Thursday, December 18, 2008
Irondale, AL (EWTN) – Christmas specials on EWTN Global Catholic Network this year include a new documentary proving the existence of the Star of Bethlehem from the producer of "The Passion of the Christ") as well as classics with stars such as Loretta Young, Christopher Plummer, Frankie Avalon, Snooky Larson, June Valli, Mario Lanza, and Rosalind Russell. There is literally something for everyone. Highlights include: (All times below are U.S. Eastern Time.)
The Star of Bethlehem
From "The Passion of the Christ" Producer Stephen McEveety comes a documentary that proves the existence of the Star of Bethlehem, whose existence has been debated for centuries by historians, scientists and scholars. "Either they believe the Star is true or they think it was made up by the early Church," says Texas A&"M Professor Rick Larson. "I took a different approach in my research and treated the Star as a mystery or puzzle, looking at the Bible and comparing the facts of Scripture with facts from science and history." (10 a.m. Dec. 21, 11 p.m. Dec. 25, 8 p.m. Dec. 27, 3 a.m. Dec. 28, 5:30 p.m. Dec. 29, 10:30 a.m. Dec. 31)
The San Juan Children's Choir Presents: Siempre Navidad (Always Christmas)
This festive concert, with music from around the world, displays the joyful spirit of Christmas in Puerto Rico. (30-minute version: 9 a.m. Dec. 20. 60-minute version: 6 p.m. Dec. 22 and 4 p.m. Dec. 27)
The Story of the Selfish Giant
A grandfather uses Oscar Wilde's timeless tale to unlock the true meaning of Christmas for his granddaughter. This is a charming story with a strong Christian message about the meaning of love and sacrifice. It is bound to become one of your Christmas favorites. (10:30 a.m. Dec. 20 and 4 p.m. Dec. 26).
Written by Charles Dickens and narrated by Derek Jacobi, this is the story of a poor and discouraged 19th Century porter. Chiming church bells magically transport him to the future where his hope is renewed. (4 p.m. Dec. 23 and 6 a.m. Dec. 27)
Loretta Young: 3 & 2 Please
Academy Awarding Winning Actress Loretta Young starts as "Sister Ann," a nun who brightens the lives of patients in a Catholic hospital at Christmas. (6:30 p.m. Dec. 21, 11 a.m. Dec. 23, 2:30 a.m. Dec. 26, and 2:30 a.m. Dec. 27)
The First Christmas
Narrated by Christopher Plummer, this colorful animated production tells the traditional story of the birth of Jesus. (4:30 p.m. Dec. 24, 11 a.m. Dec. 25, and 10:30 a.m. Dec. 27)
A 1967 dramatization of the Annunciation and Nativity, followed by a brief discussion of the film by Father Patrick Peyton and Frankie Avalon. (2:30 p.m. Dec. 22, 3:30 a.m. Dec. 24, 5:30 a.m. Dec. 27, 3 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Dec. 29)
Christopher Close-Up: Christopher Classic Christmas
Christopher Founder Father James Keller, M.M. celebrates Christmas with stars of yesteryear, including Snooky Larson, June Valli, Mario Lanza, Rosalind Russell and more. (6:30 a.m. Dec. 21, 9 p.m. Dec. 22, and 3 a.m. Dec. 24)
Catholic University of America Christmas Concert
This annual concert presents a brilliant blend of angelic voices and the wonderful sounds of the Christmas season. (11 p.m. Dec. 23 and 2 p.m. Dec. 25)
The World is Born: Christmas with the Louisville Chorus
The Louisville Chorus celebrates the sounds of the season in this special presentation of Christmas favorites. The choir performs in the historic St. Martin of Tours Church in Louisville, Kentucky. (10 p.m. Dec. 23, 2 p.m. Dec. 27, and 11 a.m. Jan. 1)
Dana: Our Family Christmas
Join Dana, her family and friends as they present an old-fashioned family Christmas. Hear the meaning of many traditional customs, and gather new ideas for you and your family. (9 a.m. Dec. 24 and 4:30 a.m. Dec. 27)
Solemn Mass at Midnight with Pope Benedict XVI (Live from Rome)
Solemnity of the Birth of Our Lord: Midnight Mass with the Holy Father from St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. (6 p.m. Dec. 24 (live), 8 a.m. Dec. 25, and 4 p.m. Dec. 25)
Choral Meditations and Solemn Mass of Christmas Eve from the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (Live from Washington, D.C.)
From the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC, USA. (10 p.m. Dec. 24 (live))
Urbi et Orbi from Rome: Pope Benedict's Christmas Message to the World (Live)
From St. Peter's Square. Join the Holy Father for his inspiring Christmas Day message to the world on the celebration of Christ's birth. (6 a.m. (live) Dec. 25, 10 p.m. Dec. 25, 3 a.m. Dec. 26, and 5 p.m. Dec. 26)
EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 27th year, is available in over 148 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. With its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet website www.ewtn.com and publishing arm, EWTN, is the largest religious media network in the world.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Dale Fushek, once one of the most powerful and popular priests in the Diocese of Phoenix, has been excommunicated.
