Patriarch Bartholomew Rejects "Dual Unity"

Looks like the question from this post has been mooted. The Ecumenical Partriarchate web site is pretty clear:

With respect to the recently published articles reporting that allegedly His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew believes that it is possible for the Greek Catholics (Uniates) to have a “double union”, in other words, full communion with Rome as well as with Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarchate refutes this inaccurate statement and affirms it was never made. The Ecumenical Patriarchate repeats its position that full union in faith is a prerequisite for sacramental communion.

So even if Cardinal Husar had proposed such a deal, it clearly isn't going anywhere. I hate the enduring schism, but a fake unity would be a mockery of Christ.

Litany of Heresies #8

For those looking for the history of this series, check here and the last post I made on the topic here. I got some recent queries about what happened to it and why I didn't finish it off. Frankly, it didn't look like folks were all that interested, but I guess I was wrong. Anyways, we continue with heresy #8.


Claiming that the early Christian church is somehow distinct and/or different from the Catholic Church.

The Second Vatican Council is clear that the Church founded by Christ is the Catholic Church.

The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites.[1]

Echoing the teaching of Pope Pius XII,[2] the Council is quite clear here that the Church and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same thing. It is therefore absurd to attempt to divorce the Church of the Apostles from the Catholic Church of today. If the Church of today is the Mystical Body of Christ, as has been taught by Vatican II and the Ordinary Magisterium, distinguishing it from the Church of the Apostles would mean that the early Church was not the Mystical Body of Christ. Since Scripture clearly demonstrates that the early Church shared this divine character,[3] it must be identical to the present-day Church.

Vatican II also proclaims that:

The Catholic Church, since it was founded by Christ our Lord to bear salvation to all men and thus is obliged to preach the Gospel . . .[4]

Again, we see the Council illustrating that the Church founded by Christ is the same Church that exists today.

In addition, the Ordinary Magisterium has provided numerous sources of authority that demonstrate the historical nature of the Church.

From Pope St. Pius X:

Philosophical systems without number, of every form and every kind, rose up against her, arrogantly vaunting themselves her masters, as though they had at last destroyed the doctrine of the Church, refuted the dogmas of her faith, proved the absurdity of her teachings. But those systems, one after another, have passed into books of history, forgotten, bankrupt; while from the Rock of Peter the light of truth shines forth as brilliantly as on the day when Jesus first kindled it on His appearance in the world, and fed it with His Divine words: "Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass."[5]

From Pope Benedict XV:

He fixed deeply in his mind and scrupulously observed what the martyr Cyprian, the witness of the ancient tradition of the Church, affirmed: "there is one God and one Christ; There is one Church and one founded on Peter by the word of the Lord."[16] That is what the great Doctor of the Church Ambrose also preached: "Where Peter is, there is the Church. Where the Church is, there is no death but life eternal."[6]

From Pope Pius XI:

Instead, Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head, with an authority teaching by word of mouth, and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace; for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom, to a house, to a sheepfold, and to a flock. This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations." In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?" It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.[7]

This is merely a small sample of the writings on this topic, all of which confirm that divorcing the Church of the Apostles from the Catholic Church is a grievous error.[8]

[1] Second Vatican Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarium (Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite) §2.
[2] Cf. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis.
[3] Acts 9:3-4; Colossians 1:18, 24.
[4] Second Vatican Council, Inter Mirifica (Decree on the Media of Social Communications) §3.
[5] Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda Sane §8.
[6] Pope Benedict XV, In Hac Tanta §19.
[7] Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos §6.
[8] Pope Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi §65; Solemni Hac Liturgia (Credo of the People of God) §19; Ecclesiam Suam §30, 37, 46; Pope John Paul II, Dominum et Viveficantum §63; Cf. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cogitum; Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis.

Pope Paul VI and Dei Verbum

For those who don't know, Dei Verbum is the Vatican II Constitution on Divine Revelation. It has a passage (already referenced in the Litany of Heresies) that reads as follows:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

If you read the documents footnoted there or have any background in the traditional teaching of the Church, you know what this means. It means that Scripture is completely inerrant. However, you occasionally have folks like those referenced in the Litany who try to say that this passage really means that Scripture is only inerrant on those things that are relevant "for the sake salvation," which is usually defined as faith and morals.

