Too much stuff in the back of the mind of the average parish priest. lol

They weigh and ballence before every word.

Within all these equations, and rhetorical methods, and techniques where is the room for the Holy Spirit. lol

I don't know about this priest what are you talking about? What happened to the poor guy?

I know a priest who would complain to the bishop about that. Since he is a marxist, and another who would complain because it harms the attempt at unity we are seeking with the partiotic church.

It is indeed an example of the peace of this world, but wouldn't it do to just discuss his imprisonment, and stop before the song. Or do the song and go no further? They alone illustrate the point.

How does your story work at St. Charles Sem, or Dunwoodie that had patriotic seminarians, and even one patriotic priest who said the principal mass on the main alter. Would the bishop who allowed that not try to pull the faculties of the priest who preached something do divisive?

Just curious.

A separate recording device, that would require special software to sync the two up. (Something I am planning to do but not for my sermon for concert I recorded, where some of the video needs syncing. If I fix it up I may upload it, so you may see it, but I have not played with that yet. My camera software does not allow that option, you cannot break audio from video in an edit. So I would have to transfer from one to another, causing resoluation problems.

As for the story. I think a joke can work there, but not a story, it WOULD DISTRACT from the message of our LORD.

Gymicks, which is what stories, allegories, visual, or prop items come down to have to be used very cautiously. (You run the risk of so emphasizing the gymick that people easily loose the point you were trying to make. Good preaching has both a function and a focus, and you run the risk of people seeing the trick and remember the trick and now what it taught.

A good example was a school Mass I was at. The guy used magic tricks. (His pastor later joked that the hardest thing about his magic tricks was when they didn't work. The thought horrified me, the poor guy, how embarassing.) But he did three tricks during the Mass. After the Mass one lady was so happy with him. (At the time I was quite frustrated because it was irrevent, and the best magic trick he had done was making people forget Jesus was present through the Eucharist. Presto Chango Jesus is forgotten. But I decided to ask her. Can you tell me what was the point of his sermon? She said what do you mean. I said what was he trying to make you think about. Or what did you walk away from that sermon wanting to do. Did he teach you anything? You are exicted but did it edify you? She had a blank look on her face.

I said let me ask you this way: Think of the trick he performed. Now what did it have to do with the message of the Scriptures? Blank. How did the trick correspond to your faith? Oh that we fill in the book of our life. I said no that was the trick he did during the kiss of peace. I reminded her of the sermon magic tricks. I said lets take each one, how does it connect? She could not connect it. I summerized the themes in the readings and asked her to connect them. She still could not find any connection between the sermon and the readings.

Why because it was all dazzle no substance. Gimicks must connect to the theme, and there is an exponential curve that you have between the message and the gimick begining to become the message itself thus making people entertained, but not evangelized. St. Paul's rhetorical trick of telling the Athenians that they are 'supersticious' ran a curve of them getting so angry so as to turn him off, yet his tid bit of the resurrection also ran the fear of scaring the stoic thinkers away.

I use Gimicks. I have a few of them I commonly use. I actually have a box of them, and stories are used, but rarely, because the other thing is if you use them alot people just come for them. I knew a great priest, that everyone loved, but his sermons were gimmick driven. When he didn't have a gimick, people were disappointed. The became the rule, so when he broke it due to lack of time to prep, people noticed, but not in a good way.

As for people zoing out in my sermons. That is the one thing that rarely happens. People tell me that I am one of the few priests who keeps their kids entertained through the entire sermon. So people zoning is not my issue. (Frankly that would only be a problem after ten minutes, which is why i rarely do more than eight. We are in the MTV generation low attention rates.) People may walk out on me. (I have seen this many a time, but zone out, rarely.) I tease them about it, but that is the one thing people tell me never happens.

I too like Fulton Sheen, but I have to say he WOULD NOT FLY TODAY. He is far to melodramatic, and that odd habbit he had of grabbing his fierolla even when he doesn't have it. (You see Fr. Rutler copying this action a great deal.) Fulton was also very into distinct poses, but his method of teaching was more like a great lecture than a sermon. His best talk was the Malvern talk "All I ask for is one hour." If you have a chance you should take a listen. Fulton also had a great deal of substance, he referenced everything except for few novels. (He was not one who read many novels, according to Treasure in Clay.) But his ability to flip from Philosophy and then to physics was a joy to listen to. But know he memorized his talks. In three languages. When he could deliver them in three languages with efficency then he delivered them. So his method was more like an ADS then a sermon.

