Dan Brown's filth now officially an offense against God.

From the Times:

The Vatican has banned the makers of a prequel to The Da Vinci Code from filming in its grounds or any church in Rome, describing the work as “an offence against God”.

Angels and Demons, the latest Dan Brown thriller to be turned into a film, includes key episodes that take place in the Vatican and Rome’s churches. Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, the head of the Vatican’s Prefecture for Economic Affairs, said that Brown had “turned the gospels upside down to poison the faith”.

“It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into films in the name of business,” he said, adding that Brown’s work “wounds common religious feelings”.

This is my favorite part:

Father Marco Fibbi, a spokesman for the Diocese of Rome, said: “Normally we read the script but this time it was not necessary. The name Dan Brown was enough.”

The real question is how they got into a church for the scenes in the first movie. I wonder what Hanks's Eastern brethren think of his participation in promoting blasphemy.


This phenomenon reminds me of a story. Basically, St. Nicholas (yes, Santa Claus) was at the Council of Nicea when Arius stood up and began a shpiel about how Jesus was a created being and therefore not God. St. Nicholas responded by rising from his chair, walking across the room, and back-handing Arius to the floor. Not that I think Hanks & Co. should be back-handed (though CastAway, The Terminal, Philadelphia, and You've Got Mail are reasons enough for some sort of beating by themselves), but it shows you how seriously folks took blasphemy back then.


When we see secularists, Jehovah's Witnesses, or whoever making comments like this, we should at least be outraged and mad. Sad to say, I think the more typical reaction is apathy.

Anglican Meltdown

Between two gay priests apparently getting hitched and the re-opening of wounds over the ordination of women bishops, it looks like the schedule for the Anglican schism has been accelerated.

The Times is reporting massive upheaval over the former, and 500 clergy ready to quit over the latter. Not to mention Dr. Rowan's additional problems with Islam and a general negative perception overall.

We can only hope that this drives home to all those involved the need for union with the Vicar of Christ. The day may come when some seemingly normal Catholic bishop decides to "marry" some gay couple or "ordain" a woman priest, but we know what his fate will be. Hopefully, Cardinal Kaspar will stay out of the way on this one, and the Holy Father will urge not only this group, but all Anglicans, to return to the bosom of the Catholic Church.

Brits Rejoice!

At least, they should be. The Telegraph on the latest announcement from Cardinal de Hoyos:

The traditional Latin Mass – effectively banned by Rome for 40 years – is to be reintroduced into every Roman Catholic parish in England and Wales, the senior Vatican cardinal in charge of Latin liturgy said at a press conference in London today.

In addition, all seminaries will be required to teach trainee priests how to say the old Mass so that they can celebrate it in all parishes.

Catholic congregations throughout the world will receive special instruction on how to appreciate the old services, formerly known as the Tridentine Rite.

I wonder if/when the same announcement will come for the US. Granted, this will take a few years, as the article states, and great care will have to be taken to protect the process from getting the Veterum Sapientia treatment mentioned below, but it's a good sign regardless.

"The Papacy is a good thing as long as we abolish it."

This is the gist of what Canadian heretic Margaret O'Gara is saying in this article. It's fine to have a papacy. We just have to make it into something that is not the papacy first.

How terrifying that whackjobs like this are (a) considered Catholic, (b) associated with Catholic universities, (c) president of ostensibly Catholic theological organizations, and (d) allowed to speak in public.

It's amazing that she could say these things with a straight face. I'll do my best to translate:

O’Gara said she has been struck by the readiness of other Christian churches to embrace the papacy, citing a statement from the Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogue that the papacy is “part of God’s design for the church” and from the Lutheran/Catholic dialogue in the United States that the pope can function as a spokesperson for the gospel at the world level.

"It's great that so many people are ok with him talking and wearing that funny hat."

At the same time, she said, John Paul’s pontificate left behind “a mixed heritage” ecumenically.
O’Gara cited eight motives for that ambivalence:

1. The Synod of Bishops remained merely advisory to the pope;
2. The authority of episcopal conferences was restricted;
3. A Vatican document on “Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion” asserted that the Petrine ministry is “interior to every fully local church”;
4. The Vatican document Dominus Iesus said that some Protestant and Anglican bodies aren’t really “churches”;
5. Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper carried out a debate over whether the local or universal church has priority;
6. The term from Vatican II that the church “subsists” in Catholicism was understood to mean that it exists fully only in Catholicism;
7. The ban on women’s ordination was declared definitive;
8. The volume of papal teaching raised questions about its authority, and what role it would play in sister churches if present divisions could be overcome.

"Other religions have a problem with Catholics believing in Catholicism."

In light of all this, O’Gara argued, the papacy must be reformed “in a more pastoral way, in a less centralized way, in a way that defends the diversity of the local churches” before it can serve the cause of Christian unity.

"The pope should be Protestant."

