Archbishop of Kansas City Shows Testicular Fortitude

As reported by Catholic World News, Archbishop Joseph Naumann has told Governor Kathleen Sebelius to refrain from receiving the Eucharist following her veto of a law that would have mandated that abortionists inform women about the procedure's effects and its alternatives (yes, truly a radical and shocking regulation on physicians).

The governor's decision was described by Archbishop Naumann as sending a "spiritually lethal message."

This is a marvelous gesture by His Excellency. I give it till tomorrow before the governor decides to play martyr and yammer on about what her "conscience" told her to do. Unfortunately, it is evident that her conscience has been deadened by sin. Her move endorses the policies of Herod and is in direct defiance of the Church.

And let's be perfectly clear about why the Archbishop did this. She's endangering her soul by receiving the Eucharist in her current condition. Nobody wants this lady committing sacrilege by going to Communion in a state of sin. She's also endangering the spiritual well-being of others via public scandal. Of course, that the Archbishop's judgment is an act of utmost love will be lost on anyone in the mainstream media.

Now, it's a good bet that two things will happen. First, she's going to make a publicity stunt out of being refused Holy Communion. Second, she's probably going to find some whack-job priest who will ignore his vows of obedience and give her Christ anyway. If that happens, they should both be excommed immediately. Let's hope the nation's other bishops are paying attention.

"What kind of unity are we looking for?"

This question was posed by Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, Vice-President of the Council of European Bishops' Conferences. I have no idea what he is talking about in asking such a thing.



I'm sure there are billions of positive effects that modern ecumenical dialogue has had for the Church, but right now, I can't think of a single one. My own experience is that such dialogue is really only good for watering down Magisterial teaching and Protestantizing the Church. But hey, I could be wrong. Like I said, I'm sure there are billions, nay, trillions, of positive things to say about. Somewhere.



The real problem with questions like the one asked by the Cardinal is that they create a completely false notion of what Christian unity is. There is a reason we recite in the Creed that the Church is ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. It's sort of the same error that Cardinal Kasper made in discussing the Anglicans. Comments such as these envision a sort of "super-church" of Christ that extends beyond the Catholic Church. This "super-church" lacks visible unity due to the scattering of all superficially Christian denominations, of which Catholicism is chief. We must therefore work for the unity of all the scattered denominations under the umbrella of this "super-church."

The above theory is a huge, steaming load of crap.

Let's review a few things.

1. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. (Colossians 2:19; Ephesians 1:23; e.g.)
2. Division in His Body is impossible. (1 Corinthians 12; Mark 3:24- consider that if the Church is divided, then it could not stand, yet in Matthew 16:18 Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, ergo, the Church cannot be divided.)
3. Therefore, unity beyond that which is present in the Church is impossible.

In case, anyone thinks that this Protestant notion of an invisible "super-church" is compatible with Catholicism, please note:

"From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error . . ."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum.

And should any Catholic consider that the Mystical Body of Christ is somewhere other than the Catholic Church, consider:

"The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself . . . If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis.

So what are we left with then? The fact that all these other folks are outside Christ's Body. They are excluded. This does not mean there is some sort of internal disunity within the Church. It means that there are those who belong to that unity as true members and those who do not. If we are going to be truly respectful of those outside the Church and have any sort of intellectual honesty for ourselves, we need to stop talking about unity as something other than the return of all heretics and schismatics to the communion of the Chair of Peter. I conclude with the following from Blessed Pius IX in his letter Iam Vos Omnes addressed to all Protestants during the First Vatican Council:

"It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation."

The Ads

Two things have been brought to my attention.

1. I need to post a bit more about myself, so that folks will have a better idea of where I'm coming from. I will try to do that soon.

2. On a more pressing issue, it has been pointed out to me that Adsense has put an ad on my blog here for a sedevacantist group.

Allow me to be perfectly clear on this. I am not a sedevacantist in any way, shape, or form. Period.

Foreshadowing by Cardinal de Hoyos?

Since so many bishops have decided to play word games with the Holy See in an effort to squash the Traditional Mass, we've been waiting for a follow-up to Summorum Pontificum (the document that freed up the use of the old rite) for a while now.

Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos is the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission, which is the body that is supposed to be regulating this issue. He has made some comments that indicate the awaited response will be quite forceful. The comments were part of an introduction he filmed for a Traditional Mass instructional DVD being released by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (an order dedicated to the old rite) and EWTN. Your priest can get a copy here.

Anyways, here's the Catholic News Agency article with the good Cardinal's comments. I don't know the context of these next lines, but I just about soiled myself when I first read them:

The cardinal said that parishes and priests should make available the Extraordinary Form so that “everyone may have access to this treasure of the ancient liturgy of the Church.” He also stressed that, “even if it is not specifically asked for, or requested” it should be provided. Interestingly, he added that the Pope wants this Mass to become normal in parishes, so that “young communities can also become familiar with this rite.”

Everybody got that? Whether or not it's asked for! And, God be praised if it happens, normalization! Let's hope that this is a sign of an upcoming move that puts all the obstructionist bishops on notice.

And if anybody cares, I was born waaaay after the Pauline Mass was adopted, so I'm not some old fogey suffering from listless nostalgia.

Speaking of old fogeys, though, I'll make one final comment. I go to a Pauline Mass most eveyr Sunday because that's all we have here. When I'm out of town, I hit the Traditional Mass. It never fails to be a packed house, with probably 3/4 of the congregation being my age, give or take 5 years. Note the contrast with the crowd present for the Call to Action sacrilege below.

Encouraging stuff for the future.

Vatican to Anglicans: Either Crap or Get Off the Pot

Speaking of Dr. Williams below, it looks like Cardinal Kasper almost did something worthwhile for a change. He asked a very pointed question, basically wondering, where is Anglicanism going?

Frankly, it looks like it's headed straight for a major schism right now, so when it comes to Kasper's options "the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or . . . more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century" the answer might be both. Or neither, considering that the liberalism dominating the western elements of the Church of England (like Gene Robinson and Katherine Schori) would have been monstrous for the Reformers. No, the problematic parts of the Anglican communion are way too lost in their own shenanigans to even contemplate some sort of "belonging" with the other mainline Reformed ecclesial communities.

Let's be really honest, though. There's not much left of anything first millenium even away from the progressive whackjobs. Their orders are null. They are not a church. They embraced contraception before any other Christian group even considered it. How much more Protestant can you get?

Finally, even when he seems to be trying to do something good, it's like Kasper can't keep from espousing error. Somebody needs to let him know that there were no first millenium "churches." There was and is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. One Mystical Body of Christ. That Church is the Catholic Church and all others are either heretical and/or schismatic. Like the Anglicans. We need to be praying for these souls to come home rather than perhaps feeding some of their errors (like the idea that they may actually be a church, regardless of their lack of a priesthood).

Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae (arguably an ex cathedra pronouncement)

People More Influential Than the Vicar of Christ

Here is the list of Time's 100 Most Influential People. Pope Benedict XVI, sovereign of the Vatican, spiritual leader of 1 billion Catholic souls, is not on it.

If this list is even 1/3 true as to who has influence these days, we are hip deep in poop with no Imodium in sight. They have broken down the list into categories, so I'm going to ignore certain horrors (Miley Cyrus, Radiohead, Brangelina, Oprah the AntiChrist, etc.). What I'm not going to ignore is the complete stupidity that went into compiling the "Leaders and Revolutionaries" part. I am assuming, of course, that this is where Pope Benedict would have gone.

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. What we have here is a guy who has been a US senator for a long time, a lady who got famous by being married to someone famous (then served as a senator for a few years), and a guy who has been senator for a couple of years and has spent most of that time running for president.

Should the fact that MAYBE one of these people will be president get them on a list that includes some people who actually, you know, do run entire countries? Comparing their collective stroke with someone like Vladimir Putin or, hey, the guy who really is president right now, is completely asinine.

The president of Chile? Oh wait, Hillary Clinton wrote that entry. No wonder.

