Saturday, August 29, 2009

The Hypocritical Kennedy Klan Hits A New Low
So pasty, they don't need white sheets

The Martha's Vinyard Marxists absolutely make me want to puke. During the first official 'Mass' of the American Catholic Liberation Church, the funeral mass, AKA: Saint Ted's Farewell-As-I-Voyage-to-Gehenna/SuperPope Barry's coronation, the family used quotes from Saint Ted's past speeches. No passages from Sacred Scripture... no quotes from past popes or Saints. None of that. Kuotes from Komrade Kennedy - KKK.

Funny, they failed to use any of his quotes in regards to the following;
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

Kinda missed those gems, didn't ya, Kennedy Klan?

12 Comments:

Blogger Brian said...

"During the first official 'Mass' of the American Catholic Liberation Church, the funeral mass,"

With the placement of quotation marks around the word Mass, am I to infer that you are questioning the validity of the Mass?...a Mass attended by a Cardinal? If not, then this is at the least a very misleading and unnecessary use of quotation marks. If you are using it to cast a shadow of suspicion, then you are in theological error, which is ironic considering your rampage against Kennedy's errors.

7:54 PM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

If you think for a moment that this "Mass" was about the burial of a faithful Catholic... or at least one who was repentant at death... or had nothing to do with putting the spotlight (coronation) of the most pro-abortion president ever, than you've got bigger problems than my usage of quotation marks.

Also, my "rampage" against St Fat-Ass gives the impression that what I say against his actions are groundless.

You give me the distinct impression that you're more concerned with a percieved insult to the Novus Ordo apparatchik than you are against insulting God.

Have a happy day.

8:02 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

I never said anything about Kennedy. That many of his legislative actions were against Catholic teaching is obvious. Less obvious, however, was the state of his soul at death or the level of his culpability.

But to return to my main point: It is precisely respect for God that I am concerned about. Your use of quotations implies something about the validity of the Mass, and the validity of the Mass has everything to do with respect for the Real Presence of Jesus, regardless of what characters show up to the Mass, or if certain rubrics are not followed (as they should be).

8:32 PM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

I never said anything about Kennedy

Maybe you should have. He was one of the main points in the posting.

Your use of quotations implies something about the validity of the Mass, and the validity of the Mass has everything to do with respect for the Real Presence of Jesus, regardless of what characters show up to the Mass, or if certain rubrics are not followed (as they should be).

If certain rubrics fail to be adhered to, then there is no vadid Mass (one of the faults inherent to the Novus Ordo). But that's just a generality I'm pointing out. Back to my main point in my initial response to you, I'll go a bit further - if you actually believe that God was the focal point, or even on the periphery during this worship service for kennedy/grovelathon for obama, you've got bigger problems than my usage of quotation marks.

Have a nice day.

9:09 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

I'm not interested in discussing the the various forms of the Mass. It's irrelevant to the main point, in my estimation, since rubrics should always be adhered to.

I don't know if God was the focal point for any particular attendee of that Mass. That's a subjective question that only God knows.
What we can determine, however, is if it was objectively a valid Mass, with Christ objectively present. If it was a valid Mass, and there is no evidence I have seen to suggest otherwise, then you shouldn't be giving the impression that it wasn't.

10:04 PM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

I don't know if God was the focal point for any particular attendee of that Mass. That's a subjective question that only God knows.


No, that's not a subjective question known only to God. It's a question of recognizing the obvious in front of you. I can't/won't make you recognize the obvious. If you want to bury your head in the sand, that's your call.

As far as if the "Mass" was valid or not, I'm sure you know that three things must exist - form, matter, intent.

In light that God was on the D-List at this little get together, I seriously question the intent.

But anyhow, like I said, I can't make you recognize the obvious. But you still refuse to see such. In light of that, I'm not going to allow you to keep parroting your defense of this obamanation that just took place in Boston. Any further comments you submit on this posting will be deleted without being opened or read.

Have a happy day.

6:33 AM  
Blogger Al said...

Masses said way back when by the Arian Bishops were objectively valid since they were authenticly ordained Bishops. & I don't see Cavey saying anything different about this Mass. But, just like then, what was being taught at the Mass (by word & deed), is anything but authentic Catholicism. That is the point he is making.This Mass may have been valid. But was it licit? IMHO, no. The use of Kennedy quotes rather than authentic prayers of the faithful, the eulogies, etc prove that. It was a blasphemous use of the Mass to deify Kennedy, put the seal of approval on what Obama is trying to do & a slap in the face of all faithful Catholics everywhere.

6:34 AM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

I agree that Cavey never challenged the validity of the mass. And I too perceive that some illicit things went on therein, an example being the infomercial for the Democratic Party's agenda during the petitions and elsewhwere.

Nevertheless, that funeral mass was valid and licit. Licit because it is authorized by the local bishop, in this case the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston. Valid because the mass essentially is the Eucharist itself. If a validly ordained priest says "This is my body" and "This is my blood" over the proper elements (bread and wine) that meet the requirement to be the matter of the sacrament (the "This is my . . ." is the form or essence of the sacrament), a valid mass ensues, even if the priest sins (mortally) by adding to or detracting from the authorized words of the liturgy, other than the aforementioned required form of the sacrament or its matter.

But don't take my word for it. I am a layman without authority to teach in the magisterial sense, but I can witness more or less correctly, and I think I am correct in this. The authority I take for this is the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent. You can buy this book from Tan Books and Publishers, and I think also from Baronius Press. I recommend all cave dwellers get this book. It has been translated into English and it has an Apostolic Authority underlying it, i.e., Pope St. Pius V.

This catechism was directed toward parish priests to be used as a resource when teaching their flocks, most of whom were illiterate. Well, we sheep-in-the-pews are no longer illiterate so there is no reason why we shouldn't have access to this theological treasure.

Yes, a lot of not so good things went on in that funeral mass. And we should be very concerned and scandalized over it.

1:33 PM  
Blogger Megans Piano Lessons said...

Yes you need form matter and intent. Your understanding of intent is what seems to be skewed.

The intention must be that the sacred minister intends to do what the Church does. It is not required for validity that the minister intends what the Church intends.

You seriously need to learn Catholic Theology before you mislead other Catholics any more on these serious matters.

4:56 PM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

Megan,
I know perfectly well what intend consists of. I suggest you stick with giving piano lessons.

9:23 PM  
Blogger Joe of St. Thérèse said...

Priest didn't genuflect to either species in the Funeral Mass...

3:41 PM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

Priest didn't genuflect to either species in the Funeral Mass...

In charity, we should recognize that this may be due to a physical frailty, unless we were to know for sure otherwise.

We used to have an old, frail priest celebrate the Tridentine Mass in our archdiocese (of Santa Fe). He couldn't genuflect at all, even when the rubrics called for a genuflection. Nonetheless, the TLM by its nature and ensured by its rubrics, was still very sacred when this priest celebrated it.

I hope the lack of genuflections at the funeral was not another example of innovationism.

12:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home