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted said the decision was the result of Fushek's role in the Praise and Worship Center, a new church that Fushek founded with another former priest, Mark Dippre.
The decision had nothing to do with Fushek's legal issues, where he faces trial for several misdemeanor counts of sexual misconduct, according to a statement by the Diocese of Phoenix.
Fushek and Dippre founded the church in November 2007, three years after Fushek was suspended from the priesthood for sexual misconduct issues.
Perhaps Life Teen will be suppressed as well, God willing.
Separation of Church and State is a sign of progress and freedom, explains Pope
Yeah, I know. But let's read a bit:
"This brief visit allows me to reaffirm that the Church is very aware that the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, that is to say, the distinction between State and Church, is a part of the fundamental structure of Christianity,” he explained. ...
Not only does the Church acknowledge this separation, the Pontiff continued, but she considers it to be a “great progress for humanity and a fundamental condition for its freedom and for fulfilling its universal mission of salvation among the peoples." [This is where I must disagree. The state adopting the heresy of indifferentism cannot be "progress", whether formally or materially, It doesn't matter. The effect is the same.]
"At the same time, the Church feels the duty,” he went on, “of reawakening moral and spiritual forces in society, helping to make the will receptive to the demands of what is good.”
It is because of this that when the Church “recalls the value that fundamental ethical principles have” for private and public life, “she is in fact contributing to the guarantee and promotion of the dignity of the person and the well-being of society. In this sense, the Church “fulfills the true and proper co-operation that is sought between the State and Church,” he concluded.
He is of course correct on many points. The headline is very misleading. There is a distinction between Church and state. But the separation thereof, the state renouncing and its lukewarmness to the true religion, is a grave error. I understand that the separation of the state from a false religion does in fact serve to open the door to the true religion. But that does not remove the state's culpability of removing itself from the true religion. Is the possible doorway to save souls worth tolerating other states' apostasy? I'm not so sure. The nation of Malta has the one true faith as the state's official religion. And last I heard it's not regarded as a tyrannical state. I'm glad the Holy father did not cross the line in his words. It's too bad CNA did, though.
Please see Immortale Dei, Quanta Cura, and the Syllabus of Errors to clarify, I don't really feel like parsing them at the moment.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
So why is it that it is so easy to dole out 400B to Paulson's Friends with zero oversight, yet it is such a chore for the automakers to get 14B and with every company under a microscope? I was against this from the start. Already we can see the palm-greasing and kick-backing. The biggest fraud in history, and we get to pay for it.
Just to give some perspective, in 2003 we invaded a country, destroyed its infrastructure, replaced its government and rebuilt what we destroyed and then some. All with the most advanced military in the world. (Technology costs money, people) Cost: 610B dollars. 400B has already been given to the banks and what have we to show for it? The dems railed against Bush for fiscal irresponsibility for the war. Yet we have spent two-thirds in two months what the war has cost us in almost six years. And they want to spend more! Harry Reid said that the American people need someone to look out for them with the spending in Iraq Now it seems the only ones looking out for us is the GOP. Who's being irresponsible now? At least we have a democratic Iraq to show for our efforts.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Other attractions in the 10-day festival include parties, an open-air market, gay-themed films, an ice skating rink and religious services on Dec. 25.
ProGay group chairman Frank van Dalen said Monday the event is intended to increase the choices for homosexual men and women during the Christmas holiday week.
"Right now, there's not much to do," he said. [I have an idea: go to Church! Last I checked, homosexuals weren't banned from celebrating Christmas. It is not religion that marginalizes them, they marginalize themselves. If they choose not to participate, why should we feel sorry?]
The festival will also encourage people to think about homosexuality and religion, Van Dalen added.
Some Christian groups protested. The organization Christians for Truth said the idea "mocks the core concepts of Evangelism."
"By putting Joseph and Mary down as homosexuals, a cracked human fantasy is being tacked on to history from the Bible," the organization said in a statement urging the city and organizers to cancel the event.
I wonder what would happen if Christians decided to make a public display that attacked and ridiculed homosexuality, oh wait, that's a hate crime. Perhaps this isn't so bad, maybe it's a show of faith since an act of Divine Intervention like the Nativity is really the only way these bigots could possibly procreate. What more do you expect from the San Francisco of Europe?
Security forces [Pakistani Forces] overran a militant camp on the outskirts of Pakistani Kashmir's main city and reportedly seized the mastermind of the attacks that shook India's financial capital last month, two officials said Monday.
The raid was Pakistan's first known response to U.S. and Indian demands for the arrest of the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks, which have sharply raised tensions between South Asia's two nuclear-armed powers.
Backed by a helicopter, the troops grabbed Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi among at least 12 people taken Sunday in the raid on the riverbank camp run by the banned group Laskhar-e-Taiba in Pakistani Kashmir, the officials said. There was a brief clash in the camp near Muzaffarabad before the militants were subdued, the officials said.