It was this ditty that actually tipped Paul VI off that the progressives were engaged in massive shenanigans behind his back at Vatican II. This text was actually a compromise between a version that held Scripture completely inerrant and a heretical submission that openly suggested errors in the Bible. Pope Paul was watching the situation rather closely and didn't particularly freak out until one of the progressives really shot their mouth off.

Fr. Ralph Wiltgen tells the story in The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber:

Then one of the extreme liberals made the mistake of referring, in writing, to some of the ambiguous passages, and indicating how they would be interpreted after the Council. This paper fell into the hands of the aforesaid group of cardinals and Superiors General, whose representative took it to the Pope. Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept.

How awful. If you are wondering who the particular liberal is, Fr. Wiltgen does not say, but odds are it was Fr. Ed Schillebeecx who, though not a theological expert at the Council, wielded an enormous amount of influence due to articles and writings he circulated during its proceedings. He famously said, "We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards," which, of course, was always the liberal plan for the conciliar documents.

From this point on, Pope Paul would be on his guard against liberal elements at the Council, though even this item wouldn't be enough for him to completely crack down on the dissenters. He was living in the shadow of the guy everyone liked, Blessed John XXIII, and never could seem to gather himself to make the unpopular moves that would have secured the Church but left him crucified in the press and certain circles of popular opinion.

For any Displaced Anglicans (around Arlington, at least)

Just wanted to point out a marvelous discovery by my friend Matt McAleer of St. Mary the Virgin parish. It's a personal parish established under the pastoral provision granted to Anglican groups that convert to Catholicism. They've been in the Church since 1991 according to the web site. You get an Anglican liturgy and all the trimmings while in communion with Rome. How awesome is that?

I'm going to try and make it there for Mass the next time I'm in the Dallas area, so I hope to see some of you new converts then.

More on the Eucharistic Sacrilege at Central Florida

Going back to this post, the defiler of the Holy Eucharist is now complaining that he is receiving death threats, according to FoxNews. Of course, there's nothing but this guy's word on this, but hey, he's just committed sacrilege, so why should we doubt anything that this clearly blameless guy has to say?

Just taking a silver lining from this, if he is getting death threats, at least there are Catholics who take his abominable actions seriously enough to be upset about it. This fellow deserves our prayers in hope that he will not compound his sin any further.

My Influence on Display for All to See

Just a short time ago, I swapped out the main title picture above to a photo of Pope Pius XII and lamented the possibility that his beatification was being needlessly delayed because of a few people screaming their disapproval via ignorance or lies.

CatholicExchange has some positive news:

Stirrings in Rome suggest that the movement to beatify Pope Pius XII may be on its way to getting back on track. If so, it’s a development that fair-minded people should welcome.

Even so, the cardinals and bishops of the Vatican Congregation for Saints’ Causes last year voted to recommend that Pope Benedict formally recognize the wartime Pope’s heroic virtues and declare him “venerable.” Instead, Benedict XVI established a commission to examine new archival material and weigh the impact that beatifying him would have on Catholic-Jewish relations.

The article is very vague and doesn't give much in the way of solid details, but hey, at least people are talking about the injustice of the whole thing. Maybe people at the Vatican are beginning to come around to the idea that ignorance and lies shouldn't be allowed to smear a saint.

Or maybe Popin' Ain't Easy is asserting itself as a dominant force in the Catholic world and bishops are taking note of the awesome clout wielded by yours truly and the couple, nay dozens, of readers who visit here.

Everybody into the water!

The Tiber swimming begins for the Anglicans. Per Damian Thompson:

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, is to lead his fellow Anglo-Catholics from the Church of England into the Roman Catholic Church, the Catholic Herald will reveal this week.
Bishop Burnham, one of two "flying bishops" in the province of Canterbury, has made a statement asking Pope Benedict XVI and the English Catholic bishops for "magnanimous gestures" that will allow traditionalists to become Catholics en masse.

He is confident that this will happen, following talks in Rome with Cardinal Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Kasper, the Vatican's head of ecumenism. He was accompanied on his visit by the Rt Rev Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough, the other Canterbury "flying bishop", who is expected to follow his example.

Welcome home, brothers!

Creative Killing of the Soul, Method #438: Holding Christ Hostage

From WFTV in Orlando. This kid is quite the jackass. Imagine if he defamed a copy of the Koran to make his point.

A University of Central Florida student, upset religious groups hold church services on public campuses, is holding hostage the Eucharist, an object so sacred to Catholics they call it the Body of Christ.

