of slaves who wished to become monks.

More important was his line of action in the difficult question of the relation between monks and their bishop. There is plenty of evidence to show that many bishops took advantage of their position to oppress and burden the monasteries in their diocese, with the result that the monks appealed to the pope for protection. Gregory, while always upholding the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishop, was firm in support of the monks against any illegal aggression. All attempts on the part of a bishop to assume new powers over the monks in his diocese were condemned, while at times the pope issued documents, called Privilegia, in which he definitely set forth certain points on which the monks were exempt from episcopal control (Epistles 5.49; 7.12; 8.17; 12.11; 12.12; 12.13). This action on Gregory's part undoubtedly began the long progress by which the monastic bodies have come to be under the direct control of the Holy See.

It should be mentioned that in Gregory's day the current view was that ecclesiastical work, such as the cure of souls, preaching, administering the sacraments, etc., was not compatible with the monastic state, and in this view the pope concurred. On the other hand a passage in Epistle 12.4, where he directs that a certain layman "should be tonsured either as a monk or a subdeacon", would suggest that the pope held the monastic state as in some way equivalent to the ecclesiastical; for his ultimate intention in this case was to promote the layman in question to the episcopate.

Correcting Prelates?

Article 3. Whether fraternal correction belongs only to prelates?

Objection 1. It would seem that fraternal correction belongs to prelates alone. For Jerome [Origen, Hom. vii in Joan.] says: "Let priests endeavor to fulfil this saying of the Gospel: 'If thy brother sin against thee,'" etc. Now prelates having charge of others were usually designated under the name of priests. Therefore it seems that fraternal correction belongs to prelates alone.

Objection 2. Further, fraternal correction is a spiritual alms. Now corporal almsgiving belongs to those who are placed above others in temporal matters, i.e. to the rich. Therefore fraternal correction belongs to those who are placed above others in spiritual matters, i.e. to prelates.

Objection 3. Further, when one man reproves another he moves him by his rebuke to something better. Now in the physical order the inferior is moved by the superior. Therefore in the order of virtue also, which follows the order of nature, it belongs to prelates alone to correct inferiors.

On the contrary, It is written (Dist. xxiv, qu. 3, Can. Tam Sacerdotes): "Both priests and all the rest of the faithful should be most solicitous for those who perish, so that their reproof may either correct their sinful ways. or, if they be incorrigible, cut them off from the Church."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), correction is twofold. One is an act of charity, which seeks in a special way the recovery of an erring brother by means of a simple warning: such like correction belongs to anyone who has charity, be he subject or prelate.

But there is another correction which is an act of justice purposing the common good, which is procured not only by warning one's brother, but also, sometimes, by punishing him, that others may, through fear, desist from sin. Such a correction belongs only to prelates, whose business it is not only to admonish, but also to correct by means of punishments.

Reply to Objection 1. Even as regards that fraternal correction which is common to all, prelates have a grave responsibility, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 9): "for just as a man ought to bestow temporal favors on those especially of whom he has temporal care, so too ought he to confer spiritual favors, such as correction, teaching and the like, on those who are entrusted to his spiritual care." Therefore Jerome does not mean that the precept of fraternal correction concerns priests only, but that it concerns them chiefly.

Reply to Objection 2. Just as he who has the means wherewith to give corporal assistance is rich in this respect, so he whose reason is gifted with a sane judgment, so as to be able to correct another's wrong-doing, is, in this respect, to be looked on as a superior.

Reply to Objection 3. Even in the physical order certain things act mutually on one another, through being in some respect higher than one another, in so far as each is somewhat in act, and somewhat in potentiality with regard to another. On like manner one man can correct another in so far as he has a sane judgment in a matter wherein the other sins, though he is not his superior simply.

Article 4. Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate?

Objection 1. It would seem that no man is bound to correct his prelate. For it is written (Exodus 19:12): "The beast that shall touch the mount shall be stoned," [Vulgate: 'Everyone that shall touch the mount, dying he shall die.'] and (2 Samuel 6:7) it is related that the Lord struck Oza for touching the ark. Now the mount and the ark signify our prelates. Therefore prelates should not be corrected by their subjects.

Objection 2. Further, a gloss on Galatians 2:11, "I withstood him to the face," adds: "as an equal." Therefore, since a subject is not equal to his prelate, he ought not to correct him.

Objection 3. Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxiii, 8) that "one ought not to presume to reprove the conduct of holy men, unless one thinks better of oneself." But one ought not to think better of oneself than of one's prelate. Therefore one ought not to correct one's prelate.

On the contrary, Augustine says in his Rule: "Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger." But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.

I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.

Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father." Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church.

Reply to Objection 1. It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God's condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark.

Reply to Objection 2. To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: "Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."

Reply to Objection 3. To presume oneself to be simply better than one's prelate, would seem to savor of presumptuous pride; but there is no presumption in thinking oneself better in some respect, because, in this life, no man is without some fault. We must also remember that when a man reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he thinks himself any better, but merely that he offers his help to one who, "being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger," as Augustine observes in his Rule quoted above.