Anyone else find it strange that they knew exactly where the plotter was mere days after the attacks? It couldn't be that they knew all along and only after India threatened to strike Pakistan that they decided to pony up the info, could it? I wonder what other persons hiding in the rural Al Qaeda caves they could help us find...
Remember folks, Pakistan is our friend and ally. I also have some beachfront property in Florida I'd like to sell you too...
Sunday, December 7, 2008
This from Foxnews.com:
Christmas trees that have graced the two main libraries at the University of North Carolina won't be displayed this year, after numerous complaints, The Charlotte Observer reported.
The trees have stood in the lobbies of Wilson and Davis libraries at the Chapel Hill campus during December. This year, they are being kept in storage.
Sarah Michalak, the associate provost for university libraries, told the newspaper that she made the decision after several years of complaints from employees and others.
“We strive in our collection to have a wide variety of ideas,” she said. “It doesn't seem right to celebrate one particular set of customs.”
It is unusual for a public library to house a display representing one religion, according to the Durham County library system's deputy director Catherine Mau.
Michalak, who has been the head librarian at UNC for the past four years, told the Observer that at least a dozen employees have complained about the Christian display. Students, however, have been mum on the trees.
Censorship for fear of hurting feelings. Fear to recognize the largest religion in the United States to seek acceptance and praise from the world. Social kingship of Christ be damned.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
The seal of the United Federation of Planets:
The seal of the United Nations:
No wonder the Federation was a bunch of impotent liberal wussies.
Where's the headquarters of the Federation? Oh yeah, San Francisco. I should've known.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
"The former nurse of Christ Hospital also dispels the myth, propagated by Obama and his campaign, that Obama only voted against the bill because it did not include language clarifying that the bill would have no effect on legal abortion; this language was found in the federal version of the legislation.
However, observes Stanek, "As chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in 2003, he stopped the identical wording from being introduced." This fact was confirmed recently by the National Right to Life Committee, which found and made public documents proving, beyond a doubt, that Obama voted against a version of the bill that included the abortion-protecting language."
Obama is a liar.
Next Obama said that he would support a ban on late-term and partial birth abortions. Check this out from www.ontheissues.org
"In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding."
So now he says he would support such legislation, yet voted against it.
And this from the Gospel of Satan--er I mean, the New York Times:
On Supreme Court Upholding Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
CRITICIZED THE SUPREME COURT DECISION
"I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient."
So before he criticized the ban, but now he supports it...
Again, Obama is a liar.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
This is the idea:
Take all product imports out of China and put the production in Mexico. If they can ban outsourcing to Cuba for being Communist then they can do it to China too. This will create jobs and improve the economy of Mexico and ultimately improve the quality of life for the average Mexican citizen, as well as stop the export of American wealth to a brutal communist nation that hates our guts and terrorizes it own people.
Stop all oil imports from the middleast and bump up production from Mexico. Again, this will create jobs and ultimately improve the quality of life for the average Mexican citizen. This will also stop the export of American wealth to countries that hate our guts and fund terror against us and their own people.
Then I started thinking of other things:
Stop exporting American oil. We drill our own oil to sell it off just to buy it again from someone else. That's stupid.
Drill more American oil.
Why make the Mexicans happy? To lessen the incentive to make illegal entry into our country and defraud taxpayers. Plus that's the "teach a man to fish" approach to humanitarian aid rather than "giving a man a fish" in the forms of amnesty and subsidies. If the situation in Mexico stays bad then there will always be a reason to risk life and limb to come here. If the situation was improved then there wouldn't be so much of an incentive to take that risk. Plus everyone can keep their beloved NAFTA intact.
Build a friggin' nuclear reactor or fifty. We harnessed the power of the atom, what, 70 years ago? Yet there's been no new reactor in 20 years? Less than 20% of our electricity comes from nuclear power. Yet the majority comes from coal. Coal, people. We are in the 21st century, right?
Ban the sale of partial loans to foreign banks. Keep American wealth in America.
Ban the outsourcing of of vital resource processing to foreign countries. That only makes our country beholden to theirs.
Limit foreign shareholding of American companies to 49%. We don't need a foreign shareholder bloc telling an American business what to do.
Cap the interest rates on credit loans. Y'know HSBC offers the highest interest rates on their savings accounts? That's because their credit holders pay for it. My mother has 700+ credit and pays 24%.
Cap monetary punitive damages in lawsuits. Ever wonder why insurance policies are so high? Because you're paying off settlements and judgements driven up by the greed of lawyers.
Offer tax credits on private health insurance, and cap the per-person rates for insurance. I'll be honest, I'm on state health insurance. Not because I want to be, but because I have to be. It sucks. Bad. I can't afford private insurance so I have to be punished with dealing with the Department of Economic Security. Due to the subsidy tax deficit created by illegals and non-tax-payers the state pays the least it can get away with. Which is reflected in a palpable lack of quality and hassle-free-ness. They should rename D.E.S. to P.I.T.A.
