DOMINUS PARS HÆREDITATIS MEÆ

Hello gloryofgod3:

First and foremost, infallibility is a charism or special gift of the Holy Spirit to the entire Church. Jesus Christ promised this gift to the Church so that the believers would rest in peace that the Word of God is true: 

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (John 14:26).

This promise is necessary first of all to avoid the bickering so common in any group where there is not an assurance of truth. Secondly, it is necessary so that the Church will not deviate from or alter the teaching of Christ. 

Since Jesus the Lord has returned to the Father, how do people have access to His Word, and how do they come to understand this Word if someone does not explain it? “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31).

Like the Ethiopian, if we rely on our own device or inspiration, we fail to understand God’s Revelation properly. A living, Apostolic authority must explain the Word, and if we cannot rely on that Apostolic witness handed on in the Church, its authority and teaching is useless.

In fact, the entire Church would fail to be the pillar of truth and would be useless (”which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” 1 Timothy 3:15).

The Council of Jerusalem was an example of firm, Apostolic authority laying down the law, guided by truth, under the protection of the Holy Spirit. But Scripture also reveals that this infallible teaching authority was communicated by the Lord Jesus to Simon Peter for the purpose of confirming the brethren in their faith:

But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:32).

Some will say, “Of course, Jesus wanted Simon to be strong, since He was the head of the Apostolic college, but he personally, as an individual, cannot wield the Church’s charism of infallibility. Only Church Councils can do that, with Simon or his successor present.” Yes, that seems logical, except when we examine what faith is, it is not just a biblical description of strength in God, or trust—it is also a description of the things that are believed, the doctrines.

So, if Simon were to believe false doctrine or not properly explain the Word of God, that would certainly lead the Church astray in error. And yet this is precisely what Jesus does not want, ever—for the Church to lead the believers in error concerning the doctrines of the faith.

That is why the Holy Spirit was promised. That is why Christians always trusted in the ancient Church that they were receiving, in essential matters of faith and morals, only true interpretation of the Word of God.

If we go past the years of the Apostles, when the written Word of God could no longer be added to and the canon of Scripture was fixed (Revelation 22:18), we see that in the ancient Church the believers constantly looked to the See of Rome, the Chair of Peter, for guidance on disputed matters of the Church.

When Pope Leo I enunciated the doctrine of Christ having two natures in one, divine Person, the Council of Chalcedon erupted with the words, “Peter has spoken through Leo.”

Now we arrive at a correct understanding of infallibility when exercised from the Chair of Peter in the See of Rome. It is not something divorced or broken off from the faith of the entire Church. It is not a chance for the Pope to re-invent a new doctrine which the rest of the Church does not approve of, as if he can bypass the Word of God as it has always been believed in the Church.

Rather, it is an individual teaching from the Successor of Peter that a certain essential teaching of faith or morals has always been believed and handed on in the Church, and therefore Christians are to embrace this doctrine as coming from the Word of God, revealed by God and taught constantly in the Church. 

This infallibility is not to be confused with impeccability, which is the inability to sin. The Pope sins all the time, like any human. Nor is this to be confused with perfection in thought, as the Pope can say things in an imperfect way and other teachers in the Church will have to improve on his words with greater eloquence.

Finally, the Holy Spirit’s protection upon the teaching office of the Pope does not cover non-essential matters outside the realm of faith and morals. What infallibility covers is the Revelation of God found in Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition, concerning faith and morals. The Pope cannot infallibly teach that dogs don’t go to heaven (not found in the Word of God) or that Obama was not meant to be the U.S. President (a matter of politics, not faith or morals).

Infallibility is nothing more and nothing less than a protection of the Holy Spirit upon the entire Church in general and the Successor of Peter in particular, that when certain doctrines of faith and morals are taught from the Chair of Peter, the entire Church cannot be led into error and perdition as a result of that teaching. Papal infallibility is a way of saying that Jesus is true to His promise: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned back, turn and strengthen your brothers.”

To answer your question, the infallibility of the Church in general and the Pope in particular makes it necessary for a Christian to believe that the Holy Spirit is protecting the Revelation of God as contained in His Word. I am not accepting the “dogmas of the Church without question” but rather am accepting the Word of God as legitimate revelation and the Church as its Teacher. 