First, he claims he was beaten up by a woman who was probably an extraordinary minister.

A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that's why he brought it home with him. "She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.

Then he tries to make it a political statement.

"The church feels that I'm the problem here (probably because you are)," Cook said. "The problem is actually that this is a publicly-funded religious institution. Through student government here, we fund them through an activity and service, so they're receiving student money."

Cook is upset more than $40,000 in student fees have been allocated to support religious organizations on campus for the 2008-2009 school year, according to student government records. He denied he is holding the Eucharist hostage to protest that support.

Really? Then just what the hell do you call it?

Regardless of the reason, the Diocese says its main concern is to get the Eucharist back so it can be taken care of properly and with respect. Cook has been keeping the Eucharist stored in a plastic bag since last Sunday.

Here's a modest proposal for dealing with this guy:

You leave for a few days and folks decide to commit denominational suicide.

Rowan & Co. finally decided to go all-in to further their pursuit of shattering the Anglican Communion. The Anglican slide has been pretty bad over the last few decades. They've gone from false priests to contraception to openly gay bishops to women bishops in little over a hundred years. From the Times:

The Church of England decided last night to consecrate women bishops, with minimum concessions to opponents and despite the threat of a mass exodus of traditionalist clergy.

After one of the most contentious debates faced by the Church’s General Synod, its members voted to allow the consecration of women bishops but rejected compromise proposals for new “super bishops”, who would have catered for the objectors.

The decisions, after more than six hours of debate, led to extraordinary scenes at the University of York, with one bishop in tears as he spoke of being “ashamed” of the Church of England.

Shame. Yes, I think that's probably a good word here. Rowan certainly seemed ashamed.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who urged generous provision for opponents, sat with his head in his hands as a proposal for “super bishops” for objectors to women bishops was defeated. The super bishops would have been an upgraded version of the “flying bishops” appointed to care for opponents of women priests.

We should all pray that the Anglican faithful caught up in this mess will be given the grace to return to the True Church and abandon the self-destructive path of their brethren here. For all you clergymen, especially, who actually cared about maintaining some measure of doctrinal purity all these years, please know that Holy Mother Church awaits you with open arms. According to Damian Thompson, there are many already prepping to swim the Tiber.

Paul VI: Mysterium Fidei

This particular encyclical was issued by Pope Paul in September of 1965. It was written with "serious pastoral concern and anxiety" and laid down the doctrine of the Eucharist backed by papal authority way before JPII chimed in with Dominicae Cenae and Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

However, like most of Paul VI's good efforts, it was either ignored or blasted by a large number of folks in and out of the Church. If you read some of the Vatican II histories I've mentioned thus far, you'll find that Mysterium Fidei went off like theological dynamite. Soooo many progressives thought that Vatican II was going to give them a leg up in getting rid of all that Real Presence and transubstantiation stuff. Robert Brown, writing his book The Ecumenical Revolution, sounds like he is about to cry when discussing it. Ditto for guys like Kung. After all, the worst thing for them is a forceful presentation of the Faith.

Here's the deal, as clearly laid out by Pope Paul:

To confirm what we have said by examples, it is not allowable to emphasize what is called the "communal" Mass to the disparagement of Masses celebrated in private, or to exaggerate the element of sacramental sign as if the symbolism, which all certainly admit in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhausts completely the mode of Christ's presence in this sacrament. Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called "transignification" and "transfiguration," or finally to propose and act upon the opinion according to which, in the Consecrated Hosts which remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ Our Lord is no longer present.

Take time to go through the whole thing.

Whoa. More positive SSPX news.

Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos is reported over on Rorate Caeli as being "satisfied" the SSPX response to the latest Vatican overtures.

Combine this with the regularization of the Transalpine Redemptorists as noted at the same site, we could be seeing some really good things coming to fruition.

Two thoughts on the day's readings

The first is from Amos:

You alone have I favored, more than all the families of the earth;Therefore I will punish youfor all your crimes.

Looking at the Church these days, one wonders about the modern applicability of these words for the New Israel.

Then there's this bit from Matthew:

As Jesus got into a boat, his disciples followed him.Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea,so that the boat was being swamped by waves;but he was asleep.

They came and woke him, saying,“Lord, save us! We are perishing!”He said to them, “Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?”

Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea,and there was great calm.The men were amazed and said, “What sort of man is this,whom even the winds and the sea obey?”