Your pizzas in chicago are too think for me. lol
I even took some Vicarros Cannolis on the march for life. Vicarros has a shop in the metro station one before where it starts, so I brought a bag of them with me. I had happy marchers. lol

Danka, yep the church is bad lighting, but it is a beautiful Church. If only they would use the high altar all the time there. (Beautiful altar, with forbidden organ keys for the servers on the base of the stairs. lol Also a freeze of the moment of revelation/(Last supper) on the base of the altar, also not allowed until the 1920. Oh and the presider's chair, which is old looks like a Cathedra, which was also forbidden, but they played legal games with it, the back does not touch the seat of the chair. lol

Actually my problem with notes is not that, familiarity with them helps little. Dyslexia is dyslexia. The only way to become more familiar is to memorize and I did public speaking, and it can always be caught.

This is why I rarely read. I usually use impromptu, or I use note cards, but when the issue I think is so important that I need to not omit one particular distinction (So people don't misunderstand) I write it. And I try to do it in 16 point, and sense lines so as to keep to it less reference.

Jesus did use parables to teach a mystery. He used it to explain analogical predication. So I use stories, but not to entertain people as I mentioned before too many years of dumbing down homilies to simple formulas has left a generation of Catholics whose teeth break on doctrine.
They have been theologically retarded by liberalism. Too much Mr. Rogers and Dr. Seuss from the pulpit. I am a reaction to all that. My sermons are specifically designed to not be the useless junk that bad preachers like Walter Burkheart does. He is too much into technique, and as I told Sr. Honora when she showed us one of his sermon. If he was excited I wish he had told his face.

The liberal protties love him, why because they have been all technique, and no substance for the last 100 years. A salvation by social justice catholicism is all you get from that in time. So I break the rules, because I will not be constricted by them. Mores broken bring attention because it is different.

A person recently commented to me privately that I needed greater fluctuation in my voice in a sermon. The people in my parish had told me no more than a week before, they wanted less, it was harder on their hearing aids. lol

Because I don't interfere with the people scheduled. I do not refuse what is already at the church. I get in enough fights just trying to say a reverent Mass, since the lay people don't know they are being used as political pawns in an agenda I let it go. I get in enough disagreements over the faith alone, if I try to challenge the other crazyness I will make political enemies of people who don't know it is wrong, because another priest told them they could do it. I am choosing my battles. I don't fight when the housecleaner breaks my property, or when half of my black clothes disappear because she overbleached them and threw them out. (Don't ask why she bleaches blacks.) I didn't fight when I had no food at one rectory and had to drive out to eat on my own, and if I bought things the secratary would throw it out. I didn't even fight when I got in an car accident and had to be life flighted because I got in an accident going to get breakfast, because of no food. I didn't fight when a finance girl told me to 'bite me' because I told her I needed a 1099 for my taxes, nor when my taxes were all messed up because the tax man had to guestimate my income, and included the money paid in insurance, and retirement as income giving me quaterlies greater than my attorney sister. I don't complain about the established liturgical practices and try to rather teach on the reason for the right ones. Like tabernacle in the center, no EM's, the problems with the cups, the nontraditional nature of both species, the use of beautiful vessels and implements.

I am trying to choose my battles, because if you try every one, you get told that you are always complaining. So I let people step on my toes personally alot, and try to look the other way with the liturgical deficencies.

I try not to have conflict all the time, and work with people where they are. You know how many priests have been ripped by their dioceses and gulaged in the psychological places because they have a bunch of people complain about them? And then they have to fight all the battles at once. I try to stick to a few, when the case comes it will not be as many against me, so I can fight it better. (You don't know how fast libs complain, and just a few who are worth money can destroy a priest.) People only write to complain, not to complament, and I learned from seminary that you gotta try to deminish your enemies. (Because there used to be guys who if you offended one, they would all go to their mentors and complain against you, and the seminary would tell those poor guys, well lots of people complained against you. They even had a nickname in seminary. People called them the BVC. The bad values crowd.) Similar things exist in the parish, the only difference is it usually is someone who is very active in the parish, like a DRE, or in charge of the EM's or someone who is wealthy.)