The one I really can't look past, though, is Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. You've got to be kidding me. I've got a huge amount of respect for this guy. He lives in horrendous conditions imposed upon him by the Turks. He takes stands against the Turkish government despite this. He can't even get his seminary opened back up.

But his "influence" is almost nil. Even the other Orthodox seem to castigate him any time he actually tries to do what they claim his office is supposed to do. Half the time, it seems like the Russians are just waiting for him to die, so they can finally make a real play for the headship of the East, rather than just talking about it.

And why does he get on the list? Because of his stances on the environment. Last time I checked, nobody was running out to sign the Kyoto Accord because the Patriarch of Constantinople dropped some comments about the stewardship of Creation. Most of the greenies out there probably don't know who the hell this guy is.

I wondered who could have come up with something this wacky, when I noticed that his submission was from Dr. Rowan Williams, ostensibly the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has a tendency to say things that don't make sense. Probably not anything to get too worked up about considering who Time is letting write this stuff.

------ianity

Good to see that we can finally get rid of all that bothersome Christ stuff in Christianity.

I really wish that I could come up with something witty to say here, but this gal and her company are way beyond parody.

I will simply add that it is unfortunately not that big of a step from the Reformation to erasing Christ from the Church altogether. Consider the argument that Protestantism was essentially a triumph of rationalism as it placed all discernment of Truth at the mercy of the Scripture reader's reasoning. Reason having been enshrined (admittedly not in an overt fashion) as the paramount force of the faith, the slope becomes quite slippery. Guys like Spong are good examples of this. Fundamentalism provides something of a bulwark to this sort of total whackjobbery but even it is vulnerable to the encroachment of modernity and the inevitable insertion of pastor ego into the kerygma. Sure, it might not lead directly to complete apostasy, but it does make for a long and winding road to nowhere.

Is Liberal Catholicism Dead? They are joking, right?

Clearly, someone at Time hasn't seen the video below. Maybe we are getting past Sesame Street abominations like that (and judging from the average age of the crowd there, that's a possibility), but we've got a long row to hoe in getting folks to stop contracepting and to start going to Mass every Sunday.

I do think orthodoxy has gotten its foot in the door. Heretics are actually being challenged, rather than going about their business while the faithful simply roll over. The internet has been a huge boon to those who want to learn more about the Church but haven't had the resources.

Still, it's depressing to see how much work there is to be done. Birth control is going to be a difficult demon to exorcise. Getting people past "you just need to be nice to go to heaven" will probably be even worse. The pendulum is swinging that way, though. We just have to ride out the rest of the storm and not lose this momentum.

Unholy Crap.

I post this only to demonstrate to the masses here that groups such as this one do exist and are, in fact, quite (in)famous for being the way they are. These folks are known as Call to Action and have already been excommed by at least one good bishop (Bishop Fabian Bruskiewitz of Lincoln, NE).

Christ said that by their fruits we would know them. I suggest that we may know heretics by their sacrilege and open degradation of Catholic teaching. I must admit that at least these people are being honest about it, rather than scheming behind closed doors on how to deform the Church.

My colleague Nitschke from the NDNation board linked to the side believes these individuals are in good faith (edit: the precise comment was "good conscience." I don't think they have that either). I must disagree. You can't go this far off the reservation without wanting to. I cannot fathom how these people could come up with so many offensive and heretical items in the space of a single "liturgy" unless it was their intent to break as many rules as possible.

If any of these individuals should come across this post, I say the following in all charity. You are endangering your souls by participating in this madness. Repent and return to the bosom of the Church. If you are unwilling to do so, please abandon this fantasy that you are Catholic. You are clearly outside the Church as evidenced by your prayer to "create" your own church. Embrace your Protestant identity. This will at least keep you from committing the sin of scandalizing fellow Catholics.