Have the FDIC offer incentives to banks to pick up loans from banks that have closed. The bank that handled the loan for the family business went under back in '87. It fell to the FDIC and they wanted their money in full. No other banks wanted to take it. If someone didn't finally pick it up, three days later the FDIC would have auctioned off my parents' and uncle's homes. They even put "For Auction" signs in the front yards while they were still living in them.
I'm sure there's a lot more stuff i can think of. Perhaps later.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
79% of Catholics say many religions can lead to eternal life.
77% of Catholics say there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of Catholicism.
Compare this with the 70% of Catholics that do not believe in the True Presence, and the 61% that think contraception is a-ok, and the 77% of American Catholics that don't think abortion is wrong in all cases... (Link)
I think you see where I'm headed. Too bad they don't see where they're headed.
I wonder what the answers would have been 40 or 50 years ago. Nevermind, I know what they would have said, "That's a stupid question." They'dve told me. But 40 or 50 years ago?! By golly, that's practically the stone age! We're much more civilized and enlightened now.
I just figured out today that an average of 1.39mil children have died per year from abortion since 1973. On top of that, 35% of Americans want to remove "God" from our currency.
We hate our religion, we hate God, we hate our country, we hate our duty to our children...
Are we really any more civilized?
I remember an oft-used quote of Bishop Fulton Sheen that goes something like: "We need a Church that is right, not when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong."
It's just too bad those chosen to guide us are failing against the tide of the world. God help us.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Instructs members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition'
Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."
It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."
As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.
The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."
The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."
This is why California will fall into the ocean.
I'm no geologist. But judging by the proximity of Than Franthithco to the fault line, when the "Big One" comes, SF is pretty much toast.
Think of all the bad things that have happened not only to us, but everywhere across the globe. God does not will tragedies upon mankind, but we call can agree that nothing is coincidence. God certainly does allow them to happen. Even in the OT, He allowed terrible things to happen to his beloved people.
The warning signs have been around for years. No one listens. But in the back of their mind they all fear "The Big One".
Saturday, July 12, 2008
"And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.
And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed. Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech. And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. And therefore the name thereof was called Babel,"
When will they learn?
Monday, April 28, 2008
60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
-- Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei
It seems even in the times of Pope Pius XII and even before with Pius X and Pius IX, people within the Church were desiring these things. After Vatcian II, it seems they were given their chance under the guise of the "Spirit of Vatican II". Lets have a run-down:
1. No latin
2. Moving feast days without permission
3. Editing the liturgy at will
4. Reducing the liturgy to what it was in the first century just because. (Neocatechumenal Way)
5. High altars reduced to tables
6. Black excluded as a liturgical color
7. Removal of sacred art
8. Crucifix has no trace of the sufferings of Christ
9. Rejection of sacred polyphony
All of this has come to pass. Where were we? What will we do about it now? If such things were wrong then, aren't they still wrong now?
Saturday, April 19, 2008
"When you destroy books, generations later, people start to wonder what was in those books, and then they decide, with no evidence, that those books must have been very wise and full of great secrets. Then when an archaelogist uncovers copies of said books, they are found to be quite ordinary and to contain what level-headed people guessed they contained anyway, but the myth of the books is so strong that people go all swoony over them and claim that at last great, ancient secrets have been revealed.
It's much better to catalogue the objectionable books so you can take them out when necessary and say, "See? There's really nothing particularly great in here!""
How many times have you heard that someone could prove some half-baked theory if they just had the evidence that obviously those responsible are hiding? Kinda makes you wonder how they know it's true to begin with if they have seen no evidence, huh? Let's get started!
What people could prove if they just had the evidence:
1. That aliens really did crash-land in Roswell, New Mexico
2. The Kennedy assassination was really a CIA plot.
3. The masons really are descendants of the Templar knights.
4. The masons really do pre-exist the 18th century.
5. Leonard Nimoy is really a Vulcan.
6. The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon
7. The Illuminati really are in charge of the United States and want to make a New World Order
8. 9/11 really is just a Zionist plot to attack muslims
9. Democrats really aren't communists and traitors
10. Islam really is a religion of peace
11. The CIA listens in on your juicy phone conversations about what to make for dinner and saying hi to your mom.
12. Hillary really did duck from sniper fire.
13. The early christians really did beleive in sola scriptura.
14. The fruits of Vatican II
15. The Pope really is the richest man on earth
16. The Inquisition killed millions of people.
17. The middle east really does respect Jimmy Carter
18. The pope condemned the Iraq war
19. The crusades were a bad thing
20. Catholic democrats can still be Catholic
21. George Soros really isn't the son of the devil.
22. Darwinism is true
23. Bill really didn't inhale.
24. John Kerry is a war hero
25. Michelle Obama really is proud to be an American
26. Wind and solar power are effective and efficient
27. The legalization and regulation of abortion has kept it safe and rare.
28. The CEO of Exxon/Moblile is the anti-Christ for making 13M dollars by destroying the planet, but Oprah is a saint for making 270m dollars providing the world with a precious resource.