Second, she proposed reconsidering what she called the “classicist” language used buy the First Vatican Council in the 19th century to formulate the dogma of infallibility. Rephrasing the teaching in a more historically-minded fashion, she said, could make it less threatening to other Christians.

"Watering down dogma is preferable to teaching Truth."

"Rather than appearing as an unchanging grasp of the truth, infallibility could be reinterpreted as the process through which, over time, the church discerns core teachings of the gospel for its age and culture,” she said.

"The pope should be a Modernist Protestant, so as to fully embrace the relativism and annihilation of Truth."

In the first category, O’Gara cited a number of areas where she said ecumenical dialogue over the last half-century has reached surprising breakthroughs: mutual recognition of baptism, the real and unique presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the church as communion, the need for a universal ministry by the pope, and acceptance of different forms of devotion to Mary.

"I'm going to spend the next few minutes on exaggerations and lies."

Under new business, O’Gara cited a number of areas where the various Christian denominations seem to be growing apart, including moral questions such as homosexuality and same-sex marriage, as well as doctrinal matters such as women’s ordination.

"Think of how great it would be to be wholly unified in our beliefs in nothing."

While acknowledging the importance of such questions, O’Gara warned against exaggerating their importance. She cited a tongue-in-cheek comment from the late German Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner about occasionally sensing a “neurotic fear that we may be in agreement.”

It's Rahner. Nobody knows what he meant.

O’Gara also described her experience more than 20 years ago with her first Protestant student from China. After carefully describing the differences between medieval Catholicism and Luther on the Eucharist, O’Gara said, this student replied: “But in our church in China we hold both of those positions.”

"Orwell called it 'doublethink.' We should look into getting us some of that."

Bishops to Faithful: You're too dumb to understand this.

For those who don't know, the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) are currently meeting in Orlando. John Allen is reporting that liturgical translations have been a hot topic.

Right now, it seems that the main complaint is that the laity are too stupid to understand the language.

Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, a longtime critic of the new translations, said the texts contain a number of “archaic and obscure” terms, pointing to words such as “wrought,” “ineffable,” and “gibbet.” He also said that the text’s preference for mimicking the sentence structure of Latin, featuring long sentences with a large number of dependent clauses, impedes understanding in English. Trautman cited one prayer in the new Proper of Seasons presented as a single 12-line sentence with three separate clauses.

“John and Mary Catholic have a right to have prayer texts that are clear and understandable,” Trautman said. “The document before us needs further work.”

I don't think there's any doubt that Catholic teaching has been dumbed down in the last several decades. This hasn't been helped by a lot of bishops who seem content in not instructing their flocks.

Really, though, the entire argument is asinine that the laity can't understand all this. This is the same sort of language used in the King James Bible. I personally know hundreds of Protestants without any sort of formal education beyond high school who do just fine with it. Why? Because it isn't rocket science, and I suspect that many in the hierarchy know that.

The Road to Dhimmitude, cont.

From the Telegraph:

The Church of England has been accused of censorship for shelving a controversial debate about Islam.

A meeting of the Church's "parliament" was due to discuss whether clergy should be doing more to convert British Muslims to Christianity.

The sensitive issue was highlighted last week by a senior bishop who accused Church leaders of failing to reach out to other faiths, and warned that radical Islam is filling a gap in society caused by the decline of traditional Christian values.

But now the Church has put off the debate on recruiting Muslims until next February at the earliest and will discuss the promotion of churches as tourist attractions instead.

Remarkable. The most remarkable part of the article being the implication that the belief that Christ wanted non-believers to be converted is somehow wacky or novel.

Have no fear, though. Rowan is on the job.

Yesterday the Archbishop announced he had held a meeting in London with representatives from 40 Christian groups from around the world to discuss how to strengthen ties with Muslims.
Dr Rowan Williams said: "It has, I think, renewed for us all the significance of the church's work in this area of cooperation with other faiths for the sake of peace in our common home."

Translation: We really don't want to rock the boat here (and possibly incur a fatwa), so we're going to keep our mouths shut rather than actually doing what Christ would want us to do.

Pope Paul VI discusses the New Mass

Let's look at this address one bit at a time:

We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

Right here from the get-go, we see why the New Mass was probably not going to be the great and marvelous thing everybody was clamoring for. That word "innovation." Generally speaking, innovation in the Church doesn't make for happy times.

A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.

When you hear the words "change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries" with reference to the Church, what is your first reaction? This entire section is about how great the TLM is. Pretty high words of praise from the Holy Father here. If it was so great, why was it sent to the dustbin?

It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.

The moment where we begin to appreciate what we had because it is now gone. As to the feeling of "annoyance," could there be a bigger understatement? I wonder what sorts of "annoyance" there might be if the current or some future pope attempted to suppress or derogate the Pauline Mass.