Just as He brought order from the chaos of the waters (reminiscent of Genesis 1 I realized for the first time today), let us pray that He will bring order out of the chaos facing the Church.

Wrapping up Paul VI's Intro of the New Mass

In conclusion:

Finally, if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness. The greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of scriptural texts, the joint acts of the ministers, the silences which will mark various deeper moments in the rite, will all help to bring this out.

This is simply not true. Reminds me of a conversation I had with an Orthodox priest. He was commenting on how if you compare the structure of the Divine Liturgy to that of the TLM, you'll find that they are close to identical. The Pauline Mass was almost scandalous to him. He went so far as to say that there would never be a healing of the East-West schism until the Latin Rite did something to remedy the "evisceration" of our liturgy. The point is that more than a few people would dispute that the Pauline Mass retains the "outline" of the TLM.

But two indispensable requirements above all will make that richness clear: a profound participation by every single one present, and an outpouring of spirit in community charity. These requirements will help to make the Mass more than ever a school of spiritual depth and a peaceful but demanding school of Christian sociology. The soul's relationship with Christ and with the brethren thus attains new and vital intensity. Christ, the victim and the priest, renews and offers up his redeeming sacrifice through the ministry of the Church in the symbolic rite of his last supper. He leaves us his body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine, for our personal and spiritual nourishment, for our fusion in the unity of his redeeming love and his immortal life.

All true. And quite moving as well. The rest is basically some rules on implementing the new missal. I had never read this speech before, and I am thankful again that Amy Welborn brought it to everyone's attention. It is a radical thing to see the thought processes brought out this way. Almost everything Pope Paul said seemed soaked with anxiety and reluctance. I'll admit that my first read made me think he was just really naive and clueless. Upon closer examination, I am convinced that I was way off-base. There is just a tinge of optimism, but the whole thing sounds like "I hope to God that we are able to pull this thing off." Very interesting stuff.

Paul VI: The Credo of the People of God

Most folks have never heard of it, but it's one of the most succint, yet thorough, summaries of the Catholic Faith. Issued 40 years ago today by Pope Paul VI, the Credo is largely forgotten, mostly due to the decision by many Catholics of the late 60s to completely ignore it. In a bit of a twist, it's come out lately that the Credo was ghost written for the pope by Jacques Maritain.

This was sort of Pope Paul's way of trying to get a handle on the whackjobbery that was sweeping the Church. As Sandro relates in the above link:

On January 12, Cardinal Journet wrote to Maritain to tell him that he would soon be meeting with the pope, in Rome. Neither of them knew that Paul VI intended to enact the Year of Faith. But Maritain confided to Journet that a few days before, "an idea had come to me," which he describes this way:

"The Sovereign Pontiff should draft a complete and detailed profession of faith, in which everything that is really contained in the Symbol of Nicea would be presented explicitly. This will be, in the history of the Church, the profession of faith of Paul VI."

Although Maritain did not ask him to do so, Journet photocopied the philosopher's letter and gave it to the pope, when he met with him on January 18. On that occasion, Paul VI asked the theologian for his judgment on the state of the Church's health. "Tragic," Journet answered. Both he and the pope were in shock over the publication in Holland, one year earlier and with the blessing of the bishops, of a new Catechism aimed at nothing less than "substituting one orthodoxy for another in the Church, a modern orthodoxy for the traditional orthodoxy" (a comment from the commission of cardinals instituted by Paul VI to examine the Catechism, of which Journet was a member).

Of course, it wasn't too long after this that the wheels really came off Pope Paul's wagon when Humanae Vitae came out. More on that later, though.

If anyone ever asks you about what Catholics believe, pointing them to the Credo of the People of God might be a good start, assuming they know a bit of the terminology. A snippet to whet your appetite:

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory.[24] In the course of time, the Lord Jesus forms His Church by means of the sacraments emanating from His plenitude.[25] By these she makes her members participants in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, in the grace of the Holy Spirit who gives her life and movement.[26] She is therefore holy, though she has sinners in her bosom, because she herself has no other life but that of grace: it is by living by her life that her members are sanctified; it is by removing themselves from her life that they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for these offenses, of which she has the power to heal her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Some of you may have noticed a change

Of course, I'm talking about the title picture above. It was Carvaggio's painting of the martyrdom of St. Peter. Now, it's Pope Pius XII. Why so? CWN provides the answer.