You do not know how fast the libs try to jump on you, when they think you are down. You have to minimize what is in your file, by only sticking to the essential issues.

I actually rarely use stories for a reason. When I was in seminary in Balitmore and working at the local Catholic Hospital a woman told me how irretated she was by sermon upon sermon with stories. She told me don't you priests have anything about the faith to say, you always use stories, because you lack content. (So I only rarely use stories, jokes, or other what I call rhetorical gimmicks if they follow a series of rules I have laid out when to do it.)

As for the hands, and passion. lol lol lol

I am a spic, what do you expect? I am Mexican American, I grew up in the barrio of East Los(t) Angeles.

And please don't ask about my views on immigration, I will upload them sometime.

I am uploading the sermons right now, because I converted a bunch in March April, but have been to busy to do so before, I wanna put them on an external Hard Disk, so I can do some video conversion work. (I need to convert a concert that occured in my church with our new organ, but my hard disk is full of stuff, so I gotta clear it to the external TB one.

Thanks again for the input Holy Cannoli. (I love cannolis, my favorite, but I don't eat any made by nuns who take a vow of silence. Godfather III ref.) Vicarros in Baltimore are the bomb..

You won't see much input from me right now, no time to do this, I am trying to get caught up on stuff, I am just upload them for reference, if people want to see them.

The High Altar is nice there isn't That is St. Gabriel's Church, now the parish is called Holy Annunciation in Hazleton. The high altar was unused when I got there. Actually the chairs used to be put in front of it during lent, and advent. I told the pastor at the time I didn't want to be up there. I prefered a chair to the side. So I pressed for that. If you look the tabernacle is not functional in the center. It has a marble sheet in front of it. (But based on the crooked way it is placed in there, I think the hinges are intacted. I preached on the importance of the central tabernacle and a man told me he put the cover over the tabernacle on the insistance of a pastor and the entire tabernacle is still in there. (He said the door was in the basement. I tore the basement apart looking for it. I think I found a brass door that might go on it, but not being my church I cannot do such things as install it. I had a group of people there who wanted it back in the center, and I am hoping the oblates of St. Joseph who took over the parish put it back in the center. So something you should pray for. (But still the stuff is there so it can be restored, and that is still a plus.) I am in Towanda right now, but not so sure how long I will be there after what I said about the CCHD. Who knows it is all in God's hands.

Side note Fr. Comellas last I heard had set up a tridentine wedding that was suppose to occur this summer past. So if so the high altar was used, the family was even making the altar cloths for it. (I will ask him if it ever happened.)

I used to use the high altar to practice on how to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. (Using that Kit the fraternity sent me. You know with the laminated cards. I had to stop when someone in the sacristry threw my stuff away, I have not ordered a new kit yet.) But it was prefect for it, since it was a high altar. I think I gotta go do the seminar on the ancient usages though that way I don't build up bad habits, which priests do many times when they try to self teach.

Sheen is a pretty good guy. I have very few disagreements with him theologically, and at the end he nailed it with the homosexual problem in seminaries, if we had listened then we might not have so many legal and financial problems, but the church did not, so they pay the pipper.

Now I do like much about the 12 step program, it is basically compatable with Christian paradigms, but my problem is with those who use it, many are inconsistent, it applies to addiction but not sin, which is the ultimate addiction, also the need for a higher power, so is my toaster a higher power? No a need for God, the true God. Many times 12 step people come to me and I help them with it, but I try to put a Christian Spin on it as much as possible. It came out of a Christian paradigm, the problem is that people are trying to secularize it, and water it down.

There is a great deal to discuss here, but I think we need to put some things into context. One cannot look at the new mass, and blame Vatican II directly for it. I would hope even a good liberal would recognize that the Mass of Pope Paul comes from a later theological thread. What the Fraternity of St. Peter does is the Mass that SC/Vatican II asked for. SC never requested a new mass, just a revision of the existing rite. So like or don't like Vatican II is one thing, but slam Vatican II for what you disagree with, or have questions about, but we have to avoid an ex hoc ergo propter hoc falacy on Vatican II.

Not having too much time to watch TV I don't know what this means. "I absolutly, cringe, when I hear a show on E.W.T.N....justify, a weak priest that might be caught up in sin." I know they have had some people make statements I disagree with, but this I don't know. We should never justify someone who is guilty, but in the same breath we should also never destroy the reputation of an innocent.