Finally, Pope Paul seems to have succumbed to the canard that the only way of participating in the Mass is by doing external and visible "stuff." You hear this a lot amongst those sipping the Haterade vs. the TLM. Those poor, ignorant shmoes attending the Mass prior to the Pauline Mass didn't have a clue what was going on. They just sat there like dumb animals. I don't think the modern folks who say this have any inkling of the hubris contained in this statement, as though the faith of older Catholics was somehow inferior because they happened to attend a Mass with Apostolic roots. It's just weird.

More on this later. In the interim, a word on liturgical innovation from Blessed Pius IX, warning the Ruthenian Catholics against such things:

Gregory XVI of blessed memory wrote about these to the Armenian Catholics, "your ancestors, either admired them because they seemed more fitting and beautiful or, introduced them at various periods as a distinctive mark separating themselves from heretics and schismatics." Therefore, as this same Supreme Pontiff declared, "that rule must be absolutely observed which states that, except for the most serious reasons and with the Apostolic See, no innovations are to be introduced into the holy rites of the liturgy, even under the pretext of restoring ceremonies which may seem to be more in conformity with liturgies approved by the same See.

Omnem Sollicitudinem

I firmly believe that Paul VI had no idea what he was getting himself into.

Until you've paid the last penny

Today's Gospel is one of my faves, Matthew 5:20-26. It wraps up with Jesus warning the disciples about the perils of anger because even being angry makes one liable for judgment. Anyways, Christ ends the discussion with the following:

Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge,and the judge will hand you over to the guard,and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you,you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.

When folks get quizzed about where Purgatory is in the Bible, they tend to ignore this verse, though it's meaning seems pretty clear. If we're talking about God's judgment and the afterlife, which it certainly seems that we are here, what is all this about paying and getting out? It surely isn't hell, as hell is eternal. I doubt anyone would claim that it's heaven. So what is it then? Of course, we also must ignore the fact that anyone who really has to look for Purgatory in Scripture is probably using a mutilated version which excludes 2 Maccabees.

Anyways, the best part of this analogy used by Christ is that once you come around to it being Purgatory, you begin to see the operation of the communion of saints. The image of the brother standing in to pay the last penny for you is a reassuring one. It's also kind of challenging when you consider all those folks currently suffering and in need of our assistance who go completely ignored by so many in the world today. Paying that last penny could take a loooooong time.

Because I can't leave it alone

When I read Obama's comments about abortion, I can't help but think of this picture. He strongly supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which would basically dismantle state restrictions on abortion. Let ignore the Act's federalism problems. The attitude taken in this statement is creepy as hell.

"But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman's right to choose; it's about equality. It's about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons."

Yes, Senator. Your course will allow both daughters and sons to be killed in the womb. Ah, equality. Are we not a wonderful society to promote such values?

Speaking of naive popes, let's move on to Paul VI

I was going to hold off on this as we are approaching the anniversary of Humanae Vitae, but Amy Welborn had this gem of a post that I just couldn't resist going ahead and putting it up.

It's Paul VI's audience right before the promulgation of the revised missal. Holy smokes. As one of the commenters notes, how many times does Pope Paul use words like "novelty" and "innovation"?

I'm going to read this a bit closer and post thoughts as I go.

Nobody's Perfect

I know some folks think that I am letting Blessed John XXIII slide on some things below. It wasn't my point to go into all sorts of details about the man. I was just aiming to show that he is usually held up as the patron saint of progressives when he publicly declared and authoritatively promulgated views that are diametrically opposed to what most people seem to think.

Discounting Christ and the Blessed Mother, history has taught us that nobody is perfect. Everybody has their warts and weaknesses. John XXIII was no different and folks on every side of the fences should acknowledge that. Sure, he was confirmed the decree of the Holy Office in 1959 to excom anyone who voted for a communist (which was actually more strict than Pius XII's position), but he then turned around and went in for the dealings at Metz (previously mentioned here) that withdrew any condemnations for communism at Vatican II. In fact, instead of condemning communism, he made occasional comments about attempts at "dialogue" with such philosophies, as though the Church has anything to learn from such delusions.

Sure, there was other stuff ("dialogue" with other errors, a seemingly soft position on religious liberty), but the issue remains that he is nothing like the caricature that is usually presented of him. I think he was a good and likable man, who liked the fact that he was liked and did things to cultivate that perception. It's why the Council was hijacked. He wanted for the bishops there to like him and so he let them get away with a lot of stuff right from the opening bell.

Nobody's perfect and hindsight is 20/20. Here ends our fair and balanced coverage of Blessed John XXIII.

Crappy Popes

Yes, we've had them. In spades. It's probably one of the most common refuges of the anti-Catholic apologist. Of course, nine times out of ten they have no clue who these crappy popes are or why they are allegedly so bad. Typically, the ones they'll rattle off are bad because they happen to be (gasp!) Catholic.

Still, it's good to admit that there are some lowlights and the backstory behind their shenanigans. I recommend The Bad Popes by ER Chamberlin. It's a very balanced work that takes the reader through a number of papal bottom-feeders with good documentation and a willingness to view all sides of the story.