Hustle & Flow 2: Popes Up, Heretics Down

Chorus 2X:

You know it's hard out here for a pope (you ain't knowin)

When he tellin' us we saved in hope (you ain't knowin)

Holdin' fast to the teachings that He wrote (you ain't knowin)

Because The Man be splittin' sheep from the goats (you ain't knowin)

And we'll have a whole lot of sinners who won't know (you ain't knowin)

In my life I done come a long way to this See

Runnin' the VC with the power of the Keys

But I gotta keep my hand strong, yeah stronger than King Kong

Like clown Masses and liturgical dancin', no that can't last long

Makin' to raise the roof like a baller

Ain't easy fo' an infallible shotcaller

It's messed up where we live, but that's just how it be

It might be new to you, but it's been like this since Eve

But I can't leave cause you know I'm Pope till I die

Sufferin' like a fool for Christ not really knowin' why

I'm tryin to save souls but it's hard fo' a pope

But I'm prayin and I'm hopin to God I can cope, yeah

[Chorus]

Man it seems like I ain't even got time fo' a prayer

The stakes is Armageddon if youse a true player

But you gotta stay straight, can't back down from their stare

Haters comin' from all sides, time to speak from the Chair

Successor of Peter, that's who I am

Gotta steer the ship right or maybe end up damned

Some homies want to back down, but where I'm led

By the Logos Incarnate, I know I'm already dead

Think you can step to this? Think you can handle?

Best check yo' self, I got bell, book, and candle

That's the way the game goes, with these heresies I'm dustin'

Gotta have my hustle tight, makin off like Augustine, yeah

You know it's hard out here for a pope (you ain't knowin)

When he tellin' us we saved in hope (you ain't knowin)

Holdin' fast to the teachings that He wrote (you ain't knowin)

Because The Man be splittin' sheep from the goats (you ain't knowin)

And we'll have a whole lot of sinners who won't know (you ain't knowin)

Coming soon from Vatican Records . . .

Catholic Social Justice and the Free Market, Pt. II

As I mentioned below, Mr. Woods has some very good points in his article on this topic. Specifically, he has some outstanding criticisms of ideas that have become accepted out of hand as THE orthodox view of how the problems of poverty and economic inequality are to be handled.

However, starting on around page 3, I think he begins to overstate certain things. For example, he states that the phrase "preferential option for the poor" was coined by liberation theologians. While the precise phrase indeed has its origins with liberation theology, the concept is not that new. Consider the definition that Woods gives for the preferential option:

• "It means we should formulate economic policy, and design our institutional framework, with a special eye to improving the well-being of the poor in particular."

Now compare that with this bit from Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno:

• "The function of the rulers of the State is to watch over the community and its parts; but in protecting private individuals in their rights, chief consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor."

Sounds pretty similar to me. In fact, I don't think Woods mentions QA at all in his entire article. With regards to what Woods believes is the preferential option for the poor, he posits the free market. To a certain extent, he is correct. However, I would temper this by saying that things that are free tend to be so because there are laws in place to protect them. I would suggest that a system that promotes injustice (which is merely a possibility, not a necessity of free markets) cannot be all that free. We must guard against this tendency.

Again from QA:

Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. . .

But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life - a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle. This function is one that the economic dictatorship which has recently displaced free competition can still less perform, since it is a headstrong power and a violent energy that, to benefit people, needs to be strongly curbed and wisely ruled. But it cannot curb and rule itself.

Does this necessitate high-level government redistribution? Not really. More on that next time.

Movie Review: Iron Man

Yeah, yeah. It's not directly related to the Church, but I have to mix things up every once and a while. Besides, comic books are probably the most advanced theological treatises out there considering that all the wacky problems posed by theologians really don't get played out in any other genre on such a regular basis.

I was convinced this movie would suck and that much of the suckage would be due to the casting.

I was wrong. This movie was very good and much of it was due to the casting. Downey played Stark quite well (though Tony was never this big an a-hole till he got hooked on the booze). I must also give a huge tip of the hat to Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane. This is the second Bridges movie that I have actually enjoyed. The first, of course, was Starman, but that was during Carpenter's infallible streak, so it's tough to know how much credit Bridges deserved there.

Favreau managed the dialogue here in marvelous fashion. Just when I thought it was about to veer into full-blown Swingers territory, he pulled back and reset things back into actual plot.

A few items: There were many very nice homages and revamps in this. The Mandarin and the "Ten Rings" were innovative takes I thought. The initial suit served as a nice shout out to Ultron fans, and we even got a tease for Rhodey's future out of it.