I agree with you that repentence is needed, provided the guy is guilty. The bishops have gone from the extreme of covering up, to the extreme of hanging a person out to dry when they are accused by something with no foundation. I have seen people where there is no way they could have done it accused and removed, and then get tied up into a canonical fight with their bishops. So there is a need for ballence.

The real questions to ask is why were some guys removed in the old system and others covered for? Why should the dioceses think they are just like their Prottie friends and pay off abusers? Why are some communities and dioceses higher on abuse? And can we blame the seminary system? Why do some seminaries produce more child abusers? And what is the connected to unintegrated homosexuals with the majority of the cases. But the USCCB is circling the wagon and saying it is not a homosexual problem, even though the Vatican told them to look into this. Rome wrote a document in 1963 telling us not to ordain Homosexual clergy, I wonder how many cases less of homosexual preditory rape would there be if we had not thought we were smarter than Rome?

How many seminaries were gay friendly? How many of these guys networked with their friends to cover abuse up? How many seminaries did not teach prayer, and sanctity, and rather told the guys "get in touch with your feelings" and "you need to be intimate with other people" For a unintegrated homosexual this is a free liscense to practice on kids. The bishops hang people out to dry now with no basis for the claim, and make us read articles on abuse as if we are guilty already, and do not discuss the real issue.

Well these points were mainly about the Liberal attack on Mother A and how those who attack her, usually betray liberalism in their theology. As for disobedience to gain a good, I could never endorse this, but even if I disagree with the objective act, I will not judge the subjective state of the person who performed the aforementioned act.

As I have posted in other places the whole PX fiasco I am sad occured back in the 80's. I am still distressed it presently exists today. Hopefully our present Holy Father will solve the canonical issues, and more importantly heal the rift or wounds

I know of many priests who when they get into trouble with their bishops they go independent, and I cannot endorse these things. Many times these guys have been mistreated by their diocese. Bishops suspending them for unfounded reasons, then when they appeal the suspension they are still treated as if they are suspended. (Dioceses should keep paying the priest who appeals the suspension until the case is heard. Also the diocese should provide the priest with representation canonically, yet they don't.) They are also suppose to keep their medical insurance up, and they have not. (I have seen this happen in numerous dioceses so it seems to be a pattern.)

I read of one priest that was driving a cab to feed himself. May I add this is a dangerous game to play, because priests should not have secular jobs without the bishop's permission. So the bishop can force the priest, with a trumped up charge and lack of implementation of the canonical requirements, into a situation where then he has grounds to do something to him for real.

The rules of canon law are put there to protect priests. Some may be independently wealthy, but many live month to month, especially after student loans from seminary. A bishop can squash a person without resources, this is why he is suppose to maintain him once appealed and provide council. If the poor guy has no major war chest in the bank, which is common for priests not to have anything put away the bishop can squash the priest like a bug. So Rome has put certain protections into place to help priests who have problems with their ordinaries. But what do you do when the poor guy has no money, has no income, or even medical insurance. He cannot easily get a canon lawyer. And the only way to be vindicated it to take it Rome, yet he cannot afford to do such an act.

I have seen priests forced on food stamps, many unable to pay for medical treatment, I have seen priests who have secret odd jobs to pay for themselves. I know of one unfounded case against a priest where they told the papers of his supposed act, and then when he moved to his mother, they gave the newspaper his mother's address and phone number. He appealed his public suspension and was completely cut off, thank God he had a mother near him that he could stay with. I called his chancery to find out his status, I was told he was suspended, yet it was appealed!! His mother sold her house because of the people who were harassing him because they thought he was some kind of sexual deviant. He is cleared now, but his diocese is not restoring him. I know of a case where the diocese was told by a priest's canon lawyer that they were to communicate with him, yet they would call the guy directly all the time, and harass him.

It seems that many liberal bishops in the world seem to think that the rules of canon law are a sword to beat the more conservative clergy over the head with, yet when the clergy attempt to apply those rules which guarentee their rights the bishops ignore them. So in these kind of situations I can see how a priest has gone 'independent' I don't agree, but I can understand. I don't know how many times that I have heard priests in these situations say to me "maybe I should just go skizzy." You try to ignore such statements, considering that it is the pain speaking, because blasting the person at that moment will only further isolate them. But when their isolation becomes a context, and one feeds upon another, as they see themselves being persacuted for nothing wrong. This leads to an anti-hiearchy attitude. Disagreeing with them will not help to bring healing.