If the Popes have been wrong, and their preaching is from the deposit of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, then the Word of God is wrong, and if the Word of God is wrong and does not reveal truth, and if the Holy Spirit is not protecting that truth, that makes Jesus Christ the greatest liar and deceiver in all history. Jesus should never have said that the Holy Spirit would protect the Apostles and the Church in the truth if He didn’t mean it. God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Hello fireaux:

On Tumblr, no one gets to have “space” except on their own blog. No one gets to own tags that the rest have to ask permission to use. No one gets to set up fences around my truth and your truth and practice intellectual apartheid. 

There is no “freedom of speech” card. People either believe in that right or they give it lip service until their opponent wants the same freedom of speech.

Publishing opinion on my blog in response to questions about Catholic thought on asexuality and marriage is not an “invasion.” It is just writing on my Tumblr blog what people do on Tumblr every minute of every day—which is share their take on the truth.

Let’s take this one step at a time.

I published those opinions on my blog.

I did not reblog asexual comments first. The ace posters were the first to reblog my comments and add their snarky comments without inviting me to clarify or explain my opinion. 

It is not bashing a belief to present your own belief based on what you know. It is not bigotry when you speak of what you think might be the cause of asexuality, without denying the people their right to disagree and give their differing views.

You and other asexuals continue to put words in my mouth. When did I confront asexuals “specifically to tell them they should not believe in something?” All I can do is share my truth, which may contradict your truth.

I cannot make you believe anything. By the same token, you cannot make me believe anything either. Most important, you don’t get to shut me down. I get to shut me down. You don’t get to tell me to stop discussing asexuality or any topic on Tumblr. I decide when I want to stop discussing asexuality. 

Why is it so hard to comprehend that you don’t get your way all the time, and you will never get your way the more you order and command your way, instead of discussing and trying to convince me?

And you can stop using the Jesus, Christian, Catholic, or Goody Good Priest card to tell me how I’m not supposed to talk about these matters. All that will do is make me ask for the Bible verses where Jesus says I can’t debate a controversial topic if I want to.

Hello countryengineer:

Yes, I would agree. In fact, I stated the same in this post:

“Since asexuality should not be confused with impotence, which is physical inability, I would say that the Catholic Church would be open to marrying an asexual couple, as long as they would be open to the possibility of some kind of “consummation” of their marriage, and the possibility of openness to children.”

God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

…..spousal rape, so I’m a little bit confused on what exactly was meant by the right to a sexual relationship. Thanks so much! -Lily

Hi Lily:

You are absolutely right in your assumption. When St. Paul wrote those words to the Corinthian community of Christians, he had already made it clear that the marriage relationship was one of life-giving (procreative), sacrificial love (if there are no children, there must still be the willingness to sacrifice for each other).

This is the Apostle who said, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it” (Ephesians 5:25). 

So, it would not only be inaccurate to conclude that this biblical teaching is a justification for rape—such a thinking would not even make sense. For if the husband is supposed to do for the wife what Christ did, that would mean literally going to crucifixion for her. 

Why, then, does St. Paul say in 1 Corinthians 7:4 that the wife does not have authority over her own body, and conversely, that the husband does not have authority over his own body? What is being argued by the Apostle is that the husband and wife, in marriage, have made a pact of affectionate love. What they do in the Christian sense of marriage is stop saying, “Me me me” and start saying “us.” It isn’t “my money” and they are not “your children.” Everything is shared. It is ours. Not mine. Not yours.

The consequence is that even the body and its affections are shared. When you are married, you take someone for your lawful husband/wife, “to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” Under “to have and to hold” we understand the desire to touch, caress, to snuggle, to sleep together, and to feed and nurture the affective needs of your spouse. 

Your body should be there for your loved one when love making is reasonably requested. Your husband might have a headache. Your wife might have cramps. A spouse may come too late at night. So those cases would not be reasonable. If the request is not at a reasonable time, and the moment is not right, then you have to wait for another time. 

However, if as a matter of constant habit, you deny your husband or wife what they thought they were going to be getting in the state of matrimony, don’t be surprised if they abandon your bed and go looking elsewhere. And why put the marriage in that kind of danger and temptation? Yes, it is true that marital sex is often just routine because one is more desiring of it than the other. But denying it is not normal for a marriage. That is what the vast majority of couples will tell you.