29. AIDS is an equal-opportunity killer
30. Homosexuality is normal
Ok, I'll stop here, I'm having way too much fun.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., crafted a resolution "Welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the United States and recognizing the unique insights his moral and spiritual reflections bring to the world stage."
But when the resolution was circulated for approval of all the members, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., an outspoken "pro-choice" advocate, put on the brakes.
The offending language: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life."
A Boxer aide pointed specifically to the last 10 words of that sentence, saying it points directly to "pro-life" language.
Of course she'd have a problem with it. She's pro-death and that language is obviously pro-life. She makes it sound like she's opposing the 'rhetoric' but there is none. There is no reason to have a problem with the language. Unless you're admitting you don't value each and every human life...
And, like always, the Republican is asked to submi--er, compromise with the democrat, so the statement now stops at "weak and vulnerable". Wait! there's more:
Boxer also objected to another line that has since been changed.
The original line said: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties."
It was changed to: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty."
So, lemme get this straight. The Constitution doesn't protect freedom of religion in public nor recognizes the source of our rights and liberties?
Well, at least not in the People's Republic of Amerika aka liberal-la-la-land.
That article then goes on showing Boxer's gratitude for Brownback's willingness to compromise. I only saw him acquiesce to a pro-murder atheist. There was no compromise, only "If you don't do what I want I'll make a stink."
Leave it to democrats to have a problem with protecting "all"human life and acknowledging there is a source of authority higher than them and their unending jihad against religion.
Is there any doubt these guys are communists? Everything that was cut-out, the pope himself has said. More evidence that you cannot be democrat and a Catholic in good conscience. Any opportunity to spread their tripe and censor anyone who opposes them. You'd think they could let it go for the occaision. But I guess it was just too tempting.
No rest for the wicked.
Monday, March 31, 2008
If Moslemism is a heresy, as Hiliaire Belloc believes it to be, it is the only heresy that has never declined. Others have had a moment of vigor, then gone into doctrinal decay at the death of the leader, and finally evaporated in a vague social movement. Moslemism, on the contrary, has only had its first phase. There was never a time in which it declined, either in numbers, or in the devotion of its followers.
The missionary effort of the Church toward this group has been at least on the surface, a failure, for the Moslems are so far almost unconvertible. The reason is that for a follower of Mohammed to become a Christian is much like a Christian becoming a Jew. The Moslems believe that they have the final and definitive revelation of God to the world and that Christ was only a prophet announcing Mohammed, the last of God's real prophets.
At the present time, the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming a hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world power. Moslem writers say, "When the locust swarms darken countries, they bear on their wings these Arabic words: 'We are God's host, each of us has ninety-nine eggs, and if we had a hundred, we should lay waste the world, with all that is in it.'"
From "The World's First Love" Originally published in 1952, Ignatius Press, Pgs. 200-201
This is a joint statement released by the National Council of Synagogues and the USCCB from 2002. Link
"Nonetheless, the Church does perceive that the Jewish people’s mission ad gentes (to the nations) continues. This is a mission that the Church also pursues in her own way according to her understanding of covenant. The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples "of all nations" (Greek = ethnē, the cognate of the Hebrew = goyim; i.e., the nations other than Israel) means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God. However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history.
Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people. In so doing, the Catholic Church respects fully the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, so that sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted."
So let me get this straight. There are two covenants presently existing concurrently? And the Great Commission doesn't apply to the jews? Since when?
Notice the Vatican II-switcheroo that's been so popular:
"The post-Nostra Aetate Catholic recognition of the permanence of the Jewish people’s covenant relationship to God has led to a new positive regard for the post-biblical or rabbinic Jewish tradition that is unprecedented in Christian history."
Let's see what Nostra Aetate really says:
"The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. "
What do we call a conclusion in a book or movie or essay?
Nostra Aetate does not say that the old covenant is perpetual. This is just more VII twisting to suit liberal ideas.
What does the deposit of faith have to say about this?
From the Counil of Florence:
It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."
Pope Benedict XIV from Ex Quo:
"61. The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. "
Pope Pius XII from Mystici Corporis:
"29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel  - the Law and the Gospel were together in force;  but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees  fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross,  establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." 
30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death,  in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers;  and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, imprimatur from Bishop Cornelus Lucey:
"On the Cross, Christ consummated the building of the Church. The Old Covenant ceased and the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ began."
I don't see how this is anything but heresy. It goes on to talk about the Church's mission of evangelization, notice the double-speak:
"This latter activity of proclamation and catechesis the "invitation to a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ and to entry through baptism into the community of believers which is the church"16 is sometimes thought to be synonymous with "evangelization."
Uhh, how is it not the same?