The beatification of Pope Pius XII is not imminent, the Vatican's chief spokesman told reporters at a June 17 press conference.

Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, said that the beatification of the wartime Pontiff-- like the beatification of Pope John Paul II (bio - news)-- remains "in the kingdom of the future." By that, he explained, he meant that "it is not possible to say with any certainty" when the beatifications will take place.

This is very sad. There have been rumors for a long time that the entire cause has been completed. The only thing that is holding back his canonization is slander and calumny related to the garbage peddled by the intellectually dishonest (or liars; there is no other option) like Wills and Cornwell. Of course, there's also the point that the KGB seems to have started the entire thing as a means of discrediting him. There are numerous books dedicated to exonerating Pius XII from these charges, including from Jewish sources. Educate yourself before casting judgment or allowing anyone else to mutilate this holy man's memory.

As a mode of comparison as you read, consider this. Blessed John XXIII made secret deals with the Soviets for the exact thing that Pius XII is blasted for allegedly not doing, namely, failing to confront publicly the evil of his time. Blessed John's actions wrought the presence of Orthodox observers at Vatican II. Whoopee. Pope Pius's actions saved thousands of lives. So let's try to use a little bit of charity in examining things with 20/20 hindsight and without the benefit of omniscience to know what might have been.

It's sort of funny that other groups are being allowed to shout down or delay formal canonizations like this. In this case, it's Jews, but Anglicans had just as much yelling over Thomas More and John Fisher. It's why it took 400 years for them to be canonized. Maybe that will be the case for Pius XII as well. That would be most disappointing.

Anyways, I'm putting Pius XII up as my new title pic in hopes of his speedy road to sainthood.

Rolling Right Along With Pope Paul and the New Mass

From here:

If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19).

Yes. Speaking with the mind is more important than with a tongue. But doesn't that would seem to support the internal view of participation, rather than the merely external?

If we analogized this bit about the screen, we could just as easily say that the Easterners should trash their iconostases.

St. Augustine seems to be commenting on this when he says, "Have no fear of teachers, so long as all are instructed" (P.L. 38, 228, Serm. 37; cf. also Serm. 229, p. 1371). But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful "should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, the Our Father" (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

And how often does this happen? And what of the preceding section of this document called for Latin as the norm for the rest of the Mass as well.

But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See's official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.

It's disappeared as far as the laity are concerned. Ditto for most priests.

Positive movement on the SSPX front?

Fr. Z has a source reporting that "all is going well."

Read the rest here.

The British Reformation Saint You Never Hear About

His name is John Fisher. He was the only bishop who stood up and denounced Henry's insane descent into schism and heresy. Prior to his falling out with Henry, Fisher spent much effort in dismantling the errors of Martin Luther. It helped that Fisher a brilliant theologian, so much so that he was regarded as the ablest opponent of Lutheranism.

Of course, Henry was all in favor of this stuff until he wanted to get rid of Catherine. Once Fisher began opposing him on this, the die had been cast. Fisher was thrown into the Tower. Pope Paul III immediately made him a cardinal. Henry offered to send Fisher's head to the pope so that he could have it fitted for the red hat. It wasn't long after that he was executed.

The shame of it all is that you can't really find any of Fisher's really great anti-Lutheran works anymore (unless you are in a seminary library, I guess). What you can read, though, are his beautiful Expositions on the Penitential Psalms. A very moving spiritual work that I recommend to everyone.

Happy St. Irenaeus Day

St. Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons (in France) back in the late second century. I suppose we could call him the spiritual grandchild of St. John the Evangelist, who was the teacher of St. Polycarp who was the teacher of Irenaeus. He was a formidable opponent of gnostic heretics and is one of the best sources for learning just how insane their ideas really were.

His magnum opus is a five book set called Against Heresies. It is an amazing work and is a great source for demonstrating the historical claims of the Catholic Church. Irenaeus discusses Church teaching on everything from apostolic succession to papal primacy to the Eucharist. There are some parts that drag on and on with details on what the gnostics believe, but it's well worth slogging through. The dull bits are few and far between anyway.

On the eve of the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, St. Irenaeus reminds us:

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

Against Heresies, Book Three.

St. Irenaeus, pray for us!

Happy belated St. Thomas More Day

Yeah, I'm a week off with this, but even with my tardiness, I can't just let the feast day of one of my best friends slip by without recognition. As a lawyer, it's always good to see that some of us do make it into heaven. There's actually a lot of lawyer saints out there, but Thomas is our patron, and God knows we need his intervention these days, when the entire legal profession is mostly populated with scumbags.