So there is a right to sex in marriage. It is a conditional right, based on the condition of the opportune time and moment, based on the “yes” of your partner. And if they say no, that means no. It is not an absolute right, to be taken without respecting your spouse and their dignity. And even though spouses have a certain “autonomy,” that is limited because in falling in love, you invited this person, your spouse, to take away a lot of your autonomy so you wouldn’t t be alone and lonely in life. If you get married and start lecturing your spouse about your autonomy, he or she might say, “make up your mind. If I had known how much autonomy you wanted, I would have never married you.”

I hope this gives some context to the words of St. Paul, so that he is not misinterpreted in a way that is damaging to the Christian understanding of marriage, and the Christian vision of oneness and spousal sex. God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Hi Dayton:

Ha. First, I have to laugh. Let’s see. Why do I think Catholicism is true, in spite of the fact that Catholics on Tumblr have called me psycho, creepy, fucker, and then post social justice stuff on their blogs and cry oppression, or accuse me of “stalking” their blog (on a social network that has over 20 million subscribers) and then turn around and say they “screen capture” my blog in order to report me to my bishop? Yeah. Good question.

It certainly isn’t because Catholics on Tumblr are tripping over themselves to show love and sweetness. LOL.

I believe in Jesus Christ, eternal Son of the eternal Father, and their life-giving Paraclete Spirit, who repairs everything after we screw it all up. I believe that objectively, Catholicism has the historical record, the archaeological evidence, and the uncompromising, doctrinal purity to trace itself back to the New Testament, and to show it is one and the same as the New Testament Church that Jesus began as the seed and beginning of the future Kingdom which is to come. I regard all break off Christian movements, before or after Martin Luther, to be sincere attempts to reform the Church that made the mistake of going too far and losing something essential in creed, liturgy, or church order and discipline. Therefore, I will gladly stick with the structure of Catholicism for in that structure subsides the true Church of Christ.

Subjectively, I am deeply in sync with the message of Jesus as it is interpreted by Catholicism: in teaching of faith, let there be loyalty and unity; in matters of doubt let there be discussion, but in all matters let there be charity. Jesus said to give yourself to God (I’m going to say “give” because “love” makes people think of “feels”). Give yourselves to each other. Obey the pastors of the Church and celebrate your Christian life with Word and Sacraments. Do no harm to yourself. Do no harm to others. Defend the needy and the most vulnerable. And be alert, for I have died, I have risen, and I shall come again. Come, Lord Jesus!

I didn’t want to write a super long post. I have some of those on the blog already. I hope this answers your question. God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Hello thatkliqkid:

Ah, yes, the “I/we are reporting you to your bishop!” Hahaha. If only the people, Catholic and non-Catholic on Tumblr, had even the faintest clue of what Catholic bishops deal with, they would be ashamed and embarrassed at themselves for being so petty.

A Catholic bishop has from hundreds, to over 1,000 employees, depending on the size of his diocese. He is not just their boss, but their pastor. He is constantly worried about bringing in the money to support their salaries and to try to pay them fairly. He is worried about their health care, their families, marriage problems, and workplace environment. He often has to fire some for violations of labor law or safe environment. 

This does not begin to count the bishop’s problems with managing the buildings and properties of the Church in his diocese, keeping them up to legal building codes, being responsible making sure that electrical, plumbing, and other hazards do not pose a danger to parishioners, school children, and adults meeting for Catholic and non-Catholic functions.

Don’t get me started on the priests, the sisters, the brothers, the permanent deacons, their wives and families, and all the active volunteers who run the ministries of the Church. OY VEY. Every week there is some fire to be put out: again, marriage and family problems, cancer, drug addictions, alcoholism, nervous or mental breakdown, heart attack, sexual scandals between consenting adults, and interviewing and investigating priests and sisters who are just recently arriving to work in the diocese.

The list goes on and on. There are serious problems. Is that permanent deacon going to be evicted after his home got foreclosed? Is that Sister going to have to be permanently removed from her work when she gets back from rehab for addiction to Vicodin? That secretary worked for that parish for 25 years—is the District Attorney going to prosecute her for stealing those parish funds?