For example, he debunks the popular story that Alexander VI was the nadir of Catholic history. In fact, by the time Chamberlin is done, you'll wish some of these other guys were half the pope Alexander was.

You get a good run through of the Pornocracy (it's a real word) with real pieces of work like John XII and Benedict IX. There's at least one pope who probably went insane (Urban VI) and whose acts would lead to the Great Western Schism. There were guys who were too busy getting fat to see the horrors of the Reformation springing up around them (Leo X). And still others who were just so inept and incompetent that you can't help but pity them (Clement VII).

There are probably half a dozen or so popes that Chamberlin doesn't name that could have gone on the list as well. For example, Honorius contributed to the spread of monothelitism and Stephen VI gave us the Cadaver Synod. Still, the book is as thorough as a single volume of this sort is going to be. Lots of folks might think that reading these types of things could disillusion a Catholic about the Faith. It's actually the opposite. To paraphrase Pius VI, seeing these idiots and jerks in charge of the Church and Her endurance through the ages is about the best proof of Her divinity that there is. After all, if She wasn't divine, these guys would have destroyed Her long ago.

The Harp of the Holy Spirit

Happy St. Ephrem the Syrian Day!

Most of the time, I'd say our mental image of folks who live in caves and preach a lot probably isn't all that great. Considering guys like Ephrem, we should probably give them the benefit of the doubt. He was a deacon who lived during the 4th century and is now heralded as a great saint, Church Father, and Doctor of the Church.

You can read Pope Benedict XVI's thoughts on him here. For Benedict XV's encyclical granting him the title of Doctor of the Church, go here.

To me, the big deal about Ephrem is his use of music and poetry to teach the Faith and annihilate heresy. Contrast this with the use of music in worship these days, which is basically to play on people's emotions and make them feel all warm and fuzzy. Not to mention giving the opportunity to sing banal, vacuous lyrics over, and over, and over, and over .. . .

Compare this:

On a certain day a pearl did I take up, my brethren;
I saw in it mysteries pertaining to the Kingdom;
Semblances and types of the Majesty;
It became a fountain, and I drank out of it mysteries of the Son.
I put it, my brethren, upon the palm of my hand,
That I might examine it:
I went to look at it on one side,
And it proved faces on all sides.
I found out that the Son was incomprehensible,
Since He is wholly Light.
In its brightness I beheld the Bright One Who cannot be clouded,
And in its pureness a great mystery,
Even the Body of Our Lord which is well-refined:
In its undivideness I saw the Truth
Which is undivided.
It was so that I saw there its pure conception,
The Church, and the Son within her.
The cloud was the likeness of her that bare Him,
And her type the heaven,
Since there shone forth from her His gracious Shining.
I saw therein his Trophies, and His victories, and His crowns.
I saw His helpful and overflowing graces,
And His hidden things with His revealed things.

To this:

Our God is an awesome God

He reigns from heaven above

With Wisdom, Power, and Love

Our God is an awesome God (repeat 300x)

Yeah. Doesn't really have quite the same effect.

St. Ephrem the Syrian, pray for us!

A Brief Segue Into Politics . . .

I'm sure that everyone has heard about Barack Obama abandoning his membership at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This move strikes me as somewhat gutless.



My logic here begins with a couple of premises. First, one's beliefs about God are more important than one's beliefs about anything else, as no other belief has the potential to inform and shape the entirety of one's life moreso than this one. Second, Obama was well aware of his pastor's views on race, America, etc. He attended services there for two decades. The reaction of the congregation to the now-famous clips shows no shock or incredulity on the part of the church-goers that their pastor could make such statements. To the contrary, they are in full-blown adoration. Ditto, by the way, for the reaction to Fr. Pfleger's recent embarassing display. Wright himself has said that Obama knew what his views were. All these things considered, I must think that Obama was well in this loop. He claims not to agree with these views, but that is irrelevant for my point here, as I can't fathom why anyone of faith would attend a single church for two decades without agreeing with the theological views of the pastor.



So we are left with Obama, who has apparently never taken issue with the political views expressed at his church in the past, abandoning the more important spiritual nourishment we can safely assume he felt he was getting there. Why so? Political expediency. Becoming president was more important than what he was getting spiritually, so the latte had to go.

Perhaps Sen. Obama should read some accounts of the ancient martyrs and the lengths that one should go to when the stakes pertain to one's natural vs. supernatural well-being. Again, if the politics hadn't bothered him before and he really was there to enhance his soul, then the detriment to his political ambitions for staying should be irrelevant.

Welcome to dhimmitude.

Basically, if you're a Christian and Britain, stay out of Muslim neighborhoods with all that Gospel what-not you're spouting. Not because you might get beheaded or anything, but because you might get harassed by the cops.

Christians bled for centuries trying to keep Europe safe from a Muslim takeover. Guys like Charles Martel, Don Juan of Austria, and King Jan Sobieski led whole armies to turn back the Mohammedan advance.