Jarvis- what a neat concept.

The story was a good meshing of the real origin, Stane's play for Stark International, and a bit of the Armor Wars thrown in for good measure. I thought the post-credits bit was freaking awesome. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, there is at least one gaping plot hole that I won't mention but just made the movie look sloppy at a rather crucial juncture.

I am very disappointed that my kids will have to wait for the DVD so that I can "edit" a couple of scenes. The stuff with the reporter and the stewardesses was completely uncalled for and seemed an almost deliberate insertion to prevent it from being too "kid-friendly." If you want to show that Stark is a womanizer, take the Batman Begins route and just show him out with some women and acting like a jerk. There was no need for those scenes in Iron Man.

Finally, my recommendations. The best run on Iron Man was that of Micheline and Layton, which includes the above-mentioned Armor Wars story. Go buy it now and enjoy. It is very much an insight into Tony's personality and why his hunger for redemption never really goes away. I will admit that I've always like Tony more in a team setting (Avengers) because it really drives home the Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian aspects of his book and character. He'll never be perfected like, say, Steve because Tony has attempted to reach that perfection by his own efforts and therefore is bound up in his ego and need to be self-reliant and in control. Steve is the opposite. He is who he is because of a gift (ironically granted by the sacrifice of his creator's life) and, as a result, he is not susceptible to the flaws I just mentioned.

Anyways, both the movie and the book are worth checking out.

Catholic Social Justice and the Free Market

This is an article by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. over at InsideCatholic.com entitled A Catholic Defense of the Free Market.

He brings forth multiple interesting points here, and I think I'm going to make it a series as I run through the different issues addressed. To sort of set the backdrop, I'm going to bring up a couple of things that often get ignored in all the hullaballoo that goes on whenever this topic comes up.

The infiltration of socialist thinking into the Church is a direct product of the Second Vatican Council's refusal to condemn communism. And yes, I use the words socialism and communism interchangeably. I have yet to see a convincing argument for the semantic word games people like to play with these terms, so I will continue to regard them as synonymous for all practical purposes.

It is a little known tidbit of history that Pope John XXIII had a clandestine deal negotiated with the Soviet Union in order to assure the presence of Russian Orthodox clergy at the Council. This deal, usually labelled The Pact of Metz, carried with it Pope John's promise that the Council would not issue a condemnation of communism.

The lack of such a condemnation was a striking omission to folks paying attention. Communism had no greater enemy on the planet than the Catholic Church. This abominable doctrine had been utterly reprobated since its inception by every Pope who dealt with the subject. Unfortunately, supporters of Marxist thought were percolating throughout the clergy, and Vatican II's silence gave them the opportunity to bubble up to the service. This problem of Vatican II giving an inch, followed by heretics taking a mile is a familiar pattern in the post-conciliar era.

In this case, the dissent indeed took the form of the so-called "liberation theology" of certain Latin American churchmen. This mixing of Marxism and Christianity brought an extreme crackdown from Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. That such thinking is heretical cannot be doubted. You either wind up with "better theology through guns" or the replacement of the Church's primary goal, that of the supernatural mission to save souls, with a purely natural end of caring for temporal needs. Frankly, it doesn't profit a guy much to get a good meal if he winds up in hell.

Of course, by the time JPII and Cardinal Ratzinger were on the scene, the damage had been done. Marxist theories had thoroughly penetrated into the minds of many clergy and were being disseminated as legitimate. Dissent having been made noble and glamorous in the 60s and 70s, people were firmly ensconced in their views of not giving a crap what the Magisterium actually said. And that's how we got where we are.

Preferential option for the poor is now regarded as a mandate for communism. The temporal is exalted above the supernatural. Catholic social policy is painted more and more in left-wing shades, which further complicates our political position by confusing the faithful voters into thinking that they can actually support pro-abortion candidates just because this individual is in favor of a large federal welfare state.

Let me be clear from the outset. I do not think Mr. Woods is correct in his treatment of the matter either, and he passes over a great deal that seems to me very important here. We'll explore the different facets of this deal over the next couple of weeks, I think.