So, imagine a CEO of a huge workforce with those kinds of problems getting letters: “Tell Father Angel to STAHP because he cussed on Tumblr! He needs to STAHP because he bullied someone by criticizing their post on liberal dissent. Tell him to STAHP now because he is upsetting us on Tumblr, and TUMBLR MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND and is so important to the Catholic Church!!!”

Laugh. Dying. Dead.

Although you didn’t have to say this, I sure appreciate your words of kindness.

Not only that, but you are blessed to have a sense of balance, which we could all use. You and I can disagree without being disagreeable—if only the Lord blessed Catholics on Tumblr with more of that!

Not only that, you make the important distinction between the person, who views things, and their “viewpoint” which is different than who they are. A lot of us Catholics on Tumblr try to say this, till we are blue in the face, but it is perfectly fine to hate someone’s point of view, their viewpoint, without being hateful to the viewer or the person.

Thank you, again, for your message to me. You said it in a few words, but you had much to say, and we all have much to learn from what you wrote!!!!

God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Hello grayceleemarie:

I’ve answered this question before, but I’ll be happy to return to it. However, first, I should state that:

—while I believe in the Bible as God’s inspired Word, I do not believe in every event as historically true or every detail as scientifically reliable, because I believe God used authors who were at times good story tellers, and part of narrative is using poetic license and invented plot and characters.

—When I speak of proofs for God or Jesus or even the Bible, I should clarify: for me, a proof is not that which convinces us 100%, for most of our assumptions are taken on faith (such as getting in your car and not knowing whether it will blow up when you turn the ignition. You have faith it won’t and you then start the car).

—Rather, I see proof as that which is a compelling and reasonable explanation for the reality which is around me. A truth can be a necessary conclusion of certain premises, such as the medical reality of caffeine leading to increased heart rate, or merely a reasonable deduction from certain conditions, such as saying someone broke into your house when you find the door jammed open and all the furniture upside down.

—As far as what is “real and true” I believe that some things are real but are not necessarily physically real. Love, fear, hope, and dreams are all real, but no one has ever observed them under a microscope. But without these realities, human life as we know it would be meaningless. So they are real and true, but they are invisible.

So here are just some things to rattle off: 1) Since I was a kid, I wondered about big mysteries, like stars and galaxies, and little mysteries, such as grandma held me as a boy and sung to me and it felt very comforting and good. 2) I had a sense that some things in life were very complicated, such as the machinery and electronics in my dad’s shop, and the hours it took him to repair cars or a television. 3) I remember a next door neighbor as a kid who told me that He didn’t believe in God. He said the universe was an accident, and that we were all accidents. 4) I told him that if the stuff in my dad’s shop was not an accident, but was made and maintained by someone, then how can the universe, which is so much more complicated, be an accident? 5) My atheist neighbor said that when I got older, it would make less sense to believe in God and more sense to chalk everything up to “mystery of life” or “accident.” 6) My mom laughed and said the neighbor was crazy. I didn’t think he was crazy, but neither was I satisfied with his attempt to convert me to the religion of atheism.

a) I am getting closer to 50 years old, and I am still waiting for the doctrines and dogmas of atheism to convince me. b) At one time, in high school, it was plausible to me that the universe always existed. So one could possibly say that it was never created. c) Since then, my friends who study this have pretty much discredited that and told me that the universe definitely had a beginning, about 13.5 billion years ago. d) They don’t all say “creation” but merely beginning. Before “beginning” they say science cannot answer the question of how things got here. e) Some speak of super aliens who created everything, some speak of parallel and multiple universes, and some just continue to say, “It’s just an accident. It just happened.” f) I don’t find that answer satisfactory, nor does it make sense to me, not because it assumes there is no God, but as far as answers go, it smells like a “cop out” and running from the question or  complicating your answer to the point where it only produces more questions than answers.