As King Henry VIII's good servant, he acted as Chancellor of England, disposing of complicated legal matters and much of the realm's administration, including the suppression of heresy. As God's servant, he defended the primacy of the Pope and refused to acknowledge Henry's lust-driven quest to put away the saintly Catherine of Aragon in favor of Anne Boleyn. As was Henry's custom with those who opposed him, Thomas was beheaded.

As far as writings go, most folks will remember him for Utopia. This is a shame. His best work by far is The Sadness of Christ which he wrote during his imprisonment in the Tower of London.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the marvelous movie Man for All Seasons starring Paul Scofield and Robert Shaw. It won Scofield an Oscar and is one of the best Catholic movies ever.

Continuing with Paul VI and the New Mass

Rolling right along from where we left off in this speech:

It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

Is it just me, or does this sound like a guy being dragged kicking and screaming into this whole arrangement? This is like one of those drug ads that you see on TV where they spend 20 seconds telling you that the drug is great and then roll off about 5 minutes worth of how the drug isn't fit for anyone who eats or breathes and will kill you in 95% of cases.

Did I miss the citations to Vatican II that expressly called for Latin to remain the norm and Gregorian chant to be given pride of place?

We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values? Thus far, the whole discussion is loaded with regret, but these are all excellent questions nonetheless. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.

Fire away.

Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

As our parishioner from Arizona informed us below, most folks probably don't understand the Mass now. Participation has been stripped down to rote recitation. What of the internal, spiritual engagement of the parish engulfed in something ineffable and mysterious? Would this mean that I would be completely screwed if I went to a vernacular Mass in a non-English speaking country? Whither Veterum Sapientia and the wishes of Blessed John XXIII?

I saw the new Hulk movie.

It was a remarkable act of reparation for the prior abomination from Ang Lee. The previous effort spent what seemed to be about 5 hours on a mixed variety of origin stories, none of which were ever touted as the real reason Banner was all of a sudden changing into a monster. That left about 10 minutes for an actual discussion of what it meant for Banner to undergo this ordeal. Oh, but that was only after 2 hours of Nick Nolte playing a crazy, homeless version of Absorbing Man.

This new effort basically dealt with all the origin issues in the opening credits. Thumbs up already. It then proceeded on the wonderful course of the nature of Bruce's struggles and how they effect those around him. It is this element that provides a marvelous Catholic allegory on the monastic life. I'm sure I'll get some criticism for allegedly seeing Catholicism where it isn't (such as my view of Iron Man as a story about semi-pelagianism), but just hear me out.

Consider the dilemma faced by Bruce Banner. He must withdraw from essentially everything that feeds his passions. This was portrayed well in the TV version by the weekly closing with Bill Bixby back to hitch-hiking and the haunting piano music. If Banner declined to do this, he would condemn both himself, as well as those he loves and numerous unnamed innocents, to a path of destruction. Suppressing his passions is necessary for his survival. I must mention here that there is even a scene in the movie showing Banner as a celibate. Well done stuff, I thought.

The monastic withdraws into solitude for the exact same reasons. The temptations of the world, the flesh, and the Devil feed the passions of the soul, leading into sin, which is synonymous with destruction. The Church has always been emphatic about the nature of sin as a communal offense rather than merely an individual transgression, so the monastic finds himself in an analogous situation to Bruce, who disrupts everything around him when he succumbs to the rage of the Hulk.

However, this is not to say that the passions are evil in themselves. It is clearly the disordered passions which lead to sin and death. There is a line in the new movie in which Banner says that he does not feel he can control the Hulk but that he does think he can "aim it." Such is the case with our passions. The unchecked passions will ultimately lead us into sin. Having a fallen nature sucks. However, we can direct those passions and consequently overcome them by focusing them toward a virtuous end.

These scenarios lead to the same conflicts. Bruce is pursued by those he flees, whether it's Ross, or Betty or The Leader or whoever. He wants the solace of isolation, but he can never find it. Each moment is a struggle to contain the monstrous force within him, and nobody is really doing him any favors along the way. The monastic may somehow divest himself of elements of the world, but the flesh and the Devil will not let him go. Even the world will come searching, as evidenced by the multitudes who sought the wisdom of the Desert Fathers.