In contrast to these courageous men, Islam is set to extinguish Western Civilization in Europe thanks to continent-wide Christian apathy and cowardice. Not to mention contraception.

Litany of Heresies #7

Claiming that the Sacrament of Penance is a communal healing for the ease of the penitent’s conscience, rather than the restoration of sanctifying grace and communion with God.

The true notion of sin was ignored for the duration of the RCIA instruction. There was no mention of sanctifying grace or the necessity of confession and penance subsequent to First Communion. The sacrament was expressed in a variety of ways, usually revolving around the need for a healing between the penitent and the Church community, with the priest acting as its representative. Even now, approaching the Easter Vigil, there are members of the ___ catechumenate who feel that confession is unnecessary and that it is proper for them to continue confessing their sins “directly to God.” This is entirely contrary to the Catholic faith.

Considering that Christ instituted the Sacrament by bequeathing to His Apostles the authority to forgive and retain sin,[1] it is clear that confession has always been a requirement of Catholics since the founding of the Church.[2] The sacrament is required via dogmatic mandate from at least three ecumenical councils.

The Fourth Lateran Council states that:

All the faithful of both sexes shall after they have reached the age of discretion faithfully confess all their sins at least once a year to their own (parish) priest and perform to the best of their ability the penance imposed, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perchance at the advice of their own priest they may for a good reason abstain for a time from its reception; otherwise they shall be cut off from the Church (excommunicated) during life and deprived of Christian burial in death.[3]

This requirement was further clarified in the Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent:

Penitence was in deed at all times neccessary, in order to attain to grace and justice, for all men who had defiled themselves by any mortal sin, even for those who begged to be washed by the sacrament of Baptism ; that so, their perverseness renounced and amended, they might, with a hatred of sin and a godly sorrow of mind, detest so great an offence of God. . .

By which action so signal, and words so clear, the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood, that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the apostles and their lawful successors, for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism. . .[4]

From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine right necessary for all who have fallen after baptism; because that our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests His own vicars, as presidents and judges, unto whom all the mortal crimes, into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen, should be carried, in order that, in accordance with the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or retention of sins.[5]

If any one denieth, that, for the entire and perfect remission of sins, there are required three acts in the penitent, which are as it were the matter of the sacrament of Penance, to wit, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance; or saith that there are two parts only of penance, to wit, the terrors with which the conscience is smitten upon being convinced of sin, and the faith, generated by the gospel, or by the absolution, whereby one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ; let him be anathema.[6]

If any one saith, that, in the sacrament of Penance, it is not necessary, of divine right, for the remission of sins, to confess all and singular the mortal sins which after due and diligent previous meditation are remembered, even those (mortal sins) which are secret, and those which are opposed to the two last commandments of the Decalogue, as also the circumstances which change the species of a sin; but (saith) that such confession is only useful to instruct and console the penitent, and that it was of old only observed in order to impose a canonical satisfaction; or saith that they, who strive to confess all their sins, wish to leave nothing to the divine mercy to pardon ; or, finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins ; let him be anathema.[7]

And also at the Council of Florence:

But if through sin we incur an illness of the soul, we are cured spiritually by penance.

The fourth sacrament is penance. Its matter is the acts of the penitent, which are threefold. The first is contrition of heart, which includes sorrow for sin committed, with the resolve not to sin again. The second is oral confession, which implies integral confession to the priest of all sins that are remembered. The third is satisfaction for sins in accordance with the judgment of the priest which is ordinarily done by prayer, fasting and almsgiving.[8]

Pope John Paul II noted the lack of clear teaching on the necessity of confession and was dismayed. From his very first encyclical[9] and throughout the entirety of his pontificate, His Holiness constantly preached the need for confession for the remission of sins.

Individual and integral confession and absolution are the sole ordinary means by which the faithful, conscious of grave sin, are reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation can be obtained in other ways.[10]

The individual and integral confession of sins with individual absolution constitutes the only ordinary way in which the faithful who are conscious of serious sin are reconciled with God and with the church. From this confirmation of the church's teaching it is clear that every serious sin must always be stated, with its determining circumstances, in an individual confession.

For the sacrament of confession is indeed being undermined, on the one hand by the obscuring of the mortal and religious conscience, the lessening of a sense of sin, the distortion of the concept of repentance and the lack of effort to live an authentically Christian life. And on the other hand, it is being undermined by the sometimes widespread idea that one can obtain forgiveness directly from God, even in a habitual way, without approaching the sacrament of reconciliation. A further negative influence is the routine of a sacramental practice sometimes lacking in fervor and real spontaneity, deriving perhaps from a mistaken and distorted idea of the effects of the sacrament.[11]

The numerous statements made by instructors that sins may be confessed “directly to God” without the provision of sacramental absolution are therefore erroneous.