For those who seek references for my above comments, I suggest any talks given by Fr. Vincent Micelli, SJ or the book Iota Unum by Romano Amerio.

And a Happy belated St. Athanasius Day as well!

If you've ever heard of St. Athanasius, you've probably heard of his primary opponents, namely, the Arian heretics. If you haven't heard of either, let's start with the general principle of what the Arian heresy is. It's basically the brainchild of an a-hole named Arius, who decided that Jesus, rather than being divine (i.e. God), was actually just a created being who was exalted above all other humans but still less than God Himself.

Basically, Jesus was Superman. A guy with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, sent by his Father from above and who has the mission of saving humanity. Believe it or not, there are still Arians these days. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. Mormons as well, to a certain extent. The problem with ancient Arians is that they weren't just limited to knocking on your door and wasting two or three hours of your day. They were more likely to burn down your church, beat the snot out of you, or have you exiled to harsh foreign lands.

Athanasius, for example, was exiled five times for resisting the heretics. Many don't realize how difficult orthodoxy was back then. Many estimates calculate that 80-90% of the world's bishops were Arians. This is why you often see Athanasius's plight described as "Athanasius contra mundum"- Athanasius against the world.

His most famous treatise is De Incarnatione, which is anti-Arian from beginning to end. His influence was paramount in ridding the world of this blasphemy, even though the real marginalization of Arianism wouldn't be completed for centuries (would that we could speak of its eradication!).

If you really want a good bit of stuff from him, though, go with The Life of At. Anthony about the father of Christian monasticism. It isn't very long or complicated. Just a really moving book about how important holiness should be.

On a side note, there are some modern writers who have attempted to portray this blessed Father and Doctor of the Church as a heartless and unscrupulous thug. The veracity of these claims is highly disputed, as many portraits from his own time very easily could have been designed to discredit him in the public's eyes. Whether they are true or not is actually irrelevant. Excepting the Blessed Mother, no saint was perfect. We come back to the idea of saving souls and what sorts of measures might be engaged in order to accomplish that goal. Modern folk have a problem understanding that there might be things more important than secular ideals of free speech and free association. That's their heresy and hopefully, we'll see a new Athanasius rise to meet them.

St. Athanasius, pray for us!

For now that He has come to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind is checked, and the corruption of death which before was prevailing against them is done away. For the race of men had gone to ruin, had not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet the end of death .

St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione.

Happy belated Pope St. Pius V Day!

So I took a respite from the blog here, and all that happens is that I miss the feast days of two of the most awesome saints in history. More on the other guy later.

Let's first reflect on the fact that in the last, oh, 700 years or so of Church history, there have been a grand total of two popes who have been canonized as saints. That's right. Two. And I'm talking about full-blown canonization. We've got plenty who have been beatified for some time now but have yet to receive full canonization. This isn't to say that it's been seven centuries of crappy popes either. In addition to those beatified, you've got guys like Pius VII, Leo XIII, Urban V, Clement XI, Innocent XI, and so forth.

This one surpasses them all.

First off, he's a Dominican, which means his awesomeness quotient is already amplified by a factor of 2. In fact, St. Pius V continued to wear his white Dominican habit after his election as pope. Every other pope since then has followed suit.

Second, setting in motion the real glory of the Counter-Reformation. The Council of Trent had basically been over for about three years without significant implementation of the reforms which had been adopted or a major response to the threat of Protestant heresy. Acknowledging the attack on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the most poisonous of Protestant tactics, he issued the bull Quo Primum for the codification of the existing liturgy which had been preserved since at least the time of Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century.

Third, he refused to take crap from the enemies of the Church, deciding instead to confront them openly. This was most apparent in the bull Regnans in Excelsis, which made formal the excommunication of Elizabeth I and released her subjects from any duty of obedience to her.

Fourth, just to nutshell a few other things since his other ecclesiastical accomplishments could fill volumes, he condemned the neo-Pelagian garbage of Michael Baius, cracked down on clerical abuses, and enforced the recitation of the Divine Office.