Ritual Hand Purification

I will therefore that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands, without anger and contention.
(1 Timothy 2:8)

There exists a local parish in some close by town that currently does not offer the extraordinary form of the Holy Mass. One might note that the Agnus Dei is often punctuated with the echoing call of a permanent deacon: "We need Eucharistic Ministers. Could Eucharistic Ministers please volunteer?" Of course there are no priests, deacons, or acolytes within ear shot that are not already standing up at Altare Dei. One might think that such urgency and need would suggest that there is standing room only in the Church; or that both the priest and permanent deacon are somehow incapable of keeping up with the potential communicants, who if were optimized in their seating arrangement for the ever important worship of efficiency, together might fit in one or two smallish pews.

While attempting to ponder why and how our Lord wants us to be worthy -- one might happen to notice a legion of those adorned with pastels and polyester pant suits parading pompously to the Altar. The hoard of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers enter the sanctuary by crossing over where once stood the communion rail. One by one this extraordinary league presents themselves to "lavabo stations" dispensing hand-sanitizer for their ritualistic cleansing.

After turning back to recollect oneself from the royal rumpus, one will be strongly encouraged to merge systematically with the "unity queue". If a person manages to stay the course they tilt their head back and extend their tongue in anticipation of being in Communion with their Lord through this most Holy Sacrament. The eyes and tongue of Faith see and taste the sweetness of our Lord. The eyes of our material body see what only looks like bread, our material tongue tastes the acrid chemical laden perfume of the hand-sanitizer dripping off the fingers of the extraordinary Eucharistic minister.

Forgive my tone. I do believe that most are deluded into believing that the overuse (abuse) of extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers (EEMs) is for the good of the Church. I do believe that the reason hand-sanitizer is often used is that many sincerely care about the health of their fellow parishioners. (I will also note that many EEMs are not pompous or covered in brightly colored synthetic textiles.) It is hard not to juxtapose this 'serious' concern for health, along with the ignorance of discipline surrounding this Sacrament with the ritual hand washing of the Pharisees.

And when they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands, holding the tradition of the ancients: And when they come from the market, unless they be washed, they eat not: and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels, and of beds. And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands? But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:2-9)

And the Pharisee began to say, thinking within himself, why he was not washed before dinner. And the Lord said to him: Now you Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but your inside is full of rapine and iniquity. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without, make also that which is within? But yet that which remaineth, give alms; and behold, all things are clean unto you. But woe to you, Pharisees, because you tithe mint and rue and every herb; and pass over judgment, and the charity of God. Now these things you ought to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Woe to you, Pharisees, because you love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the marketplace. Woe to you, because you are as sepulchres that appear not, and men that walk over are not aware. And one of the lawyers answering, saith to him: Master, in saying these things, thou reproachest us also. But he said: Woe to you lawyers also, because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear, and you yourselves touch not the packs with one of your fingers. Woe to you who build the monuments of the prophets: and your fathers killed them.Truly you bear witness that you consent to the doings of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and you build their sepulchres. For this cause also the wisdom of God said: I will send to them prophets and apostles; and some of them they will kill and persecute. That the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation, From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, who was slain between the altar and the temple: Yea I say to you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge: you yourselves have not entered in, and those that were entering in, you have hindered. And as he was saying these things to them, the Pharisees and the lawyers began violently to urge him, and to oppress his mouth about many things, Lying in wait for him, and seeking to catch something from his mouth, that they might accuse him. (Luke 11:38-54)

The actual Lavabo and emphasis on Ordinary Minsters of Holy Communion would sufficiently address both abuse and health (spiritual and material) concerns.

Novena for the election of the Supreme Pontiff

Starting today 1st of March, 2013:

Veni, Creator Spiritus Mentes tuorum visita Imple superna gratia Quae tu creasti pectora Qui diceris Paraclitus Altissimi donum Dei Fons vivus, ignis, caritas Et Spiritalis unctio Tu septiformis munere Digitus paternæ dexteræ Tu rite promissum Patris Sermone ditans guttura Accende lumen sensibus Infunde amorem cordibus Infirma nostri corporis Virtute firmans perpeti Hostem repellas longius Pacemque dones protinus Ductore sic te prævio Vitemus omne noxium Per te sciamus da Patrem Noscamus atque Filium Teque utriusque Spiritum Credamus omni tempore Deo Patri sit gloria Et Filio, qui a mortuis Surrexit, ac Paraclito In sæculorum sæcula. Amen.

Come, Holy Ghost, Creator Take possession of our souls Infuse with heavenly grace The hearts Thou hast created Thou Who art called the Paraclete Best gift of the Most High God Living fountain, fire, charity And spiritual unction Thou sevenfold gift Finger of God’s right hand Thou promise of the Father Teaching speech and understanding Enkindle the light of our minds Pour love into our hearts The infirmity of our body Confirm with perpetual strength Repulse the enemy even further And give peace in his stead May Thou so lead us That we evade all harm Through Thee grant us to know Father as well as Son And with Both Thee, Spirit, Trinity Forever may we believe in Let glory be to God the Father And to the Son, Who from the dead Has arisen, and the Paraclete Unto ages of ages. Amen.

O Lord, with suppliant humility, we entreat Thee, that in Thy boundless mercy Thou wouldst grant the most Holy Roman Church a pontiff, who by his zeal for us, may be pleasing to Thee, and by his good government may be ever honored by Thy people for the glory of Thy name. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son who with Thee livest and reignest world without end. Amen.
V. Most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
R. Pray for us who have recourse to thee!
St. Pius V, pray for us.
St. Pius X, pray for us.
St. Gregory the Great, pray for us.