FAQ 10: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THESE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC BELIEFS?
TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Network
E-mail: traditio@traditio.com, Web: www.traditio.com
Copyright 1994-2023 CSM. Reproduction prohibited without authorization.
Last Revised: 09/22/23
666: THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST
All kinds of nonsense has been written about the meaning of "666"
in
Apocalypse 13:18/DRV: "Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let
him
count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the
number of him is six hundred sixty-six." Some even say that it portends
the
end of the world; others, that it stands for the pope. Both are
incorrect;
"666" refers to the past, not the future.
First of all, one cannot put too much stock in the exact number
"666," as it is not certain that this is even the number involved.
Before
the invention of the printing press, when copies of the Bible had to be
made
by hand, it was common for copying errors to creep in over time: words
and
lines transposed or repeated or omitted or mistranscribed. Numerals were
particularly likely to be mistranscribed, as the Greeks used letters of
the
alphabet for numerals (alpha = 1, beta = 2, etc.), followed by a stroke.
With such symbols being used outside the context of a word or sentence,
it
was easy for errors of transcription to arise.
Quite a few numbers in the Bible, such as the number of people
that
Christ fed with loaves and fishes on the mount and the number of times
one
should forgive, are variously recorded in the manuscripts. This is also
the
case with the number "666" in verse 18. The reading "hexakosioi
hexekonta
hex" ("666") is supported by the earliest papyrological source (Papyrus
47)
of the Apocalypse, as well as the major Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph).
However,
the uncial manuscript traditions A and C are considered superior to P47
and
Aleph for the Apocalypse, and although the A tradition reads "hexakonta,"
the
C tradition reads mostly deka, so that the number would be "616."
When Greek letters are thus used as numerals, the difference
between
666 and 616 is merely a change from xi to iota (666 = chi xi sigma; 616 =
chi
iota sigma). St. Irenaeus (ca. 130-202), one of the Apostolic Fathers (a
term used to describe the immediate disciples of the Apostles), was aware
of
the two readings, but added that those who had themselves seen St. John,
the
author of the Apocalypse, face to face, attested to "666."
By a process called "gematria" (coming from the Greek word for
"geometry"), words and sentences are read as numbers by the assigning of
numerical instead of phonetic values to each letter of the alphabet. As
it
turns out, the number "666" has specific reference to Caesar Nero in
Hebrew.
Surprisingly, the variant reading, 616, has specific reference to Caesar
Nero
in Latin and Greek. Thus, we have all three sacred languages concurring
in
the interpretation of the "mark of the beast" as Caesar Nero.
It should also be pointed out that the translation "beast" is not
strictly accurate in modern English. The Greek word, therion, refers
simply
to a wild animal, even an insect, whereas in modern English the word
"beast"
carries a pejorative, even monstrous, connotation.
So what is the upshot of all this? It seems clear that the
reference
to the "number of the beast" is the "number of a man," Caesar Nero, the
pagan
Roman emperor, who reigned from A.D. 54 to 68. Nero serves here as the
representative of the pagan Roman empire as opposed to Christian Rome.
Nero was the first Roman emperor to persecute the Christians, as
the
Roman historian reports in his Annales (XV.44): "ergo abolendo rumori
Nero
subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos
vulgus Christianos appellabat" [therefore, to put an end to the rumor
(that
he himself had caused the Great Fire at Rome in A.D. 64), Nero falsely
accused as the guilty parties and subjected to the most unusual
punishments
those hated for their crimes, whom the common people called
"Christians"].
The "666" reference, therefore, has nothing to do with the pope.
It
has nothing to do with the future. Having the "mark of the beast" meant
doing obeisance to the pagan emperors of Rome, after the manner of the
Jews,
whom St. John the Evangelist quotes as proclaiming before the Roman
governor
Pontius Pilate (John 19:15/DRV): "We have no king but Caesar."
So there is no need to worry about "666." Nero and his pagan
empire
has already lived and died.
=========================================================================
===
ABORTION
In the sin of abortion, as in many other sins, there is more than
one
species of malice. There is an abuse of the sex faculties, as well as
the
direct destruction of the fetal life. But since the latter crime is the
much
more heinous, abortion is commonly considered by theologians as primarily
a
sin of murder. The Church follows the same view by classifying abortion
as
a
delict contra vitam (against life) [Canon 2350.1].
Even though there is a probable opinion [on the part of some
Catholic
theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas] that the rational soul is
infused
only several weeks after conception, the abortion of a living foetus,
however
immature, involves the guilt of murder; because this is one of the cases
in
which probabilism may not be followed [so N. Noldin, A. Schmitt, and G.
Heinzel].
If it were ever conclusively proved that in the early states of
fetal
life the rational soul is not yet present, abortion would still be a
grave
sin, but in that case the predominant malice would be the frustration of
the
process of procreation, analogous to the malice of contraception. (Fr.
Francis J. O'Connell)
=========================================================================
==
ANIMALS AND HEAVEN
The constant teaching of the Church is that animals do have a
soul, that is, an "anima," or animating force. However, in the case of
animals, this is not a "rational" soul, capable of making moral choices;
they operate by some form of instinct. Therefore, animals cannot merit
Heaven, as can man, with his rational soul.
Don't fall into the Millennialist heresy by romanticizing Heaven
into some kind of "perfect earth." Heaven is the Beatific Vision, the
immediate and direct perception of Almighty God. When you are in the
presence of the Most Perfect and Most Beautiful God, everything else
pales into oblivion.
=========================================================================
==
ANNULMENTS
Marriage annulments from the Newchurch of the New Order are
problematical because the grounds in the New Order are significantly
different from the traditional doctrine of Roman Catholicism. Moreover,
New Order annulments have been used to produce a scandalous "divorce
mill" in the Newchurch sect. Traditionally, there are few cases that
truly warrant an annulment, after a detailed investigation of the facts
and arguments on both sides.
Even many Traditional Catholics do not understand what an
annulment, or (more accurately) declaration of nullity, is. It has
nothing to do with what happened after the marriage was entered
into. It relates only to an invalidating defect at the time of
the marriage that rendered the contact null and void. After all, the
marriage contract (exchange of promises) was publicly entered into by the
parties implicitly "for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in
sickness and in health, until death do us part."
Remember the standard warning before the marriage contract is
entered into: "If anyone knows why these two should not be joined in
Holy Matrimony, let him speak now or forever hold his peace"? The banns,
or announcement from the pulpit, of impending marriages, is intended to
ferret out any nullifying causes before the marriage is entered into, for
example, one of the parties is already married, one of the parties is
under the age of consent, or the parties are related to one another in
too close a degree by consanguinity (blood relative) or affinity (ties
other than those of blood).
In 1930 in the United States, for example, there were 9
declarations of nullity issued by the ecclesiastical court. By 1991,
that number had risen to 63,933 -- a whopping increase of over 7000 per
cent! With Newchurch now grossing up to 1,000 USD in fees for each case
in its fake divorce mill, that could equal a cool 64,000,000 USD for
Newchurch's scam operation in the United States alone.
Clearly, this is a divorce mill being run by the apostate
Newchurch of the New Order. That is an 82% dissolution rate for a Church
that is supposed to respect marriage! 82 per cent of the filings for
"Newchurch divorce" Clearly, this is a divorce mill being run by the
apostate anti-Catholic Newchurch of the New Order, and Newchurch has no
respect for marriage. In fact, in his 2015 Encyclical Letter "Amoris
Laetitiae" [The Joy of Sex], Francis-Bergoglio moved toward admitting
bigamist Newchurchers to gobble the Novus Ordo cookie.
For practical purposes, Newchurch annulments should be presumed
invalid and Traditional Catholics should put the facts before their
personal confessor or priest where they are attending the Traditional
Latin Mass and follow his judgment. Protestant-Masonic-Pagan Newchurch,
which is certainly not Catholic, should not be approached for any
reason, as it is apostate from the Catholic Faith.
=========================================================================
===
APPARITIONS, MIRACLES, PRIVATE REVELATIONS, AND VISIONS
The question often arises how much emphasis we should put upon
private revelations, apparitions, and visions. There have been some 260
alleged, likely spurious, "apparitions" since Vatican II (Medjugorje,
Bayside, etc.). Too many Catholics, so confused in the present state of
the
Church, cling "to any port in a storm" and therefore cling to even the
ludicrous, such as the "apparition" of the Blessed Virgin Mary in an oil
stain in a subway in Mexico or in the knothole of a tree in Northern
California!
First, it should be stated that such latter-day apparitions, even
if
true, are never part of the Public Revelation of the Church, and nothing
in
them is necessary for our salvation, nor are we bound by them as we are
by
the Public Revelation of the Church. In fact, they are much more apt to
be
diabolical than worthy of belief. Everything necessary for our salvation
is
contained in the Public Revelation of the Church, that is, the Deposit of
Faith: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition, which closed
with
the death of the last of the Apostles, St. John.
"Private" Revelation in Catholic theology has nothing to do with
how many people purportedly saw something. The term "Private Revelation"
comprises anything occurring after the Apostolic Age, anything that is
not
recorded in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Apostolic Tradition as one of the
miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ or His Apostles. Only Sacred Scripture
and Sacred Tradition comprise "Public Revelation." It has been the
constant
teaching of the Church that no Catholic is required to place credence in
any
revelation except what is in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Apostolic
Tradition.
As far back as Deuteronomy, the Jews were warned against visions:
"Thou shalt not hear the words of that prophet or dreamer. For the Lord
your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him with all
your
heart, and with all your soul, or not.... And that prophet or forger of
dreams shall be slain: because he spoke to draw you away from the Lord
your
God" (Deuteronomy 13:3,5/DRV).
The Gospels warn us: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh
a
sign; and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the
prophet.
For, as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights; so
shall
the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."
(Matthew 12:29/DRV) In other words, we look to Our Lord Himself as the
sign.
Moreover, Our Lord Himself warned us that false "miracles" can be
used by Satan to deceive: "For there shall arise false Christs and false
prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive
(if
possible) even the elect (Matthew 24:24/DRV). When His Apostles asked
for a
prediction of the future, Our Lord told them explicitly: "It is not for
you
to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power
(Acts 1:8/DRV).
In place of Catholic and Apostolic teaching and practice, to
presume
to find a new basis of faith in private revelations prophecies, visions,
and
"signs and wonders," particularly in Fatima, the error of
"apparitionism,"
is a grave error. We must be very cautious indeed about these things,
since
Sacred Scripture warns us again and again about the fact that even
visions,
apparitions, signs, and wonders may be of the Devil:
"Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether
they
belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world"
(1
John 4:1/DRV)
And again:
"For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves
into
the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth
himself into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his
ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be
according to their works" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15/DRV)
And again:
"And then that wicked one shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall
kill
with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his
coming: him Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all
power
and signs and lying wonders: And in all seduction of iniquity to them
that
perish: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might
be
saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe
lying" (2 Thessalonians 2:8-11/DRV).
St. John of the Cross (1542-1591), perhaps the Church's greatest
mystic, warned: "The desire for private revelations deprives faith of
its
purity, develops a dangerous curiosity that becomes a source of
illusions,
fills the mind with vain fancies, and often proves the want of humility,
and
of submission to Our Lord, Who, through His public revelation, has given
all
that is needed for salvation. We must suspect those apparitions that
lack
dignity or proper reserve, and above all, those that are ridiculous.
This
last characteristic is a mark of human or diabolical machination. STAY
AWAY
FROM VISIONS, APPARITIONS, AND MIRACLES AS MUCH AS YOU CAN. BE CAREFUL
OF
VISIONS, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE AUTHENTIC.
St. Vincent Ferrer similarly warned: "The first remedy against
spiritual temptations which the devil plants in the hearts of many
persons
in these unhappy times, is to have no desire to procure by prayer,
meditation, or any other good work, what are called (private)
revelations,
or spiritual experiences, beyond what happens in the ordinary course of
things; such a desire of things which surpass the common order can have
no
other root or foundation but pride, presumption, a vain curiosity in what
regards the things of God, and in short, an exceedingly weak faith. It
is
to punish this evil desire that God abandons the soul, and permits it to
fall into the illusions and temptations of the devil, who seduces it, and
represents to it false visions and delusive revelations. Here we have the
source of most of the spiritual temptations that prevail at the present
time; temptations which the spirit of evil roots in the souls of those
who
may be called the precursors of Antichrist."
Pope St. Pius X captured the truly Catholic sense when he wrote
in
1913: "When anyone tells me about the extraordinary, I am the most
incredulous man in the world..., but when holiness results from the
practice
of virtue..., I believe in it. Just this morning ... I was saying that
long
ago the devil manifested himself openly in the possessed whom he caused
to
suffer, and from whom he could be driven out only by exorcism. Now he
has
changed his method; he takes the appearance of sanctity and makes people
believe in visions. He even gives to certain persons the knowledge of
hidden things, so that they may appear to prophesy; sometimes he even
simulates stigmata! But as for holiness expressed in the simple practice
of
virtue..., I believe in that. That is indeed holiness.... The way to
sanctity is not difficult. It is a thorny road, but easy."
TO SUM UP, IN THE WORDS OF POPE BENEDICT XIV: "WE CANNOT AND WE
OUGHT NOT TO GIVE THEM [PRIVATE REVELATIONS] THE ASSENT OF DIVINE FAITH,
BUT
ONLY THAT OF HUMAN FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF PRUDENCE WHENEVER
THESE DICTATES ENABLE US TO DECIDE THAT THEY ARE PROBABLE AND WORTHY OF
PIOUS CREDENCE." IT MUST ALSO BE REMEMBERED THAT MIRACLES UPSET THE
NATURAL
BALANCE OF GOD'S UNIVERSAL LAWS, SO "MIRACULOUS" EXPLANATIONS ARE
NATURALLY
TO BE RESORTED TO WITH GREAT RARITY.
=========================================================================
BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION"
FR. FRANCIS J. CONNELL, "FR. CONNELL ANSWERS MORAL QUESTIONS," (1958),
comments as follows:
The doctrinal phrase "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," first used by
St. Cyprian (ca. 210-258) and approved by the Council of Florence (1438-
1445), and its associated doctrine, baptism of desire (flaminis, or de
voto), is a complex subject that some misconstrue by taking the flat
statement out of its proper context within the balance of traditional
Catholic teaching since the early centuries of the Church.
The doctrinal phrase was not originally directed against non-
Catholics AS INDIVIDUALS, but against heretical sects insofar as they are
sects. Its purpose is to safeguard the truth that there is only ONE body
of Christ and, therefore, only ONE Church that which possesses and
communicates the fullness of the blessings brought to men by Christ.
(Fr. John Laux, Catholic Apologetics, Book IV, p. 125)
It is easy to err on either side of the question: to believe
that no one who is not a formal, practicing Catholic can be saved; or to
believe that all men are saved, no matter what their belief and practice
may be.
It is impossible to be saved outside the Church, because the
Church is the rule or measure of faith, without which faith it is impossible
to attain heaven. Natural goodwill is not enough to be saved. Anyone who
dies with natural good will alone cannot be saved.