On a different note, both Banner and the monastic are faced with a singular problem. Their battles are utterly beyond their abilities to win alone. The movie might (I really don't know if it does) slide away from this a bit at the end, but the basic story is that Banner is impotent when he tries to take on the Hulk by himself. The monastic is painfully aware of his reliance on the grace of God to keep the angry seeds of temptation at bay. This is true by the simple fact that Satan will be doubly resolved to break him.

The picture above is of the Temptations of St. Antony. Replace the images with Banner surrounded by his enemies, and you have a good idea of where I'm going with this whole shpiel. Anyways, the bottom line is that the Hulk is a story about struggle with self and the lengths one must go if one is to truly conquer self for the sake of salvation (not just for the individual, but the world as well). This new movie effort tells this story extraordinarily well.

Go see the movie. Then read The Life of St. Antony by St. Athanasius.

Archbishop Nienstedt exerts his authority.

The parish he's cracking down on is St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis. For those who might not remember, this is the parish from the second Unholy Crap post I did here. Anyways, the article at the link is about his prohibition against a gay pride prayer service. Because, you know, we should all take pride in our offenses against God.

I present this article as Exhibit A against Archbishop Chaput's point below. You can't honestly say these people don't know or understand the Church's teaching against homosexuality. They just don't care.

The Most Common Religion: Indifferentism

Basically, it's a new report on how lots of folks are convinced that there are bunches and bunches of ways to heaven, not just their religion of choice. A couple of noteworthy paragraphs courtesy of FoxNews:

By many measures, Americans are strongly religious: 92 percent believe in God, 74 percent believe in life after death and 63 percent say their respective scriptures are the word of God.

So lots of folks believe in God, so we got that going for us. However:

Nearly across the board, the majority of religious Americans believe many religions can lead to eternal life: mainline Protestants (83 percent), members of historic black Protestant churches (59 percent), Roman Catholics (79 percent), Jews (82 percent) and Muslims (56 percent).
By similar margins, people in those faith groups believe in multiple interpretations of their own traditions' teachings. Yet 44 percent of the religiously affiliated also said their religion should preserve its traditional beliefs and practices.

In other words, what we believe about God is fairly inconsequential. This is a shame.

So why are folks in the religions that they are in if it ultimately doesn't really count for much. Parents? Maybe. I'm more willing to bet that it's because the religion that they are in makes them feel really good, and they enjoy these subjective warm-and-fuzzies. It's a short step from such psychic narcotics to the idea that their salvation is assured by where they because where they are reinforces their own ideas.

In conclusion, as if nobody knew this was coming:

More than most groups, Catholics break with their church, and not just on issues like abortion and homosexuality. Only six in 10 Catholics described God as "a person with whom people can have a relationship" — which the church teaches — while three in 10 described God as an "impersonal force."

"The statistics show, more than anything else, that many who describe themselves as Catholics do not know or understand the teachings of their church," said Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput. "Being Catholic means believing what the Catholic church teaches. It is a communion of faith, not simply of ancestry and family tradition. It also means that the church ought to work harder at evangelizing its own members."

I'm going to have to part ways with Archbishop Chaput here. Most of these people know exactly what the Church teaches and why. They just don't give a crap because, again, they feel their eternal destiny is secured.

Let's ask Pope Gregory XVI what he thought about these ideas. Pope Gregory, the floor is yours.

Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos

Paul VI's anniversary was this weekend.

It was June 23, 1963 when Giovanni Montini ascended the Throne of St. Peter as Pope Paul VI. I came to the conclusion a while back that this man might have been the most hated guy of the entire decade of the 60s. On the one hand, you had the Catholics who were outraged by his laxity in dealing with the post-Conciliar madness that gripped the Church. On the other hand, you had heretics who despised him for his interventions during Vatican II which thwarted some of the more extreme measures sponsored by the progressives. Not to mention that little ditty known as Humanae Vitae.

Personally, I feel a great deal of pity for him. His time as pope was mostly a disaster. If you read some of the books that discuss him, he just seems to be a guy in waaaay over his head. The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber actually describes him as breaking down and weeping openly upon discovering the deceits being practiced by the progressives at Vatican II. We should be praying for him.

I'm already into the shpiel he gave on the promulgation of the Pauline Mass. I'll be doing some further digging into what we saw from Paul VI over his 15 year pontificate with a big blowout on the anniversary of Humanae Vitae in July. Stay tuned.