g) Some atheists say “fuck you assholes, you believers in fairy tales, and your fucking fairy in the sky, you dumbfucks” and I find this response to theism to be unsatisfactory. h) some people say there isn’t a God because He’s against sex and they like to do the wild thing with no guilt, and since they stopped believing in God the sex is great and “fuck you for trying to shame me, you bigoted fuck and moralistic hypocrite.” I find this argument of atheism to also be unsatisfactory. i) Some atheists have used the “there’s no objective truth” argument, saying “Religion and the notion of a Supreme Being is divisive and very prideful because it makes some people think they possess this special truth, and fuck those assholes because everyone possesses truth.” I also find this argument unconvincing. j) Other atheists say, “no, there is actually objective truth, but it can only be found in nature and physics and gleaned with the scientific method, and the problem with believing in God is that you have to invent something which is not accountable to science. Your God is the last sacred cow that science demolishes, but you are holding onto that one, last piece of “old world superstition.” k) That is actually a twisted form of the “fairy tale” argument against belief in God, but it elevates atheists to the platform of “scientific ivory tower looking down on people who are beneath us because they are stupid” and I am simply not impressed with this line of reason.

l) We could go into the philosophical arguments against God, but that would take a book and in the end I find them interesting classroom chatter which just doesn’t speak to real human life and real people. m) In other words, philosopher atheists sound great until they have to deal with normal people in real life and then you realize why they are unmarketable and unemployable anywhere in the real world except some classroom where they can mind-rape you with bizarre theories of nothingness, angst, and more “we’re all an accident” talk.

Growing up, and reading my own array of thinkers on the subject of God and Jesus, and the general theme of the Bible as history of saving people and forming them into a Communion of fellowship, I came to agree with mathematician-philosophers like Leibniz and Blaise Pascal, who said that Christianity, and the Christian God, is believable because He provides us with a simple and reasonable explanation of the origins of something so complicated as the universe. He also shows, from the effects of His creation, the tangible signs of harmony, beauty, and providence, or careful maintenance of what He has brought about.

Finally, for the purpose of dealing with flesh and blood people and the problems of their societies, His message in the Bible is the most excellent by means of societal justice, personal morality, accountability to self and to the community, sacrificial and generous love for family, neighbors, and even enemies, and even an explanation for how to handle the mystery of evil and suffering (the cross or Passion of Christ) and to live in hopeful expectation of a world that can improve with God’s creative grace (Kingdom of God message of Jesus). If atheism could even come close to the proactive and communal initiative of Christianity, or even come close to racking up the serious accomplishments of civilization and culture accomplished by Christians through 2,000, I might give atheism a look. But it can’t and it doesn’t, so my faith is placed in what is most real and proven to me as true, which is the existence of a benign God who lovingly sent His Son into the world to blaze a path of holiness and glory that would eternally lift the human spirit in its wake.

This isn’t an exhaustive explanation, but this post has already gone long enough, so I’ll stop here. God bless and take care! Fr. Angel 

Hello anon:

You don’t have to explain academic probation to me. When I was in the seminary college, I was put on academic probation! It sucks.

I disobeyed a priest professor. We got into an argument about something and he punished me with a special homework assignment which I didn’t do because I was getting an A in class anyway. And I thought he was joking but then later I learned he failed me.

In your case, see if the school has any resources for tutorials in your area of need, and also please see if you can be checked out for depression, sleep problems, or attention or learning disorders, which can be temporary as well as permanent. You don’t have to pull through this all by yourself. But yes, count on my prayers. God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Hi Harman:

I am so excited that you will soon receive the sacraments of initiation. However, I think I speak for many Catholics when we say that you are already our brother, our friend, and one of us. You are already part of our family because you have captured the Christian spirit of “love one another.”

You are certainly in my prayers and I thank God you have “stuck with it” even though the Catholic religion has many challenging teachings and many ways that it makes us abandon worldly opinion in order to be radicals for Christ. 

Best regards to your family, your parents, and your parish family that has the honor and joy of welcoming you into our fellowship of brotherhood, love, and Christian service. God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Hello anon:

Read through my three posts on Purgatory. Part I:
http://fatherangel.tumblr.com/post/31180414837/would-you-be-so-kind-to-tell-me-what-purgatory-is

Part 2:
http://fatherangel.tumblr.com/post/31182063622/what-is-purgatory-part-2

Part 3:
http://fatherangel.tumblr.com/post/31185050404/what-is-purgatory-part-3

God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Hello anon:

During the Protestant Revolt of the 16th century, and the apostasy or defection of so many people from the Catholic Church, God raised up in the Basque country of northern Spain a valiant soldier by the name of Iñigo Lopez of Loyola. He later changed his name to Ignatius and founded a brotherhood of missionaries who called themselves the “fellowship of Jesus” or in Spanish “Compañia de Jesús.” They wrote up a fraternal “rule” or “Mission Statement” of their group and it was approved by Pope Paul III, who called them the Society of Jesus. The individual members of the Society were called “Jesuits” meaning “friends of Jesus” in the Spanish “jesuita.”