So nothing good comes from chaos, for us. But from the from the chaos of the darkness God brought order, from the chaos of sin, God can bring redemption, from the chaos of babal God brings the Church as a means of unity. I am not agreeing with how the chaos got there, be it our fault or theirs, but the problem is here. Are we going to make lemonaid from the lemons?

Vatican reminds us that many of the divisions in the Church are our, the faithful's fault, they are from the scandal we have caused. From us not being Christian. The whole PX issue should have been resolved by clamer heads, just as Card. Humberto was not the right man to go to the East. He was great for bring disicipline in the west, but his heavy hand solved nothing.

Many things need to be considered with the PX issue. First off the loose and heavy handed use of Disicipline on PX and the arch-bishop. All he wanted was a group to keep the Traditional Rite. The reform/deform minded Villot sought to make an example of him, and was far too heavy handed. All he wanted was a bishop so that there would be someone to continue his experiment, which now the present Holy Father reminds us the old rite was never removed, and that the arch bishop was right when it saw Quo Primum telling them they had the right to the rite until the end of time. There was no such document with equal solemnity to bring this into question. So the over use of authority, and lack of proper canonical redress need to be considered here. One does not get to destroy their opponet because they are right. Villot was attempting this, and should have given the poor arch bishop his proper hearing.

The decree on ecuminism tells us that those who left the church have even many times driven the church into reform. What do they mean, the protestants did give the proper context into which the church finally had Trent to clean herself up. They had tried it before the protestants, but corruption and princes had stopped it, the reformation forced us to reform. Another issue of God using Chaos to bring order.

Why is this, God can take the greatest evil and pull good out of it. I am not saying we should do evil. (Like the old axiom "Sex is evil sex is sin, sin is forgiven so sex is in." NO, a Thousand times no. This is not right you do not do an evil to bring a good, but when the problem is there, you have to bring the best out of it.)

We need to bring the sheep fully into the fold. This means discussing the issues of divisions, apologizing for our misactions (Or Villots in this case) and hoping they will do the same. Who makes the first gesture, the person who is most secure, and loving apologizes for his misdeeds. Misdeeds were done in the PX case, Rome's reversal of the excommunication proves this, so now lets fix the rest.

Am I saying what was done is right, no I am not. I am only saying the problem is here, we did do some hurtful things, and we are sorry. We want unity now, we want to heal the rift, not to focus on their misdeeds. Easy to pull the twig from your enemy, but we have to consider our mote.

Lets bring PX home fully, we have far more in common with them than the liberals, they can help us reform. If we offer an olive branch to the Angies, why not them. How many times do we forgive our brother if he wrongs us, 70 times 7. I am just asking for one!!!

Ut Unam Sint

I love that sequence, I have to say I usually start in reparation with my prayers. (Figgure I gotta tell the boss I am sorry for all the mistakes I made in the day.) Then I go into adoration, thankgiving, and petition. (Though also sometimes if someone has really laid upon me heavy I may jump in with the prayer they asked me for, so I don't forget it. (Then again I say masses for intentions I may have forgot and people I have forgotten to pray for all the time. The prayers of an absent minded person. lol)

But this sequence is great. I am going to have to copy it to my system.

Thank you, I am just hoping that I can get people thinking about reforming the Catholic Church. So many think they are reformed, and because they are not they are like the person who says they have no sin, their sin remains. So many have been tricked into thinking that what they are doing is correct, that challenging them is like asking them to question their own presuppositions. This is why the sermon I gave the Myths of Vatican II was applauded, but then also attacked by the left. (The reason I posted it was because they were saying I said things I never said. So sure were they in their conviction I was wrong they lied about what I said. That way people could see my real words.) Then I decided I wanted to diagnose the illness, and propose a cure with Gloria.tv.

Always wanting her mantle over me. It is a hard road indeed to try to disagree without being disagreeable How hard indeed to stick for what is important without being too hard in your expression. One to remember there comes a time where you will just have to recognize that you can only go so far, and let it go. Because some will be offended even if you are the nicest person possible. This is where real discernment is needed.