Fifth, moreso than any maybe any other pope in history, he saved Western Civilization from annihilation. In 1571, St. Pius V organized the Holy League for the purpose of turning back the invading hordes of the Turks. Both sides' naval forces met at the Battle of Lepanto on October 7. Pius had instructed the whole city of Rome to pray the rosary for victory. Of course, the League armada, led by Don Juan of Austria, was triumphant. Pius himself already knew of the result beforehand, as God had granted him a vision of the Turkish defeat. This is the origin of the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary.

Just to point out some modern parallels. We are again threatened by Muslim violence. The Church is struggling again with Pelagian ideas of "just be a nice person and you'll go to heaven." Secular leaders are looking to demolish the influence of the Church. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is abused and violated on a regular basis by arrogant bishops, heretical clergy, and sinful laity.

I'm just sayin' . . .

St. Pius V, pray for us!

Following the example of our predecessors, seeing that the Church militant, which God has placed in our hands, in these our times is tossed this way and that by so many heresies, and is grievously troubled troubled and afflicted by so many wars, and by the deprave morals of men, we also raise our eyes, weeping but full of hope, unto that same mountain (note: he is referring to the Blessed Mother here), whence every aid comes forth, and we encourage and admonish each member of Christ's faithful to do likewise in the Lord.

Pope St. Pius V, Consueverunt Romani.

Suffering Through Mass

I was emailed this article from the Edmonton Sun today. In a nutshell, the author happily describes the atmosphere of what I refer to as the Burger King church, so named because they serve up Jesus "Your way, right away."

Sadly, this writer's only reflections on the Masses of his youth involve the hardships of sitting, kneeling, and boredom. This is an increasingly common opinion of those who leave the Church. It is a tragedy when one sits ignorant of the cosmic marriage of Heaven and Earth and the privilege of being mystically present at the sacrifice of the Cross.



Still, I must ask, is suffering really something that is so incompatible with worship? Consider, the description of cappuccinos, cushy seats, and rock bands. Then consider the idea of worship as sacrifice, which of course, it what true worship is:

Who is there among you, that will shut the doors, and will kindle the fire on my altar gratis? I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. Malachi 1:10-11


For then He ought to have suffered often from the beginning of the world. But now once, at the end of ages, He hath appeared for the destruction of sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Hebrews 9:26

And, of course, our admonition from The Master:

And calling the multitude together with his disciples, he said to them: If any man will follow me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Mark 8:34

Not even getting into the Apostles rejoicing in their sufferings for Christ, let us try to find something in the above that bears any concord with cushions and fancy coffee.

Protestants Upset Over Not Being Allowed On Catholic Radio

What the hell is this?

So let me get this straight. Here's a Catholic radio station, dedicated to spreading the Truth about God. This necessarily excludes the heresy of Protestantism. I'm not saying this to be a bomb-thrower, but let's face it. I don't expect a Protestant minister to give a Eucharistic interpretation of John 6. That means that what he does say is probably going to be utterly false, which is bad. What can be worse than spreading falsehoods about God?

Yet somehow, these folks think they have a legit gripe that they may not get to broadcast on a Catholic station. Is this what ecumenism has come to? Catholics giving heresy equal time with Divine Truth? I wouldn't expect Protestants to allow us on their air waves. Why would they? We would be saying things detrimental to the souls of the listener.

Let's just face the fact that if we're going to be Catholic, the well-being of souls should be our primary concern. That means spreading Truth and suppressing heresy. If we are to be intellectually consistent, that means not letting Protestants broadcast their errors. Instead, how about we "Let them hear Lactantius crying out: 'The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.'" Pius XI had it right there. And here:

For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost:[15] has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy.

Pius XI, Mortalium Animos.

Hagee Loves Pope Benedict! Really!

He says so in the Washington Post.

So we can forget all that Whore of Babylon, forerunners of the Nazis, etc. what-not.

Or not.

Let me get this out of the way immediately. Yes, I think Hagee is a heretic by most definitions of Christianity. His view of Christ makes the entire mission of the Redeemer a complete failure and amounts to, by his own admission, a denial of Jesus as the Messiah. That's not even getting into his apparent perspective on Judaism as a salvific religion.

I do agree with Hagee that militant secularism is a problem for us all. The problem is that "looking past our differences" is nothing but a quick fix, full of sound and fury, but ultimately signifying nothing. The differences must be confronted, not swept under the rug as though they were not there. If we really believe that what we say is the Truth, actually telling people that should not be a burdensome deal.

Housekeeping

The question came up as to how often I'll be updating here. I'm shooting for daily, but who really knows? Breaking news or life interference may make it more or less. We'll see.

Are we ashamed?

Some folks are probably wondering why I bothered providing the litany of accomplishments for St. Catherine below. Well, it's true that I have a soft spot for Dominicans, of which she was one, but it's a bit more than that.

It is an intimidating thing to hear the accomplishments of an uneducated woman who only lived to be 33 years old, yet still managed to alter the course of history and achieve an unfathomable unity with God in the process. Many history-changers do so at the cost of their sanctity.

Are folks ashamed to see these accomplishments in relation to their own simple lives? Is that why we tend to shuffle the feasts of our ancestors in the Faith into the background, so that we can have our egos preserved when we look in the mirror?

Possibly.

Not living up the standard of Jesus we can rationalize. Hey, He was God after all. Being surpassed by an ignorant 14th century Italian is not the sort of thing modern folk can readily accept.


Which brings us to today's Gospel:

At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will." Matthew 11:25-30


What is it to us that His will was to exalt babes rather than the wise and understanding? Is it too much to acknowledge that God gives greater grace to some others than He does to us?

Listen to the woman- Catherine of Siena

It is an unfortunate consequence that most of our greatest saints are completely ignored these days. How many Catholics would know that today is the memorial of the Seraphic Virgin, St. Catherine of Siena? It's a terrible thing that God has given glory to such as these, while we have chosen to relegate them to obscurity, despite the fact that many of them, including Catherine, are among the most influential people in history.

Consider the life of this woman, who was the 23rd child born to her family. So devoted to Christ, she consecrated her virginity to Him at the age of seven. She would go on to shave her head in an effort to make herself less attractive to potential suitors, as her family was against her choice of vocation. Her life was one of penance and sacrifice for a Church that was in disarray.

That popin' ain't easy has already been stated. In Catherine's time, this was more true than is often the case. The papacy had been exiled to Avignon, France due to the political oppression of the French monarchy. Given the excesses and corruption present there, it was not the best locale for the Vicar of Christ to set up shop. Catherine took to herself the mission of restoring the Pope to his See in Rome. She would see this accomplished by Gregory XI, only to see the Church rent by schism as those who opposed the return to Rome revolted against the newly elected Urban VI. Catherine remained loyal to Pope Urban, the true Pope, until her death.

Her most famous writing is a series of mystical conversations with God the Father known as The Dialogue. It is an extraordinary treatment of His love and mercy, not to mention a testament to the miraculous in that Catherine could write it without any formal education at all. This is the work most responsible for her being acknowledged a Doctor of the Church by Pope Paul VI.

St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us.

But It's Necessary.

How necessary, you might ask?

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys to the kingdom of heaven And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Matthew 16:18

Sounds pretty frippin' necessary to me.

Anyways, this blog is supposed to be about all things Catholic. I should mention from this outset that all the opinions expressed herein are my own but are meant to bear at least a passing resemblance to the teachings of the Catholic Church as expressed through Her Magisterium.

I will also make the point that I am a rather bad Catholic and that I do not mean to offend with my posts here, though I'm sure my emotions will get carried away from time to time. That being said:

If you are not Catholic, but claim Christianity as your faith, I can assure you that, at some point, I will refer to you as a heretic or a schismatic (or both). These are not meant as slurs, but rather as statements of objective fact. If we are to be intellectually honest, I would expect you to say the same about me.

If you are not Christian, the same sentiment applies to you when I use the words infidel or apostate.

I welcome your comments and interest in this endeavor. May God bless and help us all.

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]."

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam.

Pretty necessary