[1] John 20:23.
[2] The Didache 4:14; St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:22; St. Ambrose, On Penance 1:1; Pope Leo I, Epistle 108; St. John Chrystostom, On the Priesthood 3:5
[3] Fourth Lateran Council, Canon XXI.
[4] Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter I, On the Necessity, and on the Institution of the Sacrament of Penance.
[5] Id., Chapter V, On Confession.
[6] Id. at Canon IV.
[7] Id. at Canon VII.
[8] Council of Florence, Session VIII, Bull of Union with the Armenians.
[9] Pope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis §20.
[10] Pope John Paul II, Motu Proprio Misericordia Dei.
[11] Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia.

Pope John Gave us the Blessed Gift of Vernacular

No, he didn’t. This one is my personal favorite. Of all the false progressive ideas attributed to John XXIII, this one is truly the most asinine and utterly refuted by the Pope’s own words.

The story goes that Pope John looked out upon the Church and heard the oppressed rabble crying out to be liberated from the fetters of the Latin language and the terrors of the Traditional Mass. Valiant Pope John then convened the company of heroes known as Vatican II with the express purpose of annihilating these horrific shackles and the archaic ideas that held them in place.

It makes for a good bedtime story for the progressives. Maybe it helps them sleep at night now that the Traditional Mass is making such a comeback. What they either don’t know or ignore, sucking their thumbs and clinging to their Hans Kung dolls, is that Pope John condemned this whole line of thinking. Allow me to introduce possibly the most ignored papal document of the last half-century (yes, even more ignored than Humanae Vitae). Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you Veterum Sapientia, the whole of which is devoted to why Latin rules and the vernacular sucks. It's also an Apostolic Constitution, which means that it carries the highest level of papal authority (e.g. it's the same thing that Pius XII issued when defining the dogma of the Assumption). How many Pope John devotees would be caught dead saying things like:

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws." She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the "knowledge and use of this language," so intimately bound up with the Church's life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons." These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church's nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."

Since "every Church must assemble round the Roman Church," and since the Supreme Pontiffs have "true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful"of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations.

Furthermore, the Church's language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic." It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure ... of incomparable worth." It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching.It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See's decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.

In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See's will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

Folks who espouse ideas like this in our day are considered lunatics or extremists. This was another example of Pope John’s “reactionism” for Blanshard. The best part is when you run into progressives who actually do know about this document. They start making all kinds of excuses, usually that Il Papa Buono was “strong-armed into writing it” by the Curia. So he was gutless, then? If the Curia really had that kind of stroke, then VII would never have gone down the way it did because Pope John would never have scrapped the original prep work.

Or was it that “he didn’t really mean it”? Yeah, because popes are always devoting entire encyclicals to things they don’t really mean. Or maybe he changed his mind. Really? Is that why VII says that Latin is to be preserved as the language of the liturgy?

Or maybe it’s that people who buy into this legend are full of crap and should accept the fact that they hate a lot of what Blessed John really stood for.

Pope John was the Pope of Social Justice

I think the stupidity of this comment is clear from the series we’ve had on Social Justice and the free market. At least, I hope it is. John XXIII wrote stuff about social justice. Good for him. Let’s ignore the fact that he was standing on the shoulders of Pius XI, Leo XIII, and a tradition going all the way back to the Fathers, though. The real issue here is that there are a bunch of jerks that have portraying the pre-conciliar Church as dead, corrupt, broken, whatever as their driving mission in life. Wills is a good example of this phenomenon. It doesn’t have anything to do with John XXIII. It has to do with trying to make his predecessors look bad. The message is that nobody cared about the poor or working classes until VII, when Pope John was the light that showed us the way. Pay no attention to the rest of that 2000 years.

Pope John Was About Unity!

Aren’t we all? Except when this ditty gets thrown out as praise of John XXIII, it’s usually to let us know that Pope John always knew that other Christians and religious were part of Christ’s Mystical Body and didn’t need to convert.


That must be why he called Protestants “those poor souls outside the Church” in his autobiography, Journal of a Soul. Paul Blanshard in his book on Vatican II regarded this as a blatant example of John XXIII’s “reactionary” nature. Of course, Blanshard was also a bigot, but the point stands.


John XXIII was so convinced of how salvific other religions could be that he said the following about 2 minutes into his papacy:

The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth.



Yeah, this guy was all about unity, just not the hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya-while-we-ignore-heresy-and-schism unity that so many folks seem to want these days. “Imperfect communion” anyone? If only the above comment at his coronation was the focus of modern ecumenism, how many problems in the Church would evaporate?

Pope John Humanized the Priesthood

Other variants of this statement is that he humanized the papacy by stepping down from all the trappings and pomp that went along with it.

Or not.

Granted, you maybe could say something along these lines if you talked about the Pope’s famous visits to the children’s hospital or the prison, but this idea of eschewing pomp is usually provided by people who want to de-sacralize the ceremonies of the Church (ie- The Mass) and like to say that Pope John was big into doing this.