However, if God gives the grace to embrace the True Faith, and
one accepts -- that is, baptism of desire -- he is truly a member of the
Church by means of his desire of being united to the Church by sacramental
Baptism, were it in his power. He can thereby be saved inside the Church,
even though he cannot receive Sacramental Baptism of water.
In Catholic moral theology, Baptism is necessary for salvation by
necessity of means. When a thing is necessary for the attainment of an
end because it contains in itself something requisite for this purpose, we
say that it is necessary by necessity of means. In such an event, if a
person does not employ the means, even though it involves no fault on his
part, "per se" he cannot attain the end.
When we say that "per se" it is impossible to attain an end
without something that is necessary by necessity of means, we imply that by
God's ordinance another means may supply in certain cases. Thus, Baptism of
desire and Baptism of blood can supply the chief effects of the Baptism
of water IN CERTAIN CASES. In such an event, we say that the means in
question is necessary by relative necessity of means, as distinct from the
case when nothing will supply for the means, i.e., absolute necessity of
means. A person is not necessarily "outside" the Catholic Church merely
because he is not an actual member. But, in order to be saved, one must be
united to the Catholic Church at least by desire, either explicit or
implicit. Through such a desire one whose lack of actual membership in the
Church is not due to any fault on his own part can be "inside" the Church,
and, if he joins to his desire an act of faith and an act of divine charity,
he can be saved."
Canon 1239.2 [1917] provides: "Catechumens who, through no fault of
their own, die without baptism are to be treated as baptized" [following a
teaching of St. Augustine]. The Catechism of the Council of Trent
reiterates this teaching when it refers to the reason why adults are not
immediately baptized like infants: "... nor is the delay attended with the
danger already noticed in the case of infants, for, should any unforeseen
accident render it impossible for adults to be baptized, their intention of
receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace
and righteousness."
THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1917) summarizes as follows:
The Baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect
contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God
which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of Baptism. The Latin
word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose
special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence
for sin. The "Baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third
century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate." The
efficacy of this Baptism of desire to supply the place of the Baptism of
water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ.
After He had declared the necessity of Baptism (John 3), He promised
justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He
that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will
manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my
word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make
our abode with him."
Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on
account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that
these acts supply the place of Baptism as to its principal effect, the
remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of
Trent. In the Fourth Chapter of the Fourteenth Session, the Council teaches
that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to
God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the Fourth Chapter of
the Sixth Session, in speaking of the necessity of Baptism, it says that men
can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or
its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap.
Debitum, iv, De Baptismate), and the contrary propositions are condemned
by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd
propositions of Baius."
ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1696-1787) comments as follows:
It is de fide [of the faith and required to be believed by all
Catholics] that there are some men saved also by the Baptism of the
Spirit [i.e., de voto, by desire, by the grace of the Holy Ghost]. In this
he expresses the teaching of all the Fathers, doctors, popes, and
theologians, including St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St.
Fulgentius, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, IIIa, Q. 68, A.2), St.
Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent
III, and Pope St. Pius X (De Baptismo, cap. 1).
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563) defines as follows:
Translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in
statum gratiae ... post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro
regenerationis AUT EIUS VOTO fieri not potest. [The translation from that
state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace
... cannot, since the promulgation of the gospel, be effected except through
the laver of regeneration OR ITS DESIRE.] (Sessio Sexta de Iustificatione,
Caput IV: Insinuatur Descriptio Iustificationis Impii, et Modus Eius in
Statu Gratiae)
Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem
necessaria, sed superflua, et sine eis AUT EORUM VOTO per solam fidem
homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adispisci, licet omnia singulis
necessaria non sint: anathema sit. [If anyone says that the sacraments
of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and
that without them OR WITHOUT THE DESIRE OF THEM, men obtain from God through
faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for
each one, let him be anathema.] (Session Septima, Canones de Sacramentis
in Genere, N. 4)
St. Alphonsus Liguori in Book 6 of his Theologia Moralis, quotes
this passage and comments: "Therefore, it is de fide [dogmatic] that men
are also saved by Baptism of desire."
TRADITIONAL POPES OF THE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY comment as follows
concerning "invincible ignorance" of the true Faith, that is, ignorance
outside the moral responsibility of the individual.
Pope Pius IX
Singulari quadam
Allocution against the Errors of Rationalism and Indifferentism
December 9, 1854
It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the
apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only
ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the
flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those
who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible
ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of
the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the
boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural
differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors?
Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just
as He is (1 John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a
bond joins divine mercy with divine justice. But as long as we dwell on
earth, encumbered with this soul-dulling, mortal body, let us tenaciously
cling to the Catholic doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one baptism
(Eph. 4:5).
Pope Pius IX
Quanto conficiamur moerore
August 10, 1863
And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, it is necessary
once more to mention and censure the serious error into which some Catholics
have unfortunately fallen. For they are of the opinion that men who live in
errors, estranged from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain
eternal life. This is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.
We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible [not
subjectively culpable] ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if
they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written
by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if
they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power
of divine light and grace. For God, Who reads comprehensively in every
detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not
permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is
not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments (suppliciis).
However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be
saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinately oppose
the authority and definitions of the church, and who stubbornly remain
separated from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the
Roman Pontiff (to whom the Savior has entrusted the care of His vineyard),
cannot attain salvation.
Pope St. Pius X
Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132
A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without
perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside
without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the
love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also
to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis
June 29, 1943
From a heart overflowing with love, we ask each and every one of
them [non-Catholics] to correspond to the interior movements of grace,
and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of
their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they
have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they
still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can be
enjoyed only in the Catholic Church. (Para. 103)
TRADITIONAL THEOLOGIANS BEFORE VATICAN II who have commented include
Abarzuza, Aertnys, Billot, Cappello, Coronata, Davis, Herrmann, Herve,
Hurter, Iorio, Lennerz, McAuliffe, Merkelbach, Noldin, Ott, Pohl,
Prummer, Regatillo, Sabetti, Sola, Tanquerey, Zalba, and Zubizarreta.
DOM E. HUGUENEY, O.P., IN "LA OPINION TRADITIONNELLE DUR LA NOMBRE DES
ELUS"
(La Revue Thomiste, 1933) comments as follows:
Of those who are members of the Church, the elect will greatly
outnumber the damned; and if we include as members of the Church all
those who are hers in spirit by Baptism of desire, this immense number of
elect will be very great indeed. Yet, we must not forget that, outside the
Church, the chances of salvation are much less; this means that many
pagans will probably lose their souls, because they are almost defenseless
against the devils and their own passions.
It is a very difficult thing to elicit perfect contrition in
oneself. With the graces of the Sacrament of Penance, Catholics may receive
absolution with only imperfect contrition. With the great assistance
that Holy Mother Church offers to her practicing Catholic children,
salvation is made so much easier for them than for those who must struggle
outside her, even if they can in truth rely on a conscience that is truly
and totally in invincible ignorance.
SUMMATION
Although, IN AN EXTERNAL SENSE, as to their public acts, those
outside the Church cannot be saved, nevertheless, IN AN INTERNAL SENSE,
according to their INTERNAL state of soul, they can be saved. The Church
cannot pronounce on the INTERNAL state of an individual soul, only on
EXTERNAL acts. Only God can judge an individual's INTERNAL state of
soul.
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (1441) defined as
dogma no one who is not a subject of the Catholic Church can ever be saved.
Eugene said that those who are schismatics and heretics cannot be saved,
IN AN OBJECTIVE SENSE, even if, for some reason, they believed that they
were shedding their blood for Christ.
When it is said that they cannot be saved, it is meant that, IN
AN EXTERNAL SENSE, there is no way in which they can be saved. IN AN
INTERNAL SENSE, as far as an individual's INTERNAL state of soul is
concerned, we cannot know whether God will give them an extraordinary grace
at death, if, in the words of Pope Pius IX, they carefully keep the precepts
of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men,
if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful
life. The Church, and certainly no individual person, can judge an
individual's INTERNAL soul or limit the power of God to give an
extraordinary grace.
Thus, the Church, much less an individual Catholic, cannot
pronounce upon the soul of a deceased. That is up to the judgment of God.
The work of the Church concerns the living.
=========================================================================
BIBLE STUDY GROUPS
The Bible was deeply studied by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church,
whose
writings of interpretation and guidance are highly regarded in the
Church,
some even at the doctrinal level. The Bible, however, is only one of the
sources of Public Revelation (the other being Sacred Tradition), and the
Bible itself makes it clear that the people are to be instructed in such
matters primarily by those who are ordained to preach the Gospel.
Our Lord frequently states that the faith is to be known primarily by
"hearing," that is by preaching, not by private "reading." For
Catholics,
this hearing ordinarily consists of passages proclaimed at Holy Mass and
their explanation in the priest's sermon. In fact, the Acts of the
Apostles
(chapter 8:28-31/DRV) in the New Testament, through the episode of St.
Philip
and the Ethiopian, makes this point very clearly:
"And he was returning, sitting in his chariot and reading Isaias the
prophet.
And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot.
And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he
said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who
said:
And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he
would
come up and sit with him."
Most often Bible study groups are a case of the "blind leading the blind"
(Matthew 14:31/DRV). When the Protestants substituted "private
interpretation," wrenched from the Tradition of the Church and the wisdom
of
the Fathers and Doctors, they fell into creating an heretical sect. The
New
Order sect, actually a Protestant sect itself, is now doing the same
thing.
These Bible study groups simply serve as a forum for Modernists to mouth
off
with their own personal opinions under a false veneer of "authority," in
place of the authority of the bimillennial Church and the Fathers and
Doctors.
Another great problem with such "private interpretation" is that
practically
none of the participants comprehend the Sacred Languages in which the
Bible
is actually written. They rely upon flawed "translations." Actually,
the
very concept of "translation" is misleading. No language can be
accurately
"translated" into another; all a "translation" provides is a gist. That
is
why the Church has viewed "translations" into the vulgar tongues with
great
concern. Originally the Protestants, and now the New Order sect, has
preyed
upon the people by "translating out" and manipulating the teachings of
Scripture. Moreover, so-called "word studies" that the Protestants do
are
essentially worthless, as they do not involve the actual words of the
Bible,
but somebody's "translation" of them.
This is not to say that some benefit cannot be derived from a reading of
Scripture, which is commendable within the proper context. But one must
always be careful not to attribute "private interpretation" in their
ignorance of the Sacred Languages and the elucidation of the Fathers and
Doctors.
=========================================================================
==
"BROTHERS" OF CHRIST
Some try to allege, erroneously, that Christ had natural
brothers,
in
an attempt to contradict the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the
Blessed Virgin Mary. This error on their part arises from their
ignorance
about the vocabulary used in the New Testament. St. Jerome, who was
fluent
in all three biblical languages, refuted this error over 1600 years ago.
The word used in St. Mark 6:3, stating that Christ is "the
brother
of
James and Joseph and Jude and Simon," is "adelphos." It is known from
St.
Matthew's Gospel (27:56) that the four "brothers" mentioned in the quoted
passage from St. Mark were not natural brothers of Christ, but rather
cousins. James and Joseph are called sons of Alphaeus in Luke 6:16.
Moreover, James, Joseph, Simon and Jude are never called "the son of
Mary,"
as Christ is (Matthew 13:55).
That is just one proof that "adelphos" cannot be taken invariably
as
meaning "natural brother" -- and certainly not in this context. There is
no
question that in Greek, both classical Greek and Koine (biblical) Greek,
"adelphos" can mean either a natural brother, or a relative who is not a
natural brother, or even a spiritual brother (as Christians among
themselves).
In Hebrew, cousins of the first and second order were called "ab"
(brother) and "aboth" (sister), so that Christ was said to have many
brothers
and sisters, although in the strict sense, he had none.
============================================================================
==
BROWN SCAPULAR
The Scapular of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, also known
as the Brown Scapular, is
the best known of the small scapulars. All those who out of true veneration
and love for the Blessed
Virgin constantly wear the scapular in a spirit of fidelity and confident
Catholic faith, after they have been
invested by a priest (the scapular cannot merely be blessed) with the
traditional Latin solemn formula of
investiture, are placed under the special protection of the Mother of God.
IT IS A SIN OF PRESUMPTION TO RELY ON THE SCAPULAR AS A
SUPERSTITIOUS
AMULET. THOSE INVESTED WITH THE SCAPULAR MUST NOT HARBOR SUCH PAGAN
NOTIONS, WHICH WOULD BRING DOWN ON THEM THE WRATH OF THE SAME VIRGIN TO
WHOM THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DEDICATED.
The scapular should consist of two segments of brown woolen cloth;
black, however, is also
admissible. This scapular usually bears on one side the image of our Lady
of Mount Carmel, but neither
this nor any other image is prescribed.
Those who are invested in the Brown Scapular become quasi tertiaries
of the Carmelite Order.
They are required to wear the scapular faithfully, pray the Officium Parvum
Beatae Mariae Virginis (Little
Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary) thrice daily, and lead a chaste life
according to their particular state in
life. Before one is invested with the Scapular of Mount Carmel (the "Brown"
Scapular), one must accept
the obligations of a member of the Confraternity of the Blessed Virgin of
Mount Carmel:
1) to wear the scapular faithfully
2) to observe chastity according to one's state in life
3) to recite the Officium Parvum Beatae Mariae Virgins (Little
Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary) thrice daily
The scapular is a sacramental (not a Sacrament) and therefore
depends entirely upon the devout
disposition of the wearer, not any "magic" property of the scapular itself,
as that would be superstition.
As Pope Pius XI put it, "those who wish to have the Blessed Mother as helper
at the hour of death must
in life merit such a signal favor by abstaining from sin and laboring in her
honor."
The rite of investiture is conducted entirely in Latin. After the
introductory versicles and responses,
the priest prays that through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
the one to be invested may
persevere to death, defended from Satan. The scapular is imposed upon the
one to be invested
invoking the merits of the Blessed Virgin. The recipient is then enrolled
in the Confraternity. A final
blessing completes the investiture:
May the Creator of Heaven and Earth, almighty God, bless you, Who has
deigned to admit you into the
Confraternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel: to whom we pray,
that in the hour of your
death she may crush the head of the ancient Serpent and that, in the end,
you may attain the palm and
crown of eternal inheritance.
The recipient then responds "Amen," and is sprinkled with Holy
Water.
=========================================================================
===
"CALL NONE YOUR FATHER"
St. Matthew's Gospel (23:9/DR) contains the words: "And call
none
your father upon earth: for one is your Father, who is in heaven." For
some
reason some Protestants seem to miss entirely the meaning of the passage,
taking the words out of context. "Why do Catholics call their priests
"father"? This is not scriptural, they say.
Like so many things in the Sacred Scriptures, the context makes
it
clear that Our Lord's words are not to be taken literally in the way
those
Protestants do. And how do we know that such passages in Scripture are
not
to be taken literally? Because Scripture itself tells us so! "And he
spoke
to them many things in parables...." (Matthew 13:3).