The first charter members elected Ignatius to be their superior and so he took charge and gave them mission assignments. In order to be prepared to instruct people well and lead them back to the Catholic Church, they underwent rigorous schooling in philosophy, theology, and various sciences, and preparation after some years before going into missionary work.

The Society began to take in many brothers and the majority of these were ordained priests and took vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and special loyalty to the Pope in accepting mission assignments. Their rule of life called for strict adherence to the unity and fraternity of the Society and for constant prayer and spiritual direction.

Although it was in Ignatius’ heart that they be missionaries of the Gospel primarily, yet because of their excellent education, many Europeans asked them to purchase properties and open up schools. Thus, to this day they are known as a “teaching religious order” or fraternity of Catholic priests. However, the Society runs any and all institutions of ministry and outreach which are helpful for the Catholic Church.

Before being Pope and before he was a bishop, Pope Francis was Jorge (George) Bergoglio and entered the Society of Jesus back in 1959. He professed first his vows as a brother, was ordained a priest in the Society in 1969, became a superior, and later on was pulled out of the Society so that he could be a bishop in Buenos Aires. 

Even though he had to leave the Society of Jesus in order to do the work of being a bishop, he considers himself in his heart, always and at all times, a Jesuit in the spirit of the “father founder” St. Ignatius. This is why he is very educated and yet very simple—because that was the style of Ignatius of Loyola. 

Calling a university Jesuit simply means that the Society purchased the property and opened up the school. However, most Jesuit schools are no longer run by the Society but are mostly run by lay people who work with the Society in the field of education. A school can be “Jesuit” but because the Jesuits do not really run it first hand, it can have teachings or activities that do not agree with the Catholic Church. God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Hello anon:

Omg, anon, you are making me chuckle. You have not been following me very long, have you? I sort of have a reputation on Tumblr—I’m nice to most people, but liberal, dissenting Catholics think I am the most mean, rude, and haughty priest who ever slaps them down on the entire internet. In fact, I lose followers all the time and I say, “GOOD BYE, good riddance!” See, I told you I could be mean:

I wish I could say I was always in a good mood. But if you are a liberal, left-wing of the Democratic or Libertarian party and you like to complain about Catholic doctrine, I am pretty mean, to be honest. I take those people and “ground and pound” the message of Jesus into them! And no, I’m not sorry about people who come onto my blog, complain, and then get slapped back to their own blogs for messing around with me. 

Stick around. You ain’t seen nothing LOL. But Thank You anyway for being so nice. God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Hello Gordon:

Yes, there is a canonical restriction of two Masses per day and a third one for pastoral necessity. 

But these canons are routinely ignored. It’s not that we priest want to ignore them. I would **LOVE** to have only one Mass on Sunday. Then I could go to breakfast afterward, go shopping, take in a movie, visit my mom and dad, walk the dog, and check out reruns on TV. LOL.

Ah. Sigh. But that is not meant to be. God has sent me around 2,000 active parishioners, even in this small town. If I say one Mass, as recommended by canon law, or even two, they rest would have to stay home and watch Mass on TV, which as you would know, is to deprive them of the graces of a real, live Mass.

So we live in times when “extraordinary circumstances (priest shortage) calls for extraordinary measures.” Not only do I have four Sunday Masses in the main parish, but I also have a mission chapel out in the country (hahaha, everything here is “the boondocks”) where I offer a Saturday Vigil Mass for Sunday. So, I have five Sunday Masses on a weekend, not counting baptisms or weddings or quinceañeras. 

But remember, the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. If my people, in today’s age of plunging faith and loss of piety, get up and get ready and come to church, it is not too much of a sacrifice for me to walk over and for 1 hour give them the Word of God and the Bread from heaven.

Yes, by the last Mass, it is difficult to have devotion and attention. And yes, I am very drained and spent. But as a priest, I have learned “not to think about it.” Sometimes, we priest just have to ignore our needs and think first and foremost of the needs of our people. Besides, there is Monday for sleeping in and answering “asks” on Tumblr :)

God bless and take care! Fr. Angel