"However, this is a very narrow construal and is indeed only one among many aspects of the Church’s "evangelizing mission" in the service of Gods’ kingdom. Thus, Catholics participating in interreligious dialogue, a mutually enriching sharing of gifts devoid of any intention whatsoever to invite the dialogue partner to baptism, are nonetheless witnessing to their own faith in the kingdom of God embodied in Christ. This is a form of evangelization, a way of engaging in the Church’s mission."
Ok, so why is there so much more interreligious circle-jerking than real evangelization? It seems this document is the fruit of such interreligious dialogues. The only fruit is Supposed Catholic shepherds compromising the Truth to make others happy. Has any other religion compromised their beliefs for us from these dialogues? They're more or less saying, "The Church's mission is evangelization, but not the evangelization you're thinking of."
From Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization:
"3. There is today, however, a growing confusion which leads many to leave the missionary command of the Lord unheard and ineffective (cf. Mt 28:19). Often it is maintained that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom. From this perspective, it would only be legitimate to present one’s own ideas and to invite people to act according to their consciences, without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith. It is enough, so they say, to help people to become more human or more faithful to their own religion; it is enough to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity. Furthermore, some maintain that Christ should not be proclaimed to those who do not know him, nor should joining the Church be promoted, since it would also be possible to be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ and without formal incorporation in the Church.
In the face of these problems, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged it necessary to publish the present Note."
If there is no need to evangelize the jews, meaning the old covenant is still active and saving, then why did Christ bother with all that dying-on-the-cross stuff?
If the USCCB had their way, "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" would be "reinterpretted" to "Extra Ecclesiam Et Iudaeum Nulla Salus" Outside the Church and the Jews there is no salvation.
I've had it with the USCCB.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
You guys ever watch The Apprentice? Long story short, Donald Trump grabs a bunch of enterpreneurs, splits them into two teams, which then compete against each other. The competition involves pitting the teams against each other in several different business situations: real estate, retail, marketting, fundraisers, etc. Whichever team makes the most money wins. One person from the losing team is kicked off the show with Donald's obigatory catchphrase, "You're fired." And on from there.
I learned something very valuable from one of the episodes, a few seasons ago. No, not a business strategy, more like an insight into our particular societal behaviors.
Like I said before, there are two teams competing against each other on the show. Many times the task is aimed at consumers simply walking outside a shop. One team had an interesting, albeit unethical, way of getting people's attention and getting them in the door.
There was a black guy on the team, an accountant, late 20's early 30's, used to play basketball in college. What his team did to draw people into their store was stick him at a table with a sharpie, with someone else outside saying so-and-so was giving out autographs. They used his real name, they never said he was never in the NBA, only that he played basketball.
They had a line down the sidewalk.
He was signing basketballs, taking pitctures with kids, really getting the celebrity treatment. For a few hours he was the most famous accountant in New York.
I'll remind you that the team never lied about him, they just didn't tell the whole truth and kinda pulled a fast one on the consumers. But I'm not interested in whether it was ethical, I'm interested in how they turned this accountant into a basketball celebrity.
It worked because he was treated like a celebrity. His team propped him up like someone special so he was treated by passers-by as special as well, not even looking into if it was merited or not. They played off the actions of others to intuit that he was a celebrity. Where it was unethical is that they manipulated the consumers' intuition.
Unethical, but utterly brilliant.
This happens all the time. We constantly take others' words for it that someone's famous or worthy of national praise, or part of an elite class of American society. Take for example, Paris Hilton. Why is she a celebrity? Has she done anything to merit the amount of attention she gets? No. She's a celebrty because the media props her up like a celebrity because she's a household name's daughter.
Or how about Hanna Montana? Or Hilary Duff? They didn't merit any attention or celebrity status until the Disney Channel told us so. Notice once the gem in Hilary Duff's hand turned red (aka she got too old to appeal to the target demographic) she was dropped for Hanna Montana.
Yesterday they weren't there, today some no-name has a hit single, posters, t-shirts, chart-topping album, and all the tabloid exposure that goes with it. Instant celebrity: just add reporters. And we fall for it every time.
Because they are treated like celebrities. People intuit from how they are treated and then think that they're worthy of fame and their adoration. Their masters prop them up, usually change their name, spends a ton on marketting and usually has all of the merchandise ready to roll before anyone's ever heard the single.
But just because someone or something is treated like it was famous or valuable, doesn't mean it's not and we're being manipulated into thinking it is. There are plenty of things very worthy of celebrity status, or at least the same respect and go unnoticed:
In videos of the TLM we see, after the consecration, the priest holds index finger to his thumb. This is because those were the fingers that had touched our Lord; every particle of which is so precious, that such care was taken so that no particle would accidentally fall from the priests fingers and be profaned. He holds those fingers together until they are washed into the chalice and then consumed. Needless to say the new rubrics don't retain this act, so the vast majority of priests don't do it.
How many of you have caught an extraodrinary minister of Holy Communion or even the priest dust off his hands after handling our Lord? My mother said that on a televised mass celebrated by a bishop, he did this same thing. I never saw it, but I take my mother's word for it.
How many of you have been to parishes that have no perpetual adoration? Or perhaps the tebernacle is hidden off in some corner of the sanctuary, if even in the sanctuary at all? Or maybe the tabernacle is nothing more than a nondescript box, something you'd half expect to find mail in, let alone our Lord?
How many people have you seen in the communion line, versus how many you see in the confession line?
How many complaints have you heard from other Catholics that communion is for Catholics only and should be for everyone?
How can we teach that recieving our Lord unworthily, we eat and drink condemnation on ourselves when we hand Him out to anyone and everyone, in a state of grace or not, even within the Church or not?
If Jesus was walking around today, would we dust Him off, stick Him in a corner by Himself while the priest takes all of the attention, hand Him over to be at the mercy of anyone, in the state of grace or not? Would we tell Him that everyone in the parish is too busy to keep Him company for one hour? Would we do nothing to show others that He is not just some man? Yet in the Eucharist He is treated as just some bread. We do all of this to Him all the time.
I had a comment on my 1962 vs. 1970 post that honestly helped inspire my train of thought for this post. He said, "And the whole "bread" thing throughout the Novus Ordo is just wrong. You can't continuously refer to it as "bread" and expect the people to believe it's more than that."
And he's exactly right.
Why is there such a huge decline in belief in the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? Because it isn't teated like it is true. Remember what St. Francis said, "Evangelize always, use words when necessary." (paraphrase) He's asking us to act and live so wholly and obviously christian that people can intuit our faith without even asking. We can talk about, quote scripture, quote the Church Fathers all we want on the True Presence, but until Catholics treat it like it is, how can we expect anyone to believe us? How can we expect this belief to hold firm for everyone when everything they intuit from our actions (or lack thereof) is the opposite?
If we and even our priests in some instances don't reinforce the truth of the True presence with our actions and our respect, it's no wonder the belief is so little held among us.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestions for the Negro Project," in which he recognized that "black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot." He suggested black leaders to be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge. Yet Sanger’s reply reflects Gamble’s ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:
"I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience … that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, [*cough*Obama*cough*] he can go among them with enthusiasm and … knowledge, which … will have far-reaching results among the colored people."
Another project director lamented:
"I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with … a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under white supervision."Sanger knew blacks were religious people–and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter:
"The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister [*cough*Jeremiah Wright*cough*] is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Need I connect the dots between Planned Parenthood and the democratic party?
For a preacher and congregation that enshrines "black values", it seems rather contradictory to be compelled to vote for a person who will only further and protect Planned Parenthood's genocide against blacks.
Blacks who work for conservative values including ending the genocide inflicted upon them through abortion are labeled race traitors. Yet 90% of blacks vote for people who they think are out to protect "black values" yet are the proponents of the leading cause of death among them.
My message to the black community: Don't be fooled by the color of his skin. Obama will only perpetuate the genocidal machinations of the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Obama is the "Negro doctor at the clinic".
Friday, February 15, 2008
Every time I read one, there's always one person who blames the NO for abuses and likewise blames the TLM for people being 'bored'.
Well, what both sides need to remember is that the NO doesn't prescribe any abuses just like hte TLM isn't responsible for the laity not involving themselves. Before many of you label me a traitor, my point is that your argument must be on something tangible. Clown masses, liturgical dancing, etc. are atrocities. But that doesn't really bolster the TLM because niether is it legal in the NO.
What we can objectively and effectively compare are the missals themselves. This should be the basis of the argument. The "elephant in the sanctuary" argument can apply to both. So let's construct our intellectual argument:
First, we must establish lex orandi lex credendi. Meaning the law [of] prayer [is the] law [of] belief. Simply seen as prayer influences belief. Now we have a case for the NO influencing a fall in the quality of belief in the faithful.
Let's look at some examples:
P: I will wash my hands among the innocent, and will cleanse compass Thine altar, O Lord. That I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works. I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house, and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked; nor my life with men of blood. In whose hands are iniquities: their right hand is filled with gifts. But as for me, I have walked in my innocence; redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot hath stood in the right way; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be; world without end. Amen.[The priest returns to the middle of the altar and bowing slightly, says:]
P: Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation offered up by us to Thee in memory of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of blessed Mary, ever a virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of these, and of all the saints, that it may be available to their honor and to our salvation; and may they whose memory we celebrate on earth vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
P: Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin.
There's an obvious difference. Other than the length, what do you see mostly missing from the NO excerpt?
The TLM excerpt is filled with requests to God, invocation of saints, and entreaties to God to allow the priest, although humanly unworthy as we all are unworthy, to allow him to do His good works. The NO has none of that.
Let's look at the introduction:
P: In the name of the Father, (+) and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
P: I will go in to the altar of God.
R: To God, Who giveth joy to my youth.
P: Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy; deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.
R: For Thou art, God, my strength; why hast Thou cast me off? and why do I go all sorrowful whilst the enemy afflicteth me?
P: Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they conducted me and brought me unto Thy holy hill, and into Thy tabernacles.
R: And I will go in to the altar of God: to God Who giveth joy to my youth.
P: To Thee, O God, my God, I will give praise upon the harp: why art thou sad, O my soul, and why dost thou disquiet me?
R: Hope in God, for I will still give praise to Him, the salvation of my countenance and my God.
P: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
R: As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
P: I will go in to the altar of God.
R: To God, Who giveth joy to my youth.
P: Our help (+) is in the name of the Lord.
R: Who made heaven and earth.
P: In the name of the Father, (+) and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
P: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
R: And also with you.
Again, what is missing?
The altar is regarded as something sacred, that is is God's special tool so to say. It is on this altar that His Son will be sacrificed for the salvation of many. That excerpt reflects this. The NO excerpt is missing this reverence.
Let's take a look at the offeratory prayers:
P: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.
P: O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end. Amen.
P: We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching Thy clemency that it may ascend as a sweet odor before Thy divine majesty, for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.
P: Humbled in mind, and contrite of heart, may we find favor with Thee, O Lord; and may the sacrifice we this day offer up be well pleasing to Thee, Who art our Lord and our God.P: Come, Thou, the Sanctifier, God, almighty and everlasting: bless (+) this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy name.
P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
R. Blessed be God for ever.
P: By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.
P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.
R: Blessed be God for ever.P: Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts.
Strikingly different, yes? Let's take a closer look.
First, the TLM makes reference to the "spotless host" which the NO refers to merely as "bread". The key thing here is that Jesus is the spotless victim. The focus on "spotless" is lost.
Next, the TLM excerpt emphasizes the humility the priest and faithful have in their offering by saying "Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God..." The NO equivalent is "we have this bread to offer..."
Next, is the reason why we are offering our sacrifice to God (remember the jews would make offerings for the priest to sacrifice upon the altar, but for a specific purpose) TLM: "...for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, ..."
For our countless sins and on behalf of all christians.
The NO excerpt has no such reason for the offering.
Next is our christian hope that our unworthy sacrifice pleases God that He may grant us eternal life: "...that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting."
There is a focus on sacrifice. Our sacrifice inextricably united with God's sacrifice, for the salvation of our souls. This is missing altogether from the NO excerpt.
Next, we see that God exalted us in humbling Himself to take human flesh: "O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew..."
The NO has this to say, "may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity. "
The NO is missing the entire point of why God lowering Himself, casting off such infinite majesty, just to walk among us and to save us, is such an incredible and infinite honor.
Next we have the emphasis on requesting God to make worthy our sacrifice that it may please Him, and grant us eternal life: "beseeching Thy clemency that it may ascend as a sweet odor before Thy divine majesty, for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world..."
The NO has, "Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink."
No request of God, through His power, make the sacrifice worthy of Him, no request that it may please God unto everlasting life, no mention of the infinite divide between God's mejesty and our lowliness.
It is through God's grace that our works are pleasing to Him, because they are as rags. The TLM asks for that grace to sanctify our rags unto a pleasing sacrifice; that Christ's sacrifice enriches our humble and meager sacrifice. the NO merely asks God to be pleased with our rags.
Now let's look at the dismissal:
P: The Lord be with you.
R: And with thy Spirit.P: Go, the Mass is ended.
R: Thanks be to God.
P: May the lowly homage of my service be pleasing to Thee, O most holy Trinity: and do Thou grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable to Thee, and, because of Thy loving kindness, may avail to atone to Thee for myself and for all those for whom I have offered it up. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
P: May almighty God, the Father, and the Son (+), and the Holy Ghost, bless you.
P: The Lord be with you.
R: And also with you.
P: May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, (+) and the Holy Spirit.
P: Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
R: Thanks be to God.
Most obvious difference is the "May the lowly homage of my service..." prayer is missing. Is there any good reason why it was removed? What's so broken about it that to 'fix' the mass it needed to be removed?
Again, it emphasizes our unworthiness and humility in our offerings and sacrifices to the Lord. It also emphasizes a christian hope that it may please Him. This is missing altogether from the NO.
Let's go back to lex orandi lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief. If the faithful are given poor prayers they will have a poor belief. Also in reverse, if a person has a poor belief, chances are they were given poor prayers. This is why the ICEL wields so much power and has much to answer for.
Since we have proven with objective evidence that the prayers in the NO are "less in quality" than those in teh TLM, we must conclude, according to lex orandi lex credendi, that the NO is at least partially responsible for a fall in the quality of belief in the faithful. This is completly aside from poor homilies, abuses, music, etc.
The key to making a good case for the TLM is to stick to what is written, so that you can objectively compare, instead of comparing abuses which neither prescribe. Compare the meat and potatoes of both. Neither mass prescribes disobedience. But one mass carries a superior lex orandi (and therefore enriches a superior lex credendi) than the other. Focus on that in your argument.