Now, what is a parable? It is an extended simile, figurative
language to make a spiritual point, not to be taken in a literal, non-
spiritual way, any more than we take literally the animals talking in
Aesop's
fables. The figurative language is for effect, to stir our imagination
and
to lead us to the moral of the story.
Moreover, St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians (4:24) says
explicitly that he is speaking "by an allegory." Now, what is an
allegory?
It is an extended metaphor, figurative language to make a spiritual
point,
not to be taken in a literal, non-spiritual way.
When saying "call none your father upon earth," Our Lord cannot
mean
literally that you cannot call anyone by the name "father." That would
be
nonsensical and in error, as St. Augustine said, "lest Holy Scripture be
exposed to ridicule." What do those Protestants call their own father:
"Joe" or "Sid"? Of course not; that is ridiculous. They call their
father
"father" and think nothing of it.
If one reads the context of the passage, Our Lord is making the
spiritual point that our heavenly Father is incomparably more to be
regarded
than any natural or spiritual father on earth. But, by the Fourth
Commandment, Our Lord's words cannot mean that we are not to have due
respect
in addressing our parents and our spiritual fathers. In fact, St. Paul
in
his First Epistle to the Corinthians (4:15), claims for himself, and
others,
the respect of being called a father spiritually. Thus, the title is
quite
scriptural, a reasonable title of respect for a priest, just as the term
"brethren" in the Scriptures applies to spiritual, not natural, brothers.
Those Protestants might as well say call no one "reverend," for
only
one is to be revered -- God alone. Otherwise, their own pastors would be
in
great trouble! Obviously, this kind of thinking exposes a lack of
understanding of the basic nature of Scripture and entirely misses the
spiritual message that Our Lord was trying to convey.
=========================================================================
===
"CANONIZATIONS" -- NEW ORDER
It has been frequently bandied about that canonizations are
unquestionably "infallible." Such a position is not fully consistent
with
the teachings of the Doctors of the Church, including the Universal
Doctor,
St. Thomas Aquinas.
In particular, the new process of investigations for canonization
promulgated by JPII-Wojtyla has brought into question the credibility of
the
New Order sect's canonizations. In fact, he turned out Beati and Sancti
in
numbers unprecedented in the history of the Church and thereby
depreciated
the veneration of the Saints. And this at a time when Newchurchers have
become thoroughly ignorant of the most important Saints in the Church's
history, such as St. Augustine and St. Dominic.
There is now serious doubt whether these rushed-through modern
candidates have been scrutinized sufficiently or whether gross mistakes
been
made because of rushed investigations (which used to take centuries) and
because of "P.C." concerns.
On January 25, 1983, in "Divinus Perfectionis Magister" (1983),
JPII-Wojtyla gutted the long-standing tradition of the Church with
respect
to the rigorous process for scrutinizing canonizations used since his
predecessor Pope Urban VIII in 1640. Instead, he instituted a new system
of
canonization that has been challenged as leading to treatment of
candidates
not so much for their individual spiritual merit (in the past proven by
an
often centuries-long process of investigation, miracles, and veneraton)
as
for their "political correctness" for modern times.
The role of the Advocatus Diaboli (Devil's Advocate) was
eliminated,
and the number of meticulously substantiated miracles was reduced to
practically nothing. The new norms eliminated any way that objections
could
be freely and fairly raised and allowed the postulator (who is appointed
by
the petitioner for the cause) to present the case both for and against
the
candidate. In other words, one man was now to act as lawyer for both the
plaintiff and defendant, but was in fact now to be appointed by the
plaintiff.
What is worse, and even more damaging to the cause of truth, the
postulator, using a clause that allows him to eliminate "unsuitable"
witnesses, is able effectively and selectively to bar the most damaging
eye-
witness testimony negating the candidate. This vague "unsuitability"
clause
was never a part of the traditional norms.
Before JPII-Wojtyla's perversion of Catholic teaching, the Church
declared as Saints only those who had shown an HEROIC degree of sanctity
and
not simply to the first and common degree, which consists of the state of
grace. This special and eminent degree is called the state of
perfection,
when the soul is entirely moved by the Holy Ghost. Today, the New Order
sect
has abandoned the requirement of heroic perfection (cf. Vatican II's
"Lumen
Gentium," chap. 5).
Fortunately, Catholic theologians through the centuries have
provided a bailout for such a situation. CANONIZATION IS NOT INVARIABLY
HELD TO BE AN ACT OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND IS CERTAINLY NOT A PRIMARY
EXERCISE THEREOF. St. Thomas Aquinas (Quodlibet IX, Q. 8, a. 16) holds
that
canonization is a middle case (medium) and terms the opinion that the
judgment that the Church cannot err in such cases as merely a pious
belief
(pie credendum est), not a dogma. Other theologians hold canonization
not
to
be a matter of Faith. St. Robert Bellarmine holds that it is quite
possible
for the pope "to err in particular controversies of fact which depend
chiefly
on human information and testimony." This is exactly the situation in
which
we find ourselves in the post-Vatican II Church.
Apparently, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI themselves did not
consider canonization infallible. Otherwise, they would not have opened
the
Pandora's box by "de-canonizing" St. Philomena, who had been publicly
venerated by several Saints and popes, and by "de-canonizing" the 14
Auxiliary Saints, who had been venerated by millions of Catholic since
the
early Church, including St. Christopher and St. Barbara. If the New
Order
sect wishes to de-canonize traditional Saints, turnabout is fair play:
traditional Catholics can reserve judgment on the New Order sect's
unproven
candidates.
Another consequence of the flawed 1983 process is that the popes
have
essentially relinquished their magisterial role to one of mere
confirmation
of the judgment of the local bishop in the name of Vatican II
"collegiality."
That local bishop, of course, has fewer resources for determining the
facts
of a cause beyond any moral doubt. Moreover, he has a conflict of
interest
in that he is financially benefited by having canonized Saints from his
Newdiocese.
Under the previous processes, it was the papal authority itself
that
was fully engaged, through the pope's own Sacred Congregation of Rites,
so
that those previous acts of canonization were judged to be near to an
infallible definition. But under the 1983 process, the pope is not
directly
and fully engaging his authority as Vicar of Christ. Thus, the authority
of
the canonizations after that date do not bear the same mark of papal
authority, certainly nothing approaching infallibility. (Fr. Alvaro
Calderon, "Canonization in Today's Papal Magisterium," Angelus, June 2005
[XXVIII:6]).
Has the New Order sect crossed the line in this question and in
effect overruled the ordinance of God as expressed in that divine
positive
law? It would seem so, if for no other reason than that significant
parts
of
the Church are now, as never before, questioning the very sanctity of
those
who are supposed to be Saints of the New Order. The indefectibility of
the
Church does not mean that large parts of the Church will never be
destroyed.
It means only that the Church will never be COMPLETELY destroyed.
Similarly,
the dogma of infallibility does not mean
that the Church's teachers will never teach untruth by, for instance,
dubious
"canonizations," only that, among other truths, the truth of Christian
sanctity will never be totally falsified or silenceD. Someone like Padre
Pio
may have been an entirely traditional Saint, rightly canonized. However,
it
would be advisable not to venerate him publicly through the false
authority
of a "canonization" by the New Order sect.
The formerly-strict process of examination of candidates was so
loosened under JPII-Wojtyla, and there has followed such a flood of
doubtful
"canonizations," that the whole process of canonization has lost,
together
with its solemnity, any confidence in its accuracy. Thus, this or that
Saint
"canonized" by John Paul II may in fact be in Heaven -- only God knows --
but
it is certainly not his "canonization" by a New Order pope that can make
us
sure of the fact. Nor need Catholics then feel obliged to venerate any
of
the post-Vatican II "Saints."
There is the very real possibility that factual errors are being
made in some of these post-conciliar cases and that a future traditional
pope
will have to sort the cases out at some point in the future, when the
Church is
returned to Tradition. In the meantime, there are many thousands of
traditional Saints, whose veneration is well established and whose
intercession with our Lord Jesus Christ may be prayed for by the Roman
Catholic faithful with full confidence and faith.
In the present situation, there is no valid canonization in the
Newchurch
of the New Order, founded in 1964 to replace the Catholic Church. The
millennium-old process of canonization was corrupted into a ridiculous
fraud,
which we call "con-anization" (after a "con," a trick) because candidates
are
selected on criteria other than the objective traditional Catholic
criteria.
These Newchurch "Unsaints" include Newarchbishop Oscar Romero, an
outright Marxist. JPII-Wojtyla, an Unsaint himself, even seriously
considered
Martin Luther for Novus Ordo "sainthood" in Newchurch during the Jubilee
Year of 2000.
Thus, true Catholics must suspend judgment until the objective,
traditional
Catholic process for true sainthood is restored, and the heresies of the
Newpopes
and the invalid con-anization process of the Newchurch of the New Order
rooted out.
Until then, there are thousands of validly canonized Saints of the
Church, whose
intercession can be prayed for.
=========================================================================
===
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT/DEATH PENALTY
The teaching of the Church from the earliest centuries, as
represented, e.g., in the writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 64, A. 2), and St. Alphonsus Liguori (all
Doctors of the Church), as well as in the Encyclical Casti Conubii of
Pope
Pius XI, is that society has the authority to inflict punishments upon
its
members, and even to deprive a criminal of his life, for the necessity of
the common good: (1) primarily, to vindicate the moral order and expiate
the crime, (2) secondarily, to defend itself, (3) to deter other would-be
offenders, and (4) to reform the criminal or deter future crime.
St. Thomas Aquinas equated a dangerous criminal to an infected limb
thereby making it "praiseworthy and healthful" to kill the criminal in
order
to spare the spread of infection and safeguard the common good. True
Catholics cannot go wrong in following the Church's Universal Doctor and
Chief Theologian.
Pope Pius XII, in an address ("Ce Premier Congress") on the moral
limits of medical research and treatment to the First International
Congress
of Histopathology of the Nervous System, held in Rome on September 13,
1952,
contrasted the right to life with the benefit of life in the case of a
justly condemned criminal: "Even when there is question of a person
condemned to death, the state does not take away the 'right' of the
individual to life. It is then reserved to the public authority to
deprive
the condemned person of the 'benefit' of life in expiation for his guilt,
after he himself, by his crime, has already deprived himself of his right
to
life. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XLIV (1952), p. 787)
The dogmatic Council of Trent decreed: "[Well founded is] the
right
and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of
penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in
cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty." In the Catechism of that
Council, this doctrine is enlarged upon: "Again, this prohibition [of
killing] does not apply to the civil magistrate, to whom is entrusted
the power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which
he
punishes the guilty and protects the innocent. The use of the civil
sword,
when wielded by the hand of justice, far from involving the crime of
murder,
is an act of paramount obedience to this commandment, which prohibits
murder. The end of the commandment is the preservation and sanctity of
human life, and to the attainment of this end, the punishments inflicted
by
the civil magistrate, who is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally
tend, giving security to life by repressing outrage and violence."
It should be noted that to vindicate the moral order means not
the
taking of vengeance upon the criminal, but imposing upon the criminal
some act or loss or suffering as a form of compensation to right the
balance of justice. Of such "vindictive" punishment, Pope Pius XII
stated: "It would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of
principle the function of vindictive punishment. While man is on earth,
such punishment both can and should help toward his eternal salvation,
provided he himself raises no obstacles to its salutary efficacy"
(Discourse of December 5, 1954, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLVI, p. 67).
Given these purposes, an execution may take place if the
following
conditions are met: (a) the guilt of the prisoner is certain; (b) the
crime is of major gravity; (c) the penalty is to be inflicted, after due
process, by state authority, not by private individuals or by lynching,
and (d) the prisoner is given the opportunity to make his peace with
God.
Given these criteria, Catholics may differ in their prudential
judgments as to whether a particular society needs to employ capital
punishment for its own protection. To say that it is wrong per se or
never justified is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church.
A Catholicm may not add his prudential judgments to the list of Church
doctrines and enjoin them as obligatory. However, the state may always
choose to commute the deserved penalty.
It should be noted that heinous criminals are not innocent
persons
(like unborn children), but are objectively guilty in natural law of
grave crimes against the common weal. As Pope Pius XII explained it:
"Even in the question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the
state does not dispose of the individual's right to life. It then falls
to the public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life
in expiation of his fault after he, by his crime, has already deprived
himself of his right to life."
Our Lord Himself confirms this power of capital punishment in the
interview with Pilate before His crucifixion:
Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? Knowest
thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to
release thee? Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power
against me, UNLESS IT WERE GIVEN THEE FROM ABOVE.... (John 19:10-
11/DR)
He also seems to speak of the appropriateness of capital
punishment
in another passage: "But he that shall scandalize one of these little
ones
that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged
about
his neck and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew
18:6/DR).
The principle is also represented in the words of St. Dismas, the
Good Thief on the cross beside Christ, who was being crucified for
robbery
(the Rheims and Confraternity versions translate the Greek "kakourgon" in
Luke 23:39 as "robbers," but it is really more general than that;
"malefactors" would be the literal translation or, more generally,
"criminals"). He says to his fellow criminal on the other side of
Christ:
Dost not even thou fear God, seeing that thou art under the same
sentence? AND WE INDEED JUSTLY, FOR WE ARE RECEIVING WHAT OUR
DEEDS DESERVED, but this man has done nothing wrong."
(Luke 23:40-41).
It must not be forgotten that the death penalty, like any
criminal
penalty, serves as a form of expiation. That is why prisons are called
penitentiaries. As Saint Thomas observes in the Summa Theologica: "Even
death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole
punishment
for those crimes in the next life, or at least part of that punishment,
according to the quantities of guilt, resignation, and contrition; but a
natural death does not." Further, in the case of capital punishment, the
expiatory penalty reflects the sin of one whose grave crime has caused
him
to lose the right to life.
=========================================================================
===
CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT
Charismaticism is a particularly virulent modern-day mania
infecting
the Church of the New Order, which has its roots deep in heresy.
In the late 17th century, the beginnings of Charismaticism can
already be seen as a derivative of the Protestant heresy. Philip Jakob
Spener and his disciple, August Hermann Francke, from his vantage point
at
the new University of Halle, through over 6,000 graduates in Protestant
theology, spread the ideas of "Pietism" throughout Germany. The Pietists
specially emphasized emotional feeling rather than reason and cultivated
"enthusiasm" in worship. They encouraged "Herzensreligion," a religion
of
the heart founded on an "individual, personal experience" of Christ, much
like the modern Protestant Evangelicals, who talk about a "personal
experience of Christ," by which they refer to an over-emotionalized,
highly
personalized attitude that overrides true belief.
The roots of modern-day Charismaticism (Pentecostalism) go back
to
1901 when a group of Methodists at a Topeka, Kansas, prayer meeting began
"experiencing the spirit." The emotional prayer style soon spread
throughout the Assemblies of God, as well as other small Protestant
denominations. A typical charismatic prayer meeting includes music,
singing
or praying in tongues, healing sessions, prophesying, and body prayer.