Strangely enough, this man so averse to ritual and ceremony was the last pope to have the full-blown papal coronation ceremony and wear the traditional papal tiara. Frankly, I think that if a pope is going to confront the modern world, he should do so with all the symbols of his authority in clear view. Humility is a good thing, but humility doesn’t require denying objective reality, which is that the Pope has authority that exceeds the merely secular. Maybe Benedict will dust one off for old times sake in the near future.

The other thing you hear about Pope John’s “humanizing” of the priesthood was that he wanted to abolish the distinctions between priests and laity. This is another myth conjured up by heretics that want to abuse the man’s memory. Nowhere can they point to anything he ever did that gives credence to this idea, except to point to “his” revision of the Mass, making it a Mass of the people, rather than the priesthood. I’ll deal more with this in the last point, but suffice to say, there is nothing in his personal work that suggests anything of the sort. To the contrary, ever hear of the worker-priest movement? One reason you probably haven’t is because John XXIII helped squash it. This was another case of erasing the line between priests and laity by having priests work regular jobs on top of their clerical duties. Pius XII took steps to get rid of it, but its death knell was rung by John XXIII. Despite this, you have guys like Garry Wills excoriating Pius XII for his work in this area, while turning a blind eye to the involvement of John XXIII. But hey, when you’re arrogant enough to write a book called What Jesus Meant, why should you let facts get in the way?

Pope John Gave Us Vatican II

Umm. Yeah. He also died after the first session, so it’s tough to see why he should be getting all the accolades for this one. Of course, ascribing credit to Paul VI would mean that some kind of props would have to go to the guy who wrote Humanae Vitae and that sure as hell isn’t coming from the progressives any time soon.

The sad part is that Pope John did preside over the events that resulted in the hijacking of VII, namely the discarding of the three years of work that went into its preparation and the complete upheaval of its commission structure. Most accounts suggest that Pope John had no idea the miles that would be given up when he gave the bishops this inch. In fact, as we’ll see, there’s little (or nothing) to indicate that Pope John would have sanctioned anything like what emerged in the post-conciliar Church, yet the progressives will consistently invoke his name as their patron saint.

Il Papa Buono

No, it’s not the name of a rapper. It’s the handle frequently applied to Angelo Roncalli, Blessed Pope John XXIII. It means “The Good Pope.” As today is the 45th anniversary of his death, it seemed appropriate to reflect upon the question suggested by his nickname. What made him so good? For the most part, the answer depends upon who you are asking.

I don’t think there are many folks who would think that John XXIII was a bad person. To the contrary, pretty much everybody agrees that he was a very holy man. He was known for having a good sense of humor and fitting perfectly into the mold of the jolly old round Santa Claus-type that everybody knows as a stereotype. There’s no reason to think that the personality he portrayed was a fabrication. For those who may be screeching at this point, I’m not going to even touch some of the comments often given about this Pope belonging to certain reprobated organizations, etc. Such comments seem to me to be slanderous as they lack any sort of evidence at all and are so scandalous that I am simply not going to go there.

Anyways, amongst the heretics who professed the Litany that is currently making the rounds on this blog, there was one truly dishonest schmuck who related the following story. He was sitting in Mass one day back in 1958 and internally cried out to God, “Lord, I’ll never leave your Church, but I’m not having any fun here!” (because, of course, that’s what the Sacrifice of Calvary was all about). Only a couple of months later, he said with exuberance building in his voice, Pius XII was dead and “the man who changed the Church forever was elected pope.” Ignoring for a moment the rather ghastly jubilation over the death of an outstanding pope like Pius XII, let’s consider what this buffoon of an instructor (and most other “progressive” Catholics) like to hold up as the “good” qualities of John XXIII.

1. Vatican II.
2. He understood that the priesthood and the laity shouldn’t be considered as separate states of life.
3. He was clear that Protestants and other Christians had no need of conversion, removing all the “barriers” that the Church had placed in the way of “unity.”
4. He was actually concerned about social justice and the well-being of the faithful.
5. He updated the Mass by getting rid of Latin and turning the priest around to face the people.
How can he not be “good” with a resume like this?

Yeah, I know. It’s crap. This is the kind of idiocy that people trot out to justify their disobedience to the Church. I can almost guarantee that these folks either have no clue about anything John XXIII has ever written or they’ve bought into a popular caricature and don’t care what the Pope actually thought about things. Take note next time you hear a story about something John XXIII was supposed to have done, such as the famous line of “Now begins my council,” allegedly uttered after (fill in the blank with event, usually Leinart’s speech hijacking the council) demonstrative of the bishops finally understanding what the council was about. See if you can find a real source, rather than second or third hand accounts. Usually, they don’t exist.

More on these items as the day progresses.

Speaking of whores . . .

Is anyone else disturbed by the excitement among the female populace of America over a movie that does little more than celebrate and legitimize the promiscuity of four New York strumpets?

The WhoreStory Channel

I've just about had it with the History Channel. I may watch some of their items on more secular topics, but like most media outlets, they are totally unreliable when it comes to the Church. The recurring problem tends to be the prevalence of attention whores on their programs. This explains Fr. Richard McBrien's showing up on pretty much every show they have relating to Catholicism. John Crossan and Elaine Pagels are other examples.

Anyways, I am considering the virtue of any further viewing of this channel after watching a Tivo'd presentation of The Protestant Reformation, which was apparently aired back in 2007 originally. It was a shame to see a respected guy like Diarmaid McCulloch in the midst of this whorefest. Naturally, it was just one slam against the Church after another, but hey, what do you expect when they've got the head "bishop" of WELS (I think; I never could read the whole caption) and the curator of the Lutheran museum as some of their "experts." It seems to me that every time there's a show relating to a primarily Catholic topic, we get McBrien and his ilk as the "Catholic" view and then a bevy of counter-points meant to pound the Church on even the most trivial of points. Nary a Catholic perspective on this trou-dropping extravaganza praising the accomplishments of Pope Martin Luther.

This show, for example, actually said that most scholars consider Alexander VI to be the nadir of the papacy. If that's the case, most scholars are dumb asses. It's called the Pornocracy for a reason, people. Look it up. I recommend ER Chamberlin's book The Bad Popes for a clearer picture of the subject.

The intellectual dishonesty really came to light, though, when the whores started using all sorts of verbal semantics to obfuscate the doctrine of purgatory. Vague mentions of fire and the afterlife were used in order to make it sound like indulgences were about getting people out of hell rather than extinguishing temporal punishment for sins already forgiven. Referring to indulgences as "afterlife insurance" and such contributed to the distortion.

Naturally, there were other problems, mostly from the waxing poetic about Luther's awesomeness and the beauty of the Calvinist contributions to work ethic, and strangely no mention at all of The Jews and their Lies. How odd. Nor of Queen Elizabeth's persecution of Catholics. Hey, Cate Blanchett proved that Bess was just a nice lady defending her country from the rampaging Catholic hordes, so surely she couldn't have done something bad.

Finally, if it wasn't for Protestantism, we apparently never would have had science. Let's ignore the Copernicuses and Mendels of the world. It's a lot easier to talk about these things if we overlook the actual facts.

I'm switching to Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends re-runs.

Litany of Heresies #6

Claiming that the Eucharist, rather than being established directly by Christ, was the result of an evolutionary process that arose from various “worship experiences.”

This statement is problematic on its face. Either the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist was present from the very beginning of the Church, or it was not. There is no rationale for believing that the Church of the Apostles’ time and immediately thereafter did not receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ via the Eucharist. The idea that the transformation of bread and wine was not immediately recognized in the Church, but instead evolved, raises the question of what exactly was done in this hypothetical intermediate period that would grant a valid and efficacious sacrament where there previously was none. The sacrament itself is reduced from being something instituted by Christ at the Last Supper to a trial and error effort on the part of the Apostles who apparently knew nothing of how to accomplish the Holy Consecration until they had undergone enough failures to understand how to “get it right.” Such a belief is contrary to known history and Catholic dogma.

St. Paul taught the Corinthians the truth regarding the consecrated species when he warned them against failing to discern the Body and Blood of Christ.[1] A cursory examination of the Ante-Nicean Fathers demonstrates that Christians were well-aware of the nature of the Holy Eucharist prior to and directly following the death of the last Apostle.[2] The Didache,[3] the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch,[4] and the testimony found in the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr[5] are obvious examples of this.

Moreover, infallible dogmas of the Church indicate that the Eucharist was present at the founding of the Church. The Council of Trent held:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord . . . let him be anathema.[6]

[F]or thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ who have treated of his most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which, -recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers . . .[7]

And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine . . .[8]

It is therefore clear from Scripture, Tradition, and the Extraordinary Magisterium that the belief in the Holy Eucharist has always been in the Church. The Ordinary Magisterium also contains an abundance of teaching to this same effect.[9] For the earliest Christians to have been ignorant of this reality would mean that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross lost its true meaning for a time, however brief. Such an occurrence would mean that the Church, at that point of time, was in error on this subject. As the Church cannot be in error, this view much be rejected.I am not suggesting that there had been no change in the Church’s liturgical practices throughout the centuries. What the instructors have challenged is the nature and essence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the early Church, not the liturgical rite by which the sacrament was confected. In this section, I seek only to defend the early Church as having understood the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament from its inception.

[1] First Corinthians 11:20-29
[2] Circa 100 A.D.
[3] Circa 70 A.D.
[4] Circa 110 A.D.
[5] Circa 151 A.D.
[6] Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacrements in General, Canon I.
[7] Id. at Session XIII, Chapter I.
[8] Id. at Session XIII, Chapter 3.
[9] Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei § 129; Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia § 3. Cf. Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church 1341-1345; Catechism of Pope Pius X, On the Eucharist, Questions 27-29; Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Sacrament of the Eucharist.