The phenomenon caught on nationwide among Novus Ordinarians who
were searching for new ways of praying during the first flurry of Vatican
II
changes. The movement names Vatican II as the starting point, crediting
a
prayer by Pope John XXIII to the Holy Ghost to "renew Thy wonders in our
day
as by a new Pentecost." The Charismatic Movement in the American
Catholic
Church traces its beginnings to a "spirit-filled" graduate student and
faculty retreat at Duquesne University in 1967. Protestant Pentecostal
prayer forms such as speaking in tongues (glossalalia) and being
"baptized
in the Holy Ghost" took hold.
Known initially as "Catholic Pentecostalism," the movement was
renamed to reflect the various spiritual "gifts" (charismata),
purportedly
given by the Holy Ghost to individuals. The movement is associated with
such other cult-like, mind-controlling organizations and programmes as
the
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD, which was perfectly
traditional before Vatican II, but afterwards was corrupted), Taize,
"oecumenism," Marriage Encounter, the Rite of Christian Initiation for
Adults (RCIA), Renew, Focolare, Cursillo, Neo-Catechumenal Way,
Legionnaires
of Christ/Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, Miles Jesu, Wicca
(Gaia), and Life Teen.
The Neo-Catechumenal Way denies many Catholic doctrines: (1) the
necessity of good works for salvation, (2) the efficacy and need for the
Sacrament of Penance, (3) the redemption of Christ, (4) the sacrificial
nature of the Holy Mass and the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in
the Most Blessed Sacrament, (5) traditional Catholic rites and devotions,
(6) the bodily Resurrection of Christ.
RCIA is the New Order's "Christian Initiation of Adults,"
replacing
the traditional Sacrament of Baptism. It is full of an amalgam of
naturalism, environmentalism, a bit of voodoo, wicca (a simplified
version
of Satanic witchcraft for mass consumption), and some Protestant traits
all
mixed together, but absent is genuine Catholicism. (By the way, RCIA was
never approved, even by the Modern Vatican.)
Renew is a program of deconstruction of the Church, in which the
idea of a priest offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is being
scuttled.
Committees decide what prayers to say and what their approach to sin is,
if
any. Renew has been piped into schools and parishes, so that it has
blanketed the Catholic Church in the United States and abroad. Having a
veneer of just enough Catholic-sounding phraseology to deceive the
unwary,
Renew has changed Catholics without their even knowing that they are
being
changed.
Moreover, Renew appears to be a front group for the extremist
Call
to Action group, which advocates the reinventing and re-founding of the
Church with an entirely different structure and doctrine. It advocates
the
worship of a feminist/environmentalist Goddess Earth, priestesses,
Church-
approved homosexuality, Church-approved abortions, and witchcraft-based
enneagrams, introduced through lay-led "liturgies" that take place in
private homes, much like the Marxist "study clubs" of the 1950s that were
transformed into the "parish council," which took over the direction of
the
parish and eventually the entire diocese. It has also become associated
with extremist social causes and liberalistic political programs.
Wicca (White Witchcraft), also associated with Gaia, or Goddess
spirituality, is of rather recent vintage. Its virtual grandfather was
Aleister Crowley, an English satanist from around 1900. After having
been
expelled from the occultist Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, he set up
his
own "Abbey of Thelema" to practice "sex magic." Crowley's younger
friend,
Gerald Gardner, in the 1950s designed witchcraft rituals borrowed from
Crowley, Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, and the Order of the
Golden
Dawn.
This Charismatic Movement is far from true Catholicism. It
represents an almost complete abandonment of even nominally Catholic
practices, beliefs, and modes of discourse. Charismaticism is based on
the
erroneous notion that emotional experience always accompanies the
conferral
of grace, whereas the Catholic doctrine is that the only sensible
indication
of the conferral of grace is the Sacramental sign itself.
Charismatics see no reason to exclude non-Catholics or even non-
Christians from the chance to experience the "charismata," the
extraordinary
manifestations of the Holy Ghost, which helped to spread the Faith during
the early Church, but disappeared after the Apostolic Age, when the
Church
had established itself and had no further use or need of the charismata.
Such manifestations had specific purposes, such as to spread the Gospel
to
hearers of different languages, or to prove the credibility or holiness
of
an apostolic speaker. In fact, one of the aims of the Charismatic
Movement
is to unite various Protestant movements with New Order Catholics under
the
banner of "signs and wonders."
Charismaticism is intimately connected with the error of
"apparitionism," which finds a new basis of faith in private revelations,
prophecies, visions, "signs and wonders," particularly Fatima. So far
does
this sometimes go that there are "Charismatic Catholics" who still
continue
to practice witchcraft and idol worship. All this is, of course,
heretical
and of Satan, as St. Paul tells us:
"And then that wicked one shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall
kill
with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his
coming: him Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all
power
and signs and lying wonders: And in all seduction of iniquity to them
that
perish: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might
be
saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe
lying" (2 Thessalonians 2:8-11/DRV).
Charismaticism bears a frightening relation to several heresies
condemned by the Church:
Gnosticism: a heresy proclaiming a secret knowledge (Greek: gnosis)
that
makes its possessors the only true believers.
Messalianism: a heresy that originated in Mesopotamia in A.D. 360. The
Messalians denied that the Sacraments give grace and declared that the
only
spiritual power is prayer leading to possession by the Holy Ghost. Such
"possession" eventually led to immorality, from which they were also
called
"The Filthy." They were condemned by various bishops and councils of the
Church.
Montanism: a heresy that claimed the Holy Ghost superseded the
revelation of Christ and was supplementing the revelation of Christ, such
that they were acting under a "new outpouring of the Spirit." Pope St.
Zephyrinus (199-217) denied them communion with the Church. Note that
this
same heresy is prevalent in the Church of the New Order, when it proposes
that the Deposit of Faith, as revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ, can be
"updated" or "modernized" or even replaced by some kind of "spirit of the
times."
Nominalism: an erroneous modern philosophy teaching that there are no
absolutes, only the senses and feelings. This philosophy led to the
denial of several doctrines of the Church (the divinity of Christ, the
veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saints).
Even the United States bishops in their "Statement on the
Catholic Charismatic Renewal" in 1975 had to point to the dangers of the
movement: gnosticism, biblical fundamentalism, exaggeration of the
importance of emotionalism, reckless oecumenism, and "small faith
communities." Now, however, they accept all of these aberrations, as the
Newpopes starting with JPII-Wojtyla also have.
Archbishop Dwyer, of Portland, Oregon, in a scathing criticism of
the Charismatic Movement, warned in 1974: "We regard it bluntly as one of
the most dangerous trends in the Church in our time, closely allied in
spirit with other disruptive and divisive movements threatening grave
harm
to unity and damage to countless souls."
One author sums up the error and danger of the Charismatic
Movement
as: "a blighted tree bearing poisonous fruit, sown by the Devil among
Protestants and transplanted into the Catholic Church after Vatican
II....
This fruit is truly a seed of destruction. Make no mistake. More than
just
a fad, the charismatic 'renewal' is a dangerous and heretical movement
that
is installing itself in the Catholic milieu. First, it attacks the
Church's
character of exclusive mediator between Our Lord and men, which she
possesses by divine mandate. Second, this kind of oecumenical gathering
denies the exclusive nature of that mediation by encouraging inter-
communion
with other confessions. Charismatics should be called what they really
are:
"chari-schismatics" (John Vennari, "Close-ups of the Charismatic Movement
[Tradition in Action, 2002], 175 pp.).
St. Vincent Ferrer in his Treatise on the Spiritual Life rightly
condemns such an attitude as unCatholic and spiritually deadly:
"The soul that attaches itself to these false consolations falls into
very
dangerous errors, for God justly permits the devil to have power to
augment
in it these kinds of spiritual tastes, to repeat them frequently, and to
inspire it with sentiments that are false, dangerous, and full of
illusions,
but which the misguided soul imagines to be true. Alas! How many souls
have been seduced by these deceitful consolations? The majority of
raptures
and ecstasies, or, to call them by their proper name, frenzies of these
forerunners of Antichrist spring from this cause."
The consequences of such poisonous fruit can be seen from the
following Associated Press release from Sao Paulo, Brazil:
"The Rev. Marcelo Rossi readies a bucket of water and flashes a grin that
might be devilish if it weren't on the face of a priest. "Here! Here!"
screams the crowd, mostly women. The 192-centimeter-tall former gym
teacher
rears back and sends a jet of holy water over the excited congregation.
Then another, and another. Soon everyone within 15 meters of the stage
is
soaked -- and ecstatic.
"It's not your average Catholic mass. But Rossi is anything but an
average
priest. With his movie-star good looks and a chart-topping record,
"Music
to Praise the Lord," Rossi regularly draws crowds of 70,000 to the masses
he
celebrates four times a week in a former bottle factory on Sao Paulo's
south
side. The turnout is surprising. Although some 80 percent of Brazilians
ostensibly are Catholics, far fewer regularly attend church.
"Rossi is part of a new generation of clerics who belong to the Catholic
Church's charismatic movement. The local press has dubbed them "pop star
priests."
Others include Padre Zeca, the "surfing priest," who recently drew
35,000 people to a mass on Ipanema Beach in Rio de Janeiro. Basketball-
playing priest Giovanni Carlos has a big following in Brasilia, the
nation's
capital.
=========================================================================
===
CLONING
The position of the Vatican is that promises of "sensational"
cures
from diseases cannot justify the human cloning. "The beginning of human
life
cannot be fixed by convention at a certain stage of embryonic
development;
it
takes place, in reality, already at the first instant of the embryo
itself.
Thus, despite the declared 'humanistic' intentions by those who predict
sensational cures via this path..., what is needed is a calm but firm
judgment which shows the moral gravity of this plan and which motivates
an
unequivocal condemnation." Catholic teaching holds that life begins at
conception.
"Therapeutic aims are excellent, they are praiseworthy. However,
it
is the means used that raise the questions. If it involves production
and
destruction of human beings to treat other human beings, the end does not
justify the means."
A cloned embryo has been formed by introducing genetic material
into
an egg cell and without the use of a sperm cell. The Vatican said that
life
formed in this "inhuman" way nonetheless has "its dignity like that of
every
human life which is given existence.... Other roads can be taken, which
are
morally right and valid from the scientific point of view." For example,
stem cells can be obtained from adult tissue, maternal blood, and from
fetuses that have been miscarried. "This is the path that every honest
scientist must follow in order to preserve the maximum respect for man,
that
is to say, for himself."
The scientists involved in the cloning have said they have no
desire
to create babies but only to create embryos as a way to obtain stem cells
to
fight disease. However, an embryonic researcher from the University of
Pennsylvania points out that a human EMBRYO is a human BEING -- whether
produced by fertilization or by cloning. Scientifically there is no such
thing as a human embryo that is not simultaneously a human BEING.
Cloning can result in the immediate formation of a human being
(i.e.,
a human embryo, a human organism, a human individual). If a new single-
cell
human clone were not a human BEING, how could virtually ALL -- repeat,
ALL -
-
of the human cells, tissues and organs of an older human being develop
from
it, as would happen in "reproductive" cloning.
The immediate product of human cloning would be a single-cell
human
BEING, a human EMBRYO. This single-cell human clone would have 46
chromosomes just like the single-cell human zygote formed at
fertilization
-- the number characteristic of and specific for an INDIVIDUAL of the
human
species; it would produce specifically human proteins and enzymes (not
carrot or frog proteins and enzymes, not "just cellular" or even "alien"
proteins and enzymes); and if implanted it would not decay and rot, but
like
other human embryos it would continue to grow bigger and bigger until
birth
and beyond. There would be absolutely no break in its human development;
human development would be continuous from the single-cell clone stage
through birth and old age.
The distinction between "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning
is
a false distinction -- SCIENTIFICALLY. The exact same human BEING is at
issue regardless of what term is manufactured for mass public
consumption,
regardless if it is used and destroyed in "therapeutic" research or
implanted
into some poor unsuspecting woman's uterus. One and the same individual.
One and the same human BEING.
If the single cell produced at human cloning looks like a human
being is supposed to look AT THAT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, and if it quacks
like
a human being is supposed to quack at that stage of development, by
George,
it must be a human BEING!
There is no such thing as a human EMBRYO that is not
simultaneously
a
human BEING. Never. To refer to the immediate product of human cloning
as
"just cellular life", or as "just stem cells", or as "just an embryo" --
rather than as a REAL newly existing whole living human BEING -- is
scientifically absurd and professionally irresponsible.
Nevertheless, cloning is only a process by which the basic DNA of
life is produced, as it can be in artificial insemination, on in-vitro
fertilization. Genetically, it is similar to the situation of an
identical twin. Therefore, there is no question of absence of a soul, or
free will, or any other essential human characteristics.
=========================================================================
===
COMMUNION IN THE HAND
"Communion in the hand" is a Protestant innovation foisted upon
the
Catholic world in the name of false ecumenism. The Novus Ordo practice
of
communion in the hand is rooted in the rejection of the Catholic doctrine
on
the Holy Eucharist and the denial of the Catholic priesthood.
The Church has condemned communion in the hand from the early
centuries on:
ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even
touching the Sacred Vessels: "Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis
quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus..." [It has
been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others
than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]
POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking
the
Sacred Host in their hand.
ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). "The right
to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of
persecution." St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular
that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with
EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy
Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.
POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and
required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy
Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt
widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard
against sacrilege.
SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade
the
faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the
transgressors with excommunication.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). "Out of reverence towards this
sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is
consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and
likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament." (Summa
Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). "The fact that only the priest
gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic
Tradition."
POPE PAUL VI-MONTINI (1963-1978). "This method [on the tongue]
must
be retained." (Apostolic Epistle "Memoriale Domini")
POPE JOHN PAUL II-WOJTYLA (1978-2005). "To touch the sacred
species
and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the
ordained
(Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)." "It is not permitted that the faithful
should
themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still
less
that they should hand them from one to another" (Inaestimabile Donum,
April
17, 1980, sec. 9)."
=========================================================================
===
COMMUNION UNDER ONE SPECIES
In the 15th century, the proto-Protestants John Hus, John Wyclif,
and Jerome of Prague began to demand that Holy Communion be given to the
laity under both species. The reintroduction of Communion under both
species was an outward manifestation of the rejection of the Catholic
Eucharistic doctrine, which taught that Christ was present, whole and
entire, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in each and every portion of the
Holy Eucharist. From that time this demand became the "badge and the
criterion and the shibboleth" (Hughes) of a Protestantizing attitude
toward the Holy Eucharist.
Already by the 11th century, the practice in the Latin Church was
to distribute Holy Communion to the laity under the form of bread alone.
This practice arose partly to counteract the heretical error that Christ
is not received whole and entire under either species, partly to prevent
the spilling of the Most Precious Blood, partly to reflect an increasing
reverence for the Most Precious Blood, and partly to distribute Holy
Communion in an orderly way to the large numbers of Catholics who
attended Mass in the West, even daily Mass.
The Sixteenth Ecumenical Council, of Constance (1414-1418),
answered the heretical teachings of the proto-Protestants by decreeing
the distribution of Holy Communion to the laity under one species as a
custom of universal obligation in the Latin Church. This the Council
did as a cure to the make it understood that Jesus Christ is present
entire under both or either species.
This decree was renewed by the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, of
Basel (1431-1449), against the Taborites and Calixtines and by the
Nineteenth Ecumenical Council, of Trent (1445-1463), against the
Lutherans and Calvinists. The Council of Trent further decreed (Sess.
XXI, Cap. 1) that there is no divine precept binding anyone, except the
celebrant of the Mass, to receive both species.
It is the doctrine of the Church that in transubstantiation all
of
the bread is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ,
that all of the wine is changed into the body, blood, soul and Divinity
of Christ, and that reception of either species was reception of the
entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
This Catholic practice is indicated in Sacred Scripture and fully
canonized by Tradition. The sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel speaks
twice of receiving the species bread alone. Both the Eastern and
Western Church from early times distributed Holy Communion variously
under either one or both species. For example, in the East infants were
given the Most Precious Blood only, as they were not yet able to digest
bread. Even today the Eastern Churches, although most rites commonly
distribute Holy Communion under both species, do not consider it a
matter of necessity.
The dogmatic Council of Trent pronounced: "If anyone says that
the Holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just cause and
reasons to give Communion under the form of bread only to laymen and
even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this,
let him be anathema" (Session XXI, Canon 2).
In this, the Catholic Church follows the teaching of the Bible,
whereas the Protestants do not. St. Paul's First Epistle to the
Corinthians
(11:27/DRV) provides: "Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, OR
drink
the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of
the
blood of the Lord." This translation of the Douay-Rheims version, "OR,"
corresponds to both the original Greek ("?") and to the Latin Vulgate
("vel")
versions. Even Luther's original German version follows the ancient
sources
("oder"). However, the King James Version and the Authorized Version
mistranslates the passage to read "AND," as if BOTH the bread AND the
wine
were required. This translation is not supported by ancient versions.
So strict is the prohibition against the administration of the
Holy
Eucharist under the species of wine to the laity (or even to the priest
outside of the celebration of Mass) the common opinion of the theologians
is
that, in the case when a person desired to receive Holy Communion as
Viaticum
and cannot swallow even a small portion of the consecrated Host, the Holy
Eucharist under the species of wine may not be administered to the dying
person, because of the strictness with which the Church forbids Holy
Communion except under the species of bread. Thus, Ludovico Fanfani,
O.P.,
says that the Church prefers that a person shall die without Viaticum
rather
than open the way to abuses by dispensing from the law of Holy Communion
under the species of bread only.
Given what has happened in the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of
Mass),
with flagons of wine being unceremoniously "consecrated" and then
sacrilegiously poured down the drain, let alone spilled, one can see the
wisdom of Holy Mother Church in this regard. Traditional Roman Catholics
can
be absolutely certain that when they receive Holy Communion under one
species, they are receiving their Lord whole and entire, body and blood,
soul
and divinity and that they are conforming themselves to a practice more
than
one thousand years old, which has been canonized by at least three
dogmatic
ecumenical councils.
=========================================================================
===
"CONCELEBRATION"
The notion of "concelebration," that is, the joint celebration of
Mass
by several presbyters is not traditionally Roman Catholic, but a product
of
the post-Vatican II period. No such "concelebration" existed before the
New
Order was fabricated in the 1960s.
The only practice that existed in the early Church that bears any
resemblance to this notion was the presence of priests peculiar to a
bishop's
Mass. The priests, however, did not "concelebrate" the Mass with the
bishop.
They were only present.
There were two other peculiar cases that survive in traditional
practice, and these again involved a bishop's peculiar functions: those
of
ordaining and of consecrating. In these two peculiar cases, the new
priests
or bishop celebrate the Offertory and Canon of the Mass of ordination or
consecration with the ordaining or consecrating bishop.
One serious problem that would exist with concelebration, if it
were
permitted, is that no matter how many priests would celebrate a Mass
together, they would celebrate only one Mass and merit the fruits of only
one
Mass. If, however, the priests were to offer their own Masses
individually,
there would be as many Masses as priests individually celebrating, and
the
fruits would multiply by the number of Masses celebrated.
The traditional Codex of Canon Law (sec. 803) prohibits the
concelebration of Mass by several priests together, save the two peculiar
cases mentioned, which involve a bishop.
=========================================================================
===
CONSECRATION -- "PRO MULTIS"
The ancient form (words) used for the Consecration of the wine in
the Roman Rite, as used in the Traditional Latin Mass, are: HIC EST
ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, MYSTERIUM FIDEI,
QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.
These words of Sacred Tradition were untouched for essentially
2000 years, until they were changed in four respects in the New Mass --
some in the official Latin version, more in the vernacular versions.
In particular, in the "authorized" English version used in
parishes throughout the English-speaking world, the words PRO MULTIS
("for many") have been erroneously rendered as "for all." Even a person
with
little knowledge of the Catholic Faith (or of the English language) will
immediately realize that there is a considerable difference in meaning
between the two.
As early as 1968, when Patrick Omlor published his book,
"Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English
Canon," traditional Catholics began to suspect that most, if not all, of
the New Masses offered might actually be invalid.
Here is what the Roman Catechism (of the dogmatic Council of
Trent), written substantially by St. Charles Borromeo and promulgated by
Pope St. Pius V, has to say about this question [Part II: The
Sacraments, The Eucharist, Explanation of the Form Used in the
Consecration of the Wine]:
The additional words "for you and for many" are taken, some
from Matthew, some from Luke [Matt. xxvi.28, Luke xxii.20],
but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the
guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the
fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its
value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for
the salvation of all, but if we look to the fruit which
mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that
it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.
When, therefore, Our Lord said: "For you," He meant
either those who were present, or those chosen from among
the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of
Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He
added, "And for many," He wished to be understood to mean
the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
With reason, therefore, were the words "for all" not used,
as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken
of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of
salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle [Heb. ix.28]
when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of
many," and also of the words of Our Lord in John: "I pray
for them; not for the world do I pray, but for those whom thou
hast given me, because they are thine" [John xvii.9].
Thus, this dogmatic Council made it clear that the words "pro
multis" (for many) were deliberately part of the Apostolic Tradition.
To use a different form implies a rejection of that Apostolic Tradition
and even an attachment to the heresy of universal salvation.
=========================================================================
===
CREMATION AND TRADITIONAL FUNERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Cremation Is Not an Option for a True Catholic
Cremation is an unCatholic form of disposing of the body after
death. By traditional canon law (Canon 1203), anyone who directs that
his body be given over to cremation is to be denied ecclesiastical
burial.
Cremation has long been associated in the Church with pagan
customs (the ancient Romans customarily burned their dead during the
most corrupt period from the late republic to the mid third century) or
with the denial of the Resurrection (cremation became popular around the
time of the 18th-century "enlightenment," when it was advocated by
atheists and agnostics as a visual symbol of the denial of the soul's
existence).
Among the Hindus and Buddhists, the practice is quite common.
Since these religions believe in the reincarnation of men, it only
follows
that the body is not kept as a sacred temple of God, for (as they
believe)
the soul will just possess another one at a different time and place of
existence after its release by death, perhaps into a dog, an insect, or a
bacterium.
The Christian custom of burial of the dead, and not cremation,
dates
back to the time of Christ. In the New Testament, given that our Lord's
body was not cast into flames, even though He died under the hands of the
Romans, we have the most fundamental example of respect for the body for
burial that could be learned. Christ, our Lord and Master, was not
cremated, so neither should we allow ourselves this practice.
Given how this practice has been perverted even further in modern
society, one sees the traditional wisdom of the Church. It is bad
enough that the temple of the Holy Ghost be burned to a crisp, but it
is even worse when the ashes aren't even buried or inurned, but instead
tossed out into the garden, in the ocean, in the forest, etc.
Some try to justify cremation on the basis of expense, but that
is
a specious justification. If one insists on the minimal requirements,
the expense of ground burial can be kept to a minimum, nor is cremation
necessarily inexpensive in comparison. If one is without sufficient
means, one can always avail oneself of potter's field. For those who
wish a method other than interment, entombment is an ancient Christian
alternative (though that is more expensive).
How to Arrange a Traditional Catholic Funeral
If you are a practicing traditional Catholic, you have a legal
right
to the exsequial rites that YOU want, offered by a real Catholic priest,
not
a Protestant-Novus Ordo presbyter. Many traditional Catholics are the
only
ones in their families that practice the true faith. It not infrequently
happens that after the death, the Newchurch family members arrange for a
Novus Ordo funeral service for their deceased traditional Catholic
relative
-- a service that is both invalid and sacrilegious, an abomination for a
Catholic soul!
Because of the current confused state of the Church, it would be
prudent, just as you would make a will, to give specific instructions for
a
traditional funeral and leave a copy with your executor and attorney.
Beforehand you should also get the counsel of your traditional Catholic
priest. The arrangements should be discussed with, and accepted by, the
priest in well in advance, as you cannot just assume at the last minute
that
you can get a traditional funeral. You should be an active and
contributing
member of the Mass site for some significant period beforehand.
A sample text is given below. A signed statement is usually
sufficient, although the requirements may vary from country to country
and
should be checked.
You might also consider leaving a Durable Power of Attorney for
Healthcare (for cases where you become unable to indicate your own
wishes for medical care) and arranging for a cemetery plot in advance,
if you expect that your executor might encounter problems later.
Sample Text of Instructions for a Traditional Funeral
I direct that my funeral be conducted as follows, under the
supervision of [name of individual that can be trusted to execute the
deceased's wishes].
If a wake can be held, I direct that at least five decades of the
Most Holy Rosary be said for the repose of my soul.
All religious services are to be arranged by [organization or
traditional priest]. Such arrangements are to include the Office of the
Dead, the Traditional Latin Roman Catholic Exsequial (Requiem) Mass
(which
is to be a High Mass with Gregorian chant if at all possible),
Absolution,
and the graveside service.
I direct that a suitable stipend be paid to [organization or
traditional priest] to arrange for Masses [Gregorian Masses] to be said
for
the repose of my soul.
I direct that I interred or entombed in [cemetery name], not
cremated.
In case you cannot arrange for a traditional Catholic priest nearby, you
can
arrange for burial at any reasonable cemetery and have the Requiem Mass
said
by a traditional Catholic priest at any other location without presence
of
the body. There is a rite for this case in the traditional Roman Missal
termed the Missa Defunctorum Cadavere Absente, which must not
infrequently
be used for any number of reasons of convenience. Or any Low or High
Mass can be
offered for the repose of the soul of the deceased. Many traditional
Catholic
organizations and traditional Catholic priests are listed in the Official
Traditional Catholic Directory (www.traditio.com/nat.htm).
=========================================================================
===
CRUSADES
September 11, 2001, was certainly not the only time that the
Mohammedan (Islamic) "axis of evil" has attacked the West. The
Mohammedans
had attempted imperialistic and militaristic invasions of the West in at
least three major campaigns previously.
(1) In 711, the Arab government of North Africa was under the authority
of
Mousa ben Nassair, who depended upon Caliph Walid of Damascus. Mousa
sent
Tarik ben Ziyad, his general, to cross the Strait of Gibraltar and invade
Spain. Many thousands of Berbers and Arabs crossed the waters in boats
furnished by the unprincipled Count Julian, who was conspiring with the
Arabs. King Rodrigo divided his army into three flanks: he commanded
the
principal part, Archbishop Oppas of Seville commanded another, and Prince
Sisebert commanded the third. The battle took place on the banks of
Guadalete River. Rodrigo fought to the death, but did not manage to
avoid
defeat by the Saracens. With the Catholic army destroyed, Tarik took
city
after city: Ecija, Cordova, Toledo, Medina-Sidonia, Carmona, Seville,
Merida, etc. In less than two years, almost all of Spain would be taken
by
the Arabs. Only 700 years later, in 1492, would the Catholic monarchs
Ferdinand and Isabella expel the Moors from Granada in the Reconquista
[reconquest].
(2) October 7, 1571, the Battle of Lepanto. This aggressive campaign of
Ali
Pasha, leader of the Mohammedan Turks, to overrun Christian civilization
resulted in his death and that of 25,000 of his sailors in the Gulf of
Lepanto, or Gulf of Corinth, in southern Greece, at the hands of Admiral
Don
Juan, commissioned by Pope St. Pius V. It should be mentioned that
12,000
of his forces were Christians who had been enslaved to man the galleys.
(3) A little over a century after the Battle of Lepanto, another
momentous
battle occurred between Catholic and Turkish forces. Again, the stakes
were
high -- in this case, the city of Vienna and a temptation to the Turkish
forces to press deeper and deeper into Europe. In July 1683 the Grand
Vizier Kara Mustapha led his Turkish troops to Vienna and laid siege to
the
city. On September 12, 1683, a decisive battle was fought before the
city
walls. After an initial setback, Poland's great military leader, and
later
king, John Sobieski with his forces stormed the enemy camp and routed its
army. He sent to Pope Innocent XI a letter that proclaimed Veni, vidi,
Deus
vicit [I came, I saw, God conquered], a modification of "Veni, vidi,
vici"
[I came, I saw, I conquered], Julius Caesar's classic summary of his
swift
victory at the Battle of Zela in 47 B.C.
The role of the Catholic Church in the Holy Crusades is quite
different. It was not imperialistic, but fought to maintain the right of
Christians to safe pilgrimage to the Holy Land, which had been blocked by
new Mohammedan rulers of the area. Moreover, the Crusaders were
attempting
to free Christians who had been enslaved by the Mohammedans.
July 15, 1999, was the nine-hundredth anniversary of the
reconquista
of Jerusalem during the First Crusade (1095-1101). If anything notably
marks this anniversary, it is the now rather popular custom among some
Christians of making hyperbolic gestures of repentance on behalf of the
Church for the misdeeds of crusaders.
Standing in stark contrast to this, at this very moment
Christians
are suffering the most abject atrocities at the hands of Mohammedan
(Islamic) tyrants from whom, presumably, we are asking forgiveness. The
Islamic regime in the Sudan has long been pursuing a policy of
enslavement
and extermination of the Christians in that country. The situation in
many other Mohammedan states is almost as bad.
Even in more moderate Mohammedan states such as Saudi Arabia,
Christians are subject to severe restrictions. Recall that the Allied
troops during the Gulf War -- fighting in part for the interests of
Mohammedan nations - were forbidden to use any Christian symbols.
Catholic chaplains could not display crosses either on their uniforms or
on their quarters.
The Holy Crusades were inspired by the revulsion Christians felt
at exactly the sort of "ethnic cleansing" now being perpetrated against
Catholics in southern Sudan and by supreme indignation at the desecration
of the Holy Sepulchre. At the same time, the Christian world was
weakened
by petty quarrels and divided by schism, Pope Blessed Urban II realized
that a crusade was the only hope for Christendom. His call was answered
enthusiastically the nobility of Europe. Later, St. Bernard of Clairvaux
preached the Second Crusade (1133-1137). St. Francis of Assisi
personally
accompanied the Fifth Crusade (1217-1219), inaugurated by Pope Innocent
III, and attempted to convert the Mohammedan leader Sultan Malek-el-
Kamil,
saying, "We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you
will
renounce Mohammed, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting
life."
In time of war there will always be accidents and misdeeds. That
is
the nature of war. When war is long and protracted and conducted in
primitive and uncontrolled circumstances, this is more so, but our modern
methods are not without their "collateral damage" either.
The world of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries existed in a
state
of turmoil. Nowhere could the luxury of peace be preserved without
constant
readiness for war and for military struggle itself.
Little or no attention is paid in these modern "confessions" to
the
historical situations that brought about the Crusades or to the reasons
why
so many Catholic knights gave up riches and comforts at home for danger
and
death in the desert. The fact that the Holy Land had been invaded and
that
Christian pilgrims, who had been going there peacefully for generations,
were then being robbed and slaughtered receives scant attention. Focus
is
only on the mistakes and failings and the "mission creep" that befell
many
of the crusading elements.
No consideration of the defensive nature of the Crusades or the
diversity of the different wars that go by the name "crusade" is
considered.
It is forgotten that had it not been for the Crusades, there is a high
probability that Europe would be a patchwork of Mohammedanism instead of
the
center of Christianity. (Thomas Becket)
But here is how Blessed Pope Urban II, when he called for the
First
Crusade at Clermont in 1095, described the outrages suffered by fellow
Christians at the hands of the militant Mohammedans:
"They [the Mohammedan Turks] have invaded the lands of those
Christians and have depopulated them by the sword, pillage, and fire;
they
have led away a part of the captives into their own country, and a part
they
have destroyed by cruel tortures.... The circumcise the Christians, and
the
blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into
the vases of the baptismal font.
"When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate
their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it
to
a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until, the
viscera
having gushed forth, the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others
they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend
their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut
through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable
rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent.... On
whom,
therefore, is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering the
this
territory incumbent, if not upon you?"
For mediaeval man, the Holy Crusades were an act of piety and
love
of God and neighbor. But it was also a means of defending their world,
their culture, their religion, and their way of life. Then, as today,
men
fight for what is most dear to them. Then, as today, it is the right
thing
to do. (Marian Therese Horvat)
=========================================================================
===
EASTERN RITE "OPTION"
The question comes up whether the Eastern Rites offer an
alternative
for traditional Roman Catholics. The answer is no.
First, of all, Catholics are generally prohibited from switching
rites. This is particularly true in the case of (traditional) Roman-Rite
Catholics, who are already members of the Church's precedential rite.
Therefore, in those rare cases where rite switching is permitted, the
transition is almost always from the Eastern to the Roman, the rite of
St.
Peter.
Second, the Eastern Rites have in many cases abandoned their
Apostolic form. At one time the Easterners had Apostolic rites, but many
have now fallen away from these because of the constant wars and
conquests
of
invasion in the East (from which the Western Church has thankfully been
spared). The liturgical scholar Fr. Adrian Fortescue once wrote: "The
ruthless destruction of the ancient rites in favor of uniformity has been
the
work not of Rome but of the schismatical patriarchs of Constantinople.
Since
the thirteenth Century Constantinople in its attempt to make itself the
one
center of the Orthodox Church has driven out the far more venerable and
ancient liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria and has compelled all the
Orthodox to use its own late derived rite."
Finally, since Vatican II many of the Eastern churches substitute
a
more vernacularized, Novus-Ordoized worship service. This is
particularly
true in the United States. Roman-Rite Catholics are easily duped by
these
"modernized" Eastern rites because they are ignorant of the Eastern Rite
and
their liturgical languages (Biblical Greek, Syriac, etc.).
It must be noted that the Eastern rites are practiced both by the
Eastern Orthodox, who are formally schismatic from the Roman Catholic
Church,
and by the Eastern Unitates, who are part of the Roman Catholic Church.
A
particularly virulent form of the Eastern Schism is the so-called
"Western
Orthodox" rite, which is a sham to lure Roman Catholics to cross the
fence
into the Eastern Schism.
For example, Vatican II began to invade the Maronite Rite decades
ago. The foreword in the June 1969 Maronite missal (The Divine Liturgy
according to the Maronite Antiochian Rite, Maronite Chancery Office,
Detroit)
says: "It is a small step toward the total revision of our Liturgy,
because
our Maronite Missal should undergo changes even more basic than the
present
ones. We are anxiously awaiting the revisions of the Patriarchal
Liturgical
Commission. They have started working on the total revision of our
Missal,
Ritual, Pontifical, Calendar, Breviary, and public prayers." The current
Maronite Missal (Qurbono: The Book of Offering, copyright 1994 by the
Diocese
of Saint Maron, Brooklyn) states in its foreword that the new Maronite
liturgy is based on Vatican II decrees.
Yes, there is the rare Eastern-rite church with an Eastern-rite
liturgy that has not been corrupted by history or Vatican II, but such a
church is more by far like the proverbial needle in the haystack than the
Traditional Latin Mass is!
A similar deception has recently come about with the "Anglican
Use"
service. To be sure, it is dressed up in finer English than usual Novus
Ordo
service, that often uses pretty vulgar English. But this is the same
Church
of England service declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII. It is completely
consonant with the Novus Ordo and is thus "permitted" by Newchurch
"authorities" where the true Mass, the traditional Latin Mass, is not.
=========================================================================
===
EVOLUTION
It is historically inaccurate to maintain that modern science
forced
the Church to come up with ideas about Genesis 1-3 that differ from the
allegedly "literal" views of Protestant Fundamentalists. In his "De
Genesi
ad Litteram Libri Duodecim" [Twelve Books on the Literal Interpretation
of
Genesis] and "De Genesi contra Manichaeos Libri Duo" [Two Books on
Genesis
against the Manichees], St. Augustine (354-430), Prince of the Fathers
and
Doctors of the Church, gave many interpretations of Genesis that are
plainly
at variance with such "literal" views. Given that a theological thinker
of
St. Augustine's genius arrived at the views that he did after years of
careful study of the text, it is incumbent upon us to approach the early
chapters of Genesis with far less dogmatism and far more humility and
caution
than we often do.
St. Augustine's interpretations should help us guard against
facile
claims about the "literal" meaning of these texts. We should recognize
what
Augustine recognized: namely, the early chapters of Genesis are in fact
complex and do not tender easy, pat answers. For example, St. Augustine
repeatedly stresses that the six days described in Genesis are not six
successive ordinary days. They have nothing to do with time. The days
are
repeatedly claimed to be arranged according to causes, order, and logic.
Pope Pius XII's Encyclical "Humani Generis" exhibits a very
prudent
approach to the question of the theory of evolution, as well as all
scientific theories. Both religion and science are founded in truth;
therefore, true religion and true science can never be in contradiction.
He
reprimands those who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution,
WHICH
HAS NOT BEEN FULLY PROVEN EVEN IN THE DOMAIN OF NATURAL SCIENCES,
explains
the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and
pantheistic
opinion that the world is in continual evolution."
The salient point here is that the Theory of Evolution is just
that,
a theory. There may be aspects of it that are correct, and other aspects
that are not. Even scientists do not agree on all points of the theory,
and,
like all scientific theories, more and more flaws in it will be
discovered
as
further data are discovered.
Science can be looked at more as a process rather than a set of
facts. For example, the Ptolemaic system was replaced by the Newtonian,
the
Newtonian by the Einsteinian. The 19th-century "Theory of Evolution" has
already been found wanting by the scientific community and is constantly
being revised as biological understanding increases.
In history, we find that some in religion try to impose
rigorously
non-dogmatic aspects of the Faith into science, as in the great debate on
heliocentrism in the 17th century. Conversely, some scientists try to
make
their "theories" contradict religious dogma. Both approaches are
incorrect.
Here are the pertinent passages from the encyclical.
"Thus, the teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of
evolution
an
open question, as long as it confines its speculations to the
development,
from other living matter already in existence [not Darwin's theory of
spontaneous generation, that living matter has come from non-living
matter],
of the human body. In the present state of scientific and theological
opinion, this question may be legitimately canvassed by research, and by
discussion between experts on both sides." (Sec. 1, para. 5-7)
"It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which,
although
they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less
connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few
insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into
account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the
case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is
rather
question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in
which
the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved.
If
such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the
doctrine
revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be
admitted....
"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not
forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and
sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced
in
both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as
far
as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-
existent
and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls
are
immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that
the
reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable
to
evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness,
moderation
and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment
of
the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting
authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of
faithful.
Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act
as
if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were
already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been
discovered
up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing
in
the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation
and
caution in this question." (Section 36)
"There are other conjectures, about polygenism (as it is called)
[Darwin's theory that there were many Adams and Eves in the very
beginning
of
mankind, not just one set of First Parents], which leave the faithful no
such
freedom of choice. Christians cannot lend their support to a theory
which
involves the existence, after Adam's time, of some earthly race of men,
truly
so called, who were not descended ultimately from him.... It does not
appear
how such views can be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin."
(Sec.
3, para. 64-68)
=========================================================================
===
FATIMA
Catholics venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary above the Angels and
Saints, as she is Queen of the Angels and Queen of the Saints, but what
about Fatima? It seems that some people are raising Fatima to a doctrine
of
the Catholic Faith equal to Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Some
Catholics,
and even some priests, seem to be raising the Blessed Virgin Mary to the
status of a goddess, equal to Christ the Lord. What is the correct way
to
look at all of this?
As to the notion that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a goddess equal
to
Christ the Lord is blasphemy, a blasphemy that the Virgin would be the
first
to condemn. It is a salient characteristic of our times, just as it was
in
the second and third centuries before the Fall of Rome, that the world is
out of balance. Some Catholics are liable to push even good things to an
extreme that makes them err.
One of the best comments on Fatima, which is totally consonant
with
the traditional teaching of the Church on private revelation, was
published
in the year that Pope Pius XII died, under the imprimatur of His Grace
John
Carroll, Primate of Ireland at the time, in a tome directed to Catholic
priests:
Private devotion to Our Lady of Fatima may, with due precautions,
be permitted.... The approval given by the Holy See to this, as
to
all private revelations, means simply that the Church does not
oppose belief in it; the faithful are allowed to believe in it
with
due caution.
As to talk about "secrets," this notion goes against Our Lord's
words in Scripture: "Jesus answered him [the high priest Caiphas]: I
have
spoken openly to the world: I have always taught in the synagogue, and
in
the temple, whither all the Jews resort; and in secret I have spoken
nothing
(John 18:20/DRV). The notion of "secrets" is more associated with
Gnosticism, a heresy of the early Church, which taught that Church's
teaching was not for all equally, but that some had "secret" knowledge
beyond others.
Moreover, the Secretists can't even get their story straight. On
June 26, 2000, JPII, together with the Prefect and Secretary of the
Newchurch Doctrine of the Faith Congregation, Josef Ratzinger and
Tarcisio
Bertone, respectively, published a 43-page booklet containing a 62-line
version of the so-called "Third Secret" of Fatima in the supposed
handwriting of Sister Lucy, handwriting that has been proved by Speckin
Forensic Laboratories of the USA to have been a forgery. It is known
that
the "Third Secret," as written down by Sister Lucy, consisted of a single
sheet of paper of 24 lines and it has never been made public.
Everything must be kept in perspective. There is nothing in
Fatima
opposed to the faith if one wishes to believe and treat it as a private
pious devotion with due restraint. However, as private revelation, it
can
never be compulsory in belief, and it is a sin of excess of religion to
give
it more credibility than the two sources of Public Revelation, that is,
Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition -- what is known as the error of
Fatimism.
Fatima, like all latter-day apparitions, even if true, are never
part of the Public Revelation of the Church, and nothing in them is
necessary for our salvation, nor are we bound by them as we are by
the Public Revelation of the Church. In fact, they are much more apt to
be
diabolical than worthy of belief. The Church, therefore, forbids to
Catholics the reading of books and pamphlets that relate recent
apparitions,
unless they have specific approval (Canon 1399). Everything necessary
for
our salvation is contained in the Public Revelation of the Church, that
is,
the Deposit of Faith: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition,
which closed with the death of the last of the Apostles, St. John.
"Private" Revelation in Catholic theology has nothing to do with
how many people purportedly saw something. The term "Private Revelation"
comprises anything occurring after the Apostolic Age, anything that is
not
recorded in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Apostolic Tradition as one of the
miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ or His Apostles. Only Sacred Scripture
and Sacred Tradition comprise "Public Revelation." It has been the
constant
teaching of the Church that no Catholic is required to place credence in
any
revelation except what is in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Apostolic
Tradition.
=========================================================================
===
"FILIOQUE" ADDITION TO THE NICENE CREED
The addition of the "Filioque," rendering explicit the fact that
the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father AND THE SON, was first made in Toledo
in
589, to combat certain a heresy that was circulating at the time. From
Spain
this custom passed into Gaul, then into Germany, as is obvious from the
Gallican liturgy.
This doctrine was already expressed by a great Doctor of the
Eastern
Church, St. Athanasius (ca. 296-373). The Athanasian Creed derived from
his
teaching, is one of the three Great Creeds of the Church (the others
being
the Apostles and Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan) and teaches: "The Holy Ghost
is
from the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but
proceeding....
It was finally admitted both by the Latins and the Greeks at the
Ecumenical Councils of Lyon II {1274) and Florence (1438-1445). The
Council
of Florence in 1439 declared: "We further define that it was for the
purpose
of declaring the truth and under stress of necessity at the time that
those
words 'and the Son' were added to the Creed by way of explanation, both
lawfully and with good reason."
=========================================================================
===
GALILEO
Most frequently pictured in what some historians call "The
Black Legend," as a lone crusader persecuted by a narrow and superstitious
Church, Galileo (1564-1642) was, in fact, an impatient and conceited
individual who insisted on the unquestioned acceptance of his unproven
theories, which in fact were scientifically wrong in several particulars.
The basis of his theory of the tides, for example, was in fact
scientifically false because he claimed that tides caused by the motion
of the earth around the sun (his heliocentric hypothesis), whereas the
tides do not depend primarily on the sun, but on the moon.
Galileo agreed with the Church at the time and thought that
Aristarchus and Copernicus were wrong. He spent most of his life
rejecting their heliocentric view of the solar system.
He promulgated his ideas in a flamboyant style, "sometimes in
bawdy
writings" (Sobel), which set many of his colleagues in the academic
community
of the time against him. He deliberately chose, against the standard of
the
time, to write his books in the vulgar tongue rather than in the Latin of
academia, thereby playing, as it were, to the crowds rather than posing a
scientific hypothesis to those who could seriously critique it. One of
the
papal representatives, Melchior Ingofer, expressed it thus: "He writes
in
Italian, certainly not to extend the hand to foreigners or other learned
men,
but rather to entice to that view common people, in whom errors very
easily
take root."
Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, later proclaimed a Saint of the
Church,
a
brilliant Renaissance man who was a great friend and supporter of
Galileo,
attempted to temper Galileo's brashness by advising him through a mutual
acquaintance. "It seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo
would
act prudently were you to content yourselves with speaking hypothetically
and
not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke."
Galileo,
however, refused to qualify his assertions and arrogantly remarked: "You
cannot help it ... that it was granted to me alone to discover all the
new
phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else."
Galileo, however, refused to qualify his assertions and
arrogantly
remarked: "You cannot help it ... that it was granted to me alone to
discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else."
Later, however, he recanted his prideful statement and admitted: "My
error,
then, has been, and I confess it, one of vainglorious ambition and of
pure
ignorance and inadvertence.... Indeed, those flaws that can be seen
scattered in my book were introduced ... through the vain ambition and
satisfaction of appearing clever above and beyond the average among
popular
writers" (1633).
Ironically, both Luther and Melanchthon had rejected Galileo's
theory off-hand. Moreover, many in the academic would were hostile to
Galileo and condemned his theories. On the contrary, it was the Roman
Catholic Church, not the "enlightened reformers," that sponsored
Galileo's
lectures and supported his honest endeavors. Pope Urban VIII, Cardinal
Bellarmine, and many other leaders of the Church publicly Galileo's
scientific work, many of them owned telescopes made by him and conducted
their own observations.
In only one trial, in 1633 (not the two that some erroneously
allege, as in 1616 his friend Cardinal Bellarmine only advised him
informally), Galileo was given a moderate sentence (the recitation
once a week for three years of the penitential psalms, which he had
already
been doing anyway and voluntarily continued to do afterwards, a practice
that would take only fifteen minutes per week) for publishing as pure
doctrine what he was told to publish as theory. The basis of his theory
was
in fact false since he based it on the tides of the sea, which depend not
primarily on the sun, but on the moon.
Galileo spent not even one single day in prison, nor did he
suffer
any physical penalty. On the contrary, during his trial in Rome in 1633,
he
was housed in elegant apartments with a personal servant. Thereafter, he
resided for a time in the palace (which his daughter described as "so
delightful") of the Archbishop of Siena, a supporter. He was never
prohibited from continuing his work and studies, and was never barred
from
receiving visitors. In other words, instead of holding Galileo prisoner
as
a
confessed heretic, he was indulged as a guest of honor. Galileo died at
the
age of 78 in his own bed, with the plenary indulgence and blessing of the
pope. (Vittorio Messori, Levandas Negras de la Iglesia)
Moreover, the pope of the time, Urban VIII, had brought to the
Holy
See an interest in scientific investigation not shared by his immediate
predecessors. Galileo knew him personally -- had shown him his
telescope,
and had won him to his side one night, after a banquet at the Florentine
court, in a debate about why ice floats. Urban had long admired Galileo
so
much that he had even written a poem for him, mentioning the sights
revealed
by "Galileo's glass."
Maria Celeste, Galileo's sister, delighted with her father at
this
turn of events: "The happiness I derived from the gift of the letters
you
sent me, Sire, written to you by that most distinguished Cardinal, now
elevated to the exalted position of Supreme Pontiff, was ineffable, for
his
letters so clearly express the affection he has for you, and also shows
how
highly he values your abilities." (Dava Sobel)
=========================================================================
==
HAIL MARY, "FULL OF GRACE" -- OR JUST "HIGHLY FAVORED ONE"?
Protestants and the Newchurchers say that Mary was never full of grace
and
that this is not scriptural. In their translations, such as the King
James
or New King James versions, as well as the Newchurch Bibles, "full of
grace"
is replaced by "highly favored one." In the traditional Catholic Douay-
Rheims version, Luke 1:28 uses "full of grace." Why did the Protestants
and
the Newchurchers reject the traditional Catholic understanding?
After the Modernist Vatican II Council, the New Order sect proceeded with
the issuance of "new" English "translations" of the Bible. Like all the
New
Order "translations," these were not really translations, but deceits to
introduce new doctrines. The phony New Order claim is that "hail, o
highly
favored one" is merely a better "translation" than "hail, full of grace."
This is the same false claim of "authenticity" that the Freemason
presbyter,
Hannibal Bugnini, used to justify all of his liturgical innovations,
culminating in the invalid New Ordinal of 1969 and the invalid New Mess
of
1969, by which no valid priest is ordained, and no valid Mass is
celebrated.
The Greek word "kecharistomene," which is used in Luke 1:28, rendered by
the
literalist St. Jerome in the Latin Vulgate as "gratia plena" (full of
grace), is a perfect middle participle. English does not have a middle
voice for its verbs, which indicates the action of the verb as acting
upon
or belonging to itself. A literal awkward rendering of the middle voice
in
English would be "suffused with grace," but even that doesn't convey the
sense of the perfect tense, which indicates the perfection, or
completion,
of the verbal action. This is clearly how St. Jerome, the most gifted of
translators, rendered the sense in Latin (which has no middle voice
either)
as "gratia plena."
The Greek verb from which the participle comes is "charistoo," whose root
is
"charis," the specially Christian word for the grace of God. The
rendition
"highly favored one" in place of "full of grace" conveys neither the
sense
of the Greek middle voice nor the sense of the Greek perfect tense nor
the
specifically Christian meaning of the Greek word for grace. One might sum
up
this pedantic Protestant and Newchurch rendition as "graceless"!
=========================================================================
==
HOLY GHOST OR HOLY SPIRIT?
"Ghost" in English comes from the German "Geist," meaning
"spirit."
Over time in English, the meaning of the word "ghost" became narrower,
just
as the English word "meat," which originally meant any food (as in the
phrase "meat and drink"), has come to have a narrower meaning. This is
the
bane of the vulgar tongues (like English), which is the reason why the
Church does not use vulgar tongues, but the Sacred Latin Language when
referring to unchangeable things like the Sacred Liturgy, Sacred
Theology,
etc.
The more traditional usage is "Holy Ghost." This is now a frozen
phrase in English and has only one particular reference: the Third
Person
of the Most Blessed Trinity. For that reason, it is to be preferred to
"Holy Spirit," because the latter phrase has, in the Newchurch of the New
Order, became reduced to meaning "Spirit," then to "spirit," and now into
a
non-descript, generic meaning, e.g., the "spirit of Vatican II," which
has
no reference to the Holy Ghost at all!
So, traditional Catholics should maintain the unmistakable term
"Holy Ghost" for the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. Better
yet,
use Latin in your common prayers, as St. Francis of Assisi and other
Saints
recommended. That way you won't encounter the problem of phony
"translations."
=========================================================================
==
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
When the Immaculate Conception was established as a feast of the
Universal Church in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV, he did not define the belief
as
a dogma, thus leaving Catholics free to believe in it or not without
being
accused of heresy. This freedom was reiterated by the Council of Trent
(1545-1563). It was only on December 8, 1854, that Pope Pius IX defined
the
belief as dogma in his bull "Ineffabilis Deus."
It is a common misconception being spread about that the Angelic
Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, denied the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas upheld the doctrine, apart from
a
theological issue concerning the simultaneity of the grace with the
conception. He discussed a theological issue that arose with the
possibility of a difference in time between biological conception and
animation, the later occurring when the body received a soul, an "anima,"
and became human.
"And such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was exempt
from
original and actual sin" (Sentences, Distinct. 44, Q. I, Art. 3).
"[Mary was] most pure in regard to every fault because she never
incurred the guilt of either original or actual sin (Opusculum 4 on the
Angelical Salutation).
In any case, St. Thomas Aquinas said that whatever the Church
eventually pronounced in the dogmatic formulation of the doctrine, he
would
believe with his whole heart and intellect.
=========================================================================
INDULGENCES
An indulgence is a plenary (complete) or partial remission of the
debt of temporal punishment due for the consequences of sin. Even after
sin has been forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance, there is a debt of
justice to be paid for the residual harm done. For example, if one has
spread a calumny about another, the harm done to the person's reputation
continues as a result of the sin, even when forgiven.
Whatever temporal punishment due that has not been satisfied in
this life by commensurate degree of prayer, fasting, and good works
offered to Almighty God in reparation must be remitted in Purgatory.
From the writings of the Saints and private revelation, it appears that
most souls leave this life with a large debt of temporal punishment to
be remitted in Purgatory.
Traditionally, the degree of the debt of sin remitted is
indicated
relatively in terms of days or years (e.g., 40 days). This indication
does not refer to the number of days or years in Purgatory, since time
as we know it does not exist there. Rather, the figure indicates the
relative remission of so much of the debt of temporal punishment as
would be remitted by performing the ancient canonical penances for the
equivalent period.
Indeed, the ancient penances were quite severe, for example, the
exclusion from church and heavy penances for the entire Lenten period of
forty days for those guilty of significant public sins. In effect, the
indulgences for meritorious works are an absolution of temporal
punishment beyond the usually minimal penances that are nowadays
required in the Sacrament of Penance.
The Church, from the treasury of the merits of Christ and His
Saints, provides for the remission of temporal punishment through
indulgenced prayers, fasting, and good works. Usually, such remission
may be applied to oneself or to the Holy Souls in Purgatory. For all
indulgences, one must have the right intention, be in the state of
grace, and fulfill the prescribed good work.
The seven requirements for the gaining of an indulgence are:
(1) The intention of gaining the indulgence.
(2) The state of sanctifying grace, with the required reception
of
the Sacrament of Penance within eight days either before or after the day
to
which the indulgence is attached. This confession suffices for the
gaining
of all indulgences during this period.
(3) The fulfillment of the prescribed good work.
(4) Holy Communion on the eve of the day or within its octave.
Holy
Communion once received suffices for gaining several indulgences on the
same
day, each of which requires the reception of Holy Communion. If as a
result
of long illness or some other physical impediment, a person is unable to
receive the prescribed Holy Communion, the confessor may substitute some
other pious work.
(5) Visit to a church.
(6) Vocal Prayer. The prescribed prayers must be vocal, that is,
the
lips most move, and the words must be at least mouthed silently.
Therefore,
mental prayer is not sufficient, unless the contrary is expressly stated.
(7) Prayers for the Pope's Intention. The pope's intention
comprises
the exaltation of Holy Mother Church, the propagation of the Faith, the
uprooting of heresy, the conversion of sinners, peace and concord among
Christian nations, and the other needs of Christianity. If no set
prayers
have been prescribed for the intention of the pope, it is sufficient to
recite one Pater, one Ave, and one Gloria (six of each for the Toties
Quoties
indulgence on All Souls Day and on the Sunday following).
=========================================================================
===
"JUDGE NOT"
Traditional Catholics are often taunted by Modernists when
objective
matters of faith and morals are discussed: "By what authority can you
judge?" The short answer is: "By God's authority."
One must make a distinction between INTERNAL and EXTERNAL
judgment.
When Our Lord says: "Judge not, that you be not judged" (Matthew
1:7/DRV),
His dictum refers to one man's judgment of another man's INTERNAL state
of
soul. Only God can see the internal disposition: was the external
action
done out of good or ill, out of friendship or fear, etc.? Man can see
only
the external result, not the internal intention.
On the other hand, WE MUST MAKE EXTERNAL JUDGEMENTS. We do this
every day. A parent judges his child's action unacceptable and punishes
him.
A judge or jury judges a criminal guilty. We judge that murder is wrong,
that adultery is wrong, that theft is wrong. These are external
judgments
that we must make by God's authority. Otherwise, the commonweal falls.
We
must judge the external action -- we don't want criminals walking around
because they cannot be judged! God gives us that authority, as He
established the state with its due authority: "Render therefore to
Caesar
the things that are Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21/DRV).
This "judge not" is a typical ploy of the Modernists. It's a way
of
saying that we cannot judge anyone else's morals. We can't say that
adultery
is wrong, or homosexuality, or theft. Of course, not even the Modernists
really believe this. They don't advocate the dismissal of law-courts.
They
don't advocate the firing of judges. They don't advocate letting
murderers,
thieves, and rapists go free with impunity. Obviously, even for them,
EXTERNAL judgment is just and a necessity. They just judge differently,
not
in accordance with God's law.
So what does this "judge not" dictum really mean? St. John
clarifies
it for us: "Judge not according to the appearance: but judge just
judgment"
(John 7:24/DRV). In other words, it is not judgment itself that is
condemned, but UNJUST judgment. Catholic teaching is that just judgment
is
proper when it pertains to EXTERNAL judgment. For example, it is
perfectly
acceptable to judge an external act such as murder, to consign the
murderer
to the courts, and to execute the murderer if found guilty.
What we cannot do, as only God can do that, is judge the INTERNAL
disposition. Perhaps the murderer was not compos mentis when he
committed
the murder. Courts can try to infer from external actions what might
have
been the internal motive, just as a priest can try to infer the
culpability
of a penitent, but only God knows the true heart as a certainty.
So, when someone gives you that "judge not" quotation to suborn
every
kind of moral and doctrinal perversion, tell them to go down to the
courthouse, dismiss the judges and juries, and lock the doors! "Moral
relativism is not only an intellectually bankrupt idea; its real-life
consequences can be deadly." Otherwise, we would have no justice in this
world -- just anarchy.
=========================================================================
===
LATIN VULGATE AND DOUAY-RHEIMS BIBLES
As Catholics, we have the highest regard for Sacred Scripture
(the
Bible), which is one of the two founts of the apostolic Deposit of Faith
(the
other being Sacred Tradition, the handing down of doctrines and practices
of
early Christianity through the Christ's Church). If it had not been for
the
Catholic Church, no one today would have the Bible.
The Tradition of the Church is the original authority for
doctrinal
statements, and Scripture was never intended to supply the first converts
with their doctrinal creed, but only to afford the verification of that
creed
with which the Tradition of the Church had furnished them. The living
Church, is the body to which we must cling, both for the explicit
statement
of our creed and for the explicit exposition of rites and their
significance.
Holy Scripture contains only that body of facts to which the Church
refers
as her authority for the creed that she inculcated, and for the worship
she
enjoined.
The Catholic Church
-- preserved the Old Testament
-- under Pope Damasus I (366-384) gathered the various books of
the
New Testament
-- had St. Jerome translate the various books, which give the
world
the Vulgate Edition, the main source of all translations
-- specified the canon, or standard, of books that belong to the
Bible
-- had her monks make copies by hand centuries upon centuries
before
printing was invented in the middle of the 15th century
-- preserved the Bible intact against barbarian invaders and
through
the ages against conscienceless translators.
Millions were converted before the Bible was completed. Other
millions were converted who had no opportunity to read a word of its
sacred text. They were converted by the Apostles and their successors,
who taught and preached Christ.
In 1440 Guttenberg ushered in the age of the printing press and
suddenly books became more easily available. But did the common good of
the population improve? We all share a false sense that the easily
availability of books is a guarantee of an educated public. During the
Middle Ages -- the time of St. Thomas Aquinas and of Dante, that time
many
judge to be the peak of civilization -- books weren't readily available.
Only few people had books. Few could read. There wasn't a Bible in
every
home, yet we commonly believe this era to be the Age of Faith. What was
needed to be known was known. It was communicated It was received. The
Catholic Church in her wisdom was able to provide what was necessary.
Europe was overwhelmingly Christian and Catholic.
The Latin Vulgate Bible was compiled by St. Jerome (342-420) at
the
request of Pope St. Damasus I (r. 366-384). It is important to know that
the
original manuscripts (autographs) of the Bible no longer exist. However,
St.
Jerome in the fourth century had access to manuscripts for his Latin
Vulgate
that are no longer available to us, manuscripts much closer in both time
and
text to the original autographs of the inspired writers than the Greek
manuscripts available to us now. Moreover, the Latin Vulgate is more
pure
than the Hebrew or Greek now extant and has been far better conserved
from
textual corruptions. These circumstances make the Latin Vulgate of St.
Jerome our best modern reference for biblical accuracy.
The Latin Vulgate is the only version of the Bible that the
Church
has ever declared to be (by decree of the Council of Trent) to be error-
free.
The Latin Vulgate has been dogmatically declared to be in conformity with
the
original text in all that concerns faith and morals.
The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful, word-for-word
translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible. The New Testament
was
published at Rheims in 1582, and the Old Testament, at Douay in 1609, two
years before the King James Version. In 1749-1752 Bishop Richard
Challoner
revised the Douay-Rheims version and modernized the language. This
revision
is sometimes called the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version and is the one
most
commonly found.
The Douay-Rheims translators took great pains to translate the
text
exactly. Contrary to the procedure of the modern Bible translators, when
a
passage seemed strange and unintelligible, they left it alone, even if
obscure. The modern Bible translators, on the other hand, will often
look
at
an obscure passage, decide what they think it means, then translate it in
words that bring out that meaning.
The result is that the contemporary English translations are
usually
easier to understand, but do not necessarily reflect accurately and
completely what the Bible says. Rather, they reflect the biased
interpretation and understanding of what particular contemporary
translators
think that the Bible says.
=========================================================================
===
LIBERATION THEOLOGY (AKA "SOCIAL JUSTICE")
Liberation Theology, also known as "Social Justice," is a Marxist
construct that advocates an economic redistribution by force and violent
revolution for social change.
Traditional Catholic priest, Fr. Malachi Martin (1921-1999),
Newvatican's most informed author and critic, has now been proven correct
since his death in 1999, in his contention that the Jesuits' "Liberation
Theology," pushed at the Modernist Vatican II Council (1962-1965) and
supported later by Newpopes Benedict-Ratzinger and Francis-Bergoglio, was
a
product of the atheistic Communist Soviet Secret Police, the KGB.
The noted Fr. Malachi Martin, advisor to popes, who was once a
(traditional) Jesuit himself, became so outraged when the Newjesuit Order
embraced the violent "Liberation Theology," developed by, inter alios,
the
excommunicate theologian, Hans Kung, beloved of Benedict-Ratzinger, that
Martin demanded of Paul VI-Montini to be released from the Order. Even
Montini had become so disgusted with the Jesuits by that time that he
banned
them from his Newatican. Fr. Martin then became a noted traditional
Catholic author and speaker condemning the Newjesuits and Newchurch,
writing
17 best-selling books, including The Jesuits, which exposed the
fact
that Newvatican, no longer Catholic, had become a pawn of the atheistic
Communists.
Now Fr. Martin's contention that Communist spies were rife in
Newvatican around Vatican II and that "Liberation Theology" was a
Communist
creation have been confirmed by one of the highest authorities possible.
Ion Mihai Pacepa, the three-star general for Communist Romania's Secret
Police before defecting to the United States in the late 1970s has stated
in
an interview on May 1, 2015, to the Catholic News Agency that the Soviet
secret police created liberation theology. "The movement was born in the
KGB, and it had a KGB-invented name: "Liberation Theology." Pacepa
went on:
"The birth of Liberation Theology was the intent of a 1960 super-secret
'Party-State Dezinformatsiya [Disinformation] Program' approved by
Aleksandr
Shelepin, the chairman of the KGB, and by Politburo member Aleksey
Kirichenko, who coordinated the Communist Party's international policies.
I
learned the fine points of the KGB involvement with Liberation Theology
from
Soviet General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, Communist Romania's chief razvedka
(foreign intelligence) adviser -- and my de facto boss, until
1956,
when he became head of the Soviet espionage service, the PGU1, a
position
he held for an unprecedented record of 15 years."
The murderous Newjesuit "Liberation Theology" led Newjesuits to
take
up shotguns to fight conservative governments in Latin America to
implement
their version of "social and economic justice," in which Communists were
placed in charge of those governments. Newvatican's Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith had formerly declared that Liberation Theology as
(atheist) Marxist. Because Pope Pius XII had decreed in 1949 that
Marxists/Communist were automatically excommunicated, it could be argued
that most of the Jesuit Order had become excommunicate at the time of the
Vatican II Council.
Benedict-Ratzinger supported "Liberation Theology," and his close
colleague was Hans Kung, who was suspended for heresy from his
professorship
and who later excommunicated himself by becoming a Freemason. Now the
Marxist Newpope Francis-Bergoglio has has solepsistically declared his
murderous Newjesuit Order to be a "civic and humanitarian group."
The Marxist Newpope Francis-Bergoglio now elevated the once-
condemned Marxist firebrand, Gustavo Gutierrez, a fellow Latin American,
who
used the New Religion of Newchurch as an instrument of murderous
revolution,
to be the key speaker at his Newpapal Theological Conference, to be held
the
week of May 10, 2015.
=========================================================================
===
LIMBO
Limbo is the adobe of those souls excluded from heaven through no
fault of their own. The word comes from the Latin "limbus," meaning
"edge,"
from the early belief that it was on the edge of Hell proper. There are
actually two limbi referred to.
The Limbus Patrum, or Limbo of the Fathers, was the abode where
the
souls of the just that died before Christ were detained, until heaven,
which
was denied in punishment for the sin of Adam, was opened through the
Redemption. The Limbo of the Fathers is the Paradise referred to in Luke
23:43, so called because it was a place of rest and joy, though
imperfect.
It is also referred to as "the bosom of Abraham."
In the Apostles Creed, "descendit ad inferos" (He descended into
Hell), refers not to the Hell of the Damned, but the Limbo of the
Fathers,
to
which Our Lord descended to free the souls of the just by the application
of
the fruits of the Redemption, which included the communication of the
Beatific Vision. The Limbo of the Fathers ceased to exist from the time
of
Our Lord's resurrection from the dead.
The Limbus Infantium, or Limbo of Infants, is the abode where the
souls of those who die in Original Sin, but without personal (actual)
sin,
are deprived of the happiness that would come to them in the supernatural
order, but not of the happiness of the natural order.
It is an article of faith, most recently confirmed at the
dogmatic
Council of Trent, that those who die without Baptism, and in whose case
the
want of Baptism has not been supplied in any other way, cannot enter
heaven.
Nothing imperfect can be in the presence of God, as we know from the
Apocalypse: "There shall not enter into it [the glory of God] any thing
defiled" (21:27/DRV). The great majority of the authoritative
theologians
of
the Church, among them Peter Abelard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas
Aquinas,
Duns Scotus, teach that infants dying in Original Sin suffer
no "pain of sense," but are excluded from heaven.
This opinion is no modern invention, for it is found in St.
Gregory
of Nazianzus (Or. in Sanct. Baptism 23, PG XXXVI:389), one of the Great
Eastern Fathers of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that such
souls
do
not suffer pain of sense because pain of punishment is proportioned to
personal guilt, which does not exist here. He says that those in limbo
do
not grieve because they cannot see God any more than a bird grieves
because
it cannot be a king. "No, they rejoice because they share in God's
goodness
and in many natural perfections," he says. The unbaptized in limbo know
and
love God by the use of their natural powers, and have full natural
happiness.
(De Malo, 5:3; Sent. II d. 33 Q. 2 A. 2)
St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's principal theologian, teaches
that
unbaptized children do not suffer pain because of their privation. They
are
not capable of the grace of the supernatural order, which is not owed to
man
(the word "grace" itself denotes something "gratuitous" from God), but
possess a natural well-being that results from their being united to God
by
their participation in His natural goods.
Following the teachings of the Prince of Theologians, St.
Augustine
of Hippo, Pope St. Gregory the Great, and the Scholastic Theologians,
including the Seraphic Doctor St. Bonaventure and the Universal Doctor
St.
Thomas Aquinas, the Seventeenth Oecumenical Council in 1438-1445) adopted
an
canonized as a matter of faith: "illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali
peccato vel solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis
tamen
disparibus puniendas [the souls of those who die in actual Mortal Sin or
only
Original Sin, thereupon descend into Hell, but to be punished with
disparate
punishments]."
In 1794 Pope Pius XI confirmed the existence of Limbo as a place
lacking the Beatific Vision, but without the pain of punishment. On
October
29, 1951, in his Allocution to Midwives, Pope Pius XII declared, in
conformity with the Council of Trent:
"In the present state there is no other way of communicating [sanctifying
grace] to the child who has not yet the use of reason [other than
Baptism].
But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is
absolutely
necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain
supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can
suffice [i.e., Baptism of Desire] for an adult to obtain sanctifying
grace
and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the
newly
born, this way is not open."
This is the teaching of the Church and cannot be denied, having behind it
both antiquity from Patristic times and from the Scholastic Theologians,
including St. Thomas Aquinas.
=========================================================================
===
LITURGICAL DANCE
There are some implied references to liturgical dancing among the
Jews of the Old Testament. However, by New Testament times, dance had
come to have an association with pagan practices because unbridled, even
lewd, dancing was a common feature of such pagan worship as in the cult
of Egyptian Isis or the other "mystery" religions. Such displays
sometimes included the use of drugs to enhance the dance.
Even the ancient Romans, in the republican period, were
scandalized by such displays. When the aristocratic youth of Rome were
captivated in the 2nd century B.C. by the so-called Bacchanalian
Conspiracy, which involved such displays, the grave Romans reacted
swiftly and harshly against those who had participated, even their own
sons and daughters.
Although there were rare sporadic exceptions, the Roman
Catholic Church has considered liturgical dance to be associated first
with pagan, then with heretical practices. In the 4th century, the
Messalian heresy was involved with such things. In the 14th century, a
fanatical sect called the Dancers was strongly condemned by the Church.
The same antipathy to dance, liturgical and otherwise, is found
even in some modern-day Protestant sects, where dancing of any kind is
considered irreverent, frivolous, and pagan.
=========================================================================
===
LOVE OR CHARITY?
The use of the noun "love" in translations is of relatively
recent
usage. In most venerable English translation of the Catholic Bible, the
Douay-Rheims (the equivalent of the King James Version for Protestants),
the word "charity" is used, as in 1 John 4:16: "God is charity."
Although "charity" has acquired a more restricted sense in recent
English, it directly represents the Latin "caritas," which itself
represents the Greek "agape." More on this later.
As defined by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic theologians,
charity is a supernatural, infused virtue, by which we love God above
everything for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for God's
sake. Thus, charity is not something that is acquired by our own acts,
but is divinely infused into the soul when one is in a state of
sanctifying grace, a state of sinless (at least not mortally so)
friendship with God.
Notice that charity is not defined as a "feeling" toward someone,
as the word "love" in English often connotes. Also notice that the
object of charity is not primarily any human person, but God. Both of
these erroneous notions are rife today in the Church, which seems to put
social relationships above God.
No, the object of charity is first of all God Himself. It is
only
when this relationship is in order that the second, charity toward
neighbor, is even possible. To make charity toward neighbor primary and
God secondary is a perversion of the Christian religion. For example,
in Matthew 22:37-39 Christ Himself places stress on the former.
Now we can look at the nuances in the Greek that are inaccurately
translated "love" in many modern translations:
Divine or Spiritual Love
agape (charitas) - a reverential, selfless love directed toward
God; a God-like love
Natural Loves
eros (amor) - erotic love
philia (amicitia) - love of a friend, or even of a thing
(philosophia, love of wisdom)
storge (pietas) - familial love, affection
Unfortunately, the English noun "love" is much too broad to cover
the nuances of the Greek adequately, and its use is very deceptive, as
readers think of the modern connotations of the translated word, not of
the original.
How does God Himself define the word? St. John's Gospel (14:15)
quotes Christ as giving this definition: "If you love me, keep my
commandments." St. John later emphasizes the same interpretation when
he writes in his Second Epistle (6): "And this is charity: that we
walk according to His commandments."
So, here on earth, love is obedience to God's commandments. That
understanding turns on its head a lot of the error one currently hears
about love meaning acceptance of incorrect, irrational, and immoral
beliefs. Scripture gives quite the opposite definition!
=========================================================================
===
"LUMINOUS" MYSTERIES OF THE ROSARY
The New Age "Luminous" Mysteries, concocted by the Modernist heretics who
engineered the Vatican II Anti-council, were not introduced at the time
of the Anti-council, but were introduced later by the Unsaint Newpope
JPII-Wojtyla in 2002. They are a New Age Modernist corruption of the
traditional Catholic Rosary, standardized according to long-standing
custom by Pope St. Pius V around the time of the dogmatic Council of
Trent (1545-1563).
Wojtyla's Newrosary was a serious break with the traditional Catholic
Faith and the very origins of the Rosary. Historically, the Rosary is a
highly-simplified substitute for the Church's Divine Office, the cycle of
Hours that are chanted or recited to sanctify the day, consisting of
Matins, Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. When
books were scarce and expensive, monks who traveled between monasteries
could not recite the Divine Office (unless they had it memorized, which
some did) and were, therefore, allowed to substitute for the 150 Psalms
recited throughout each week 150 Aves. That is why the Rosary consists of
fifteen decades of Aves, together with 15 mediations -- not twenty
decades of 20 meditations.
Moreover, Wojtyla, because he introduced the anomaly of five decades of
"Luminous" Mysteries, completely wrenched the traditional assignment of
the decades to the days of the week: traditionally, the Joyful Mysteries
on Monday, Thursday, and the Sundays of Advent; the Dolorous Mysteries on
Tuesday, Friday, and the Sundays of Lent; the Glorious Mysteries on
Wednesday, Saturday, and all other Sundays.
The "Luminous" Mysteries should be rejected by all true Catholics as a
product of the Modernist heretical Newchurch of the New Order.
=========================================================================
===
MARTIN LUTHER
Martin Luther HATED the Catholic Church. His language, often
coarse
and vulgar, heaped horrible epithets upon the Catholic religion.
To give a few examples, when speaking of the one, true Church of
Jesus Christ:
"whore-church of the devil"
"arch-whore of the devil"
"stench-church of the devil"
Luther's vilifying vocabulary drew heavily on bodily functions.
He
took much of his imagery from the PRIVY, i.e., toilet.
Even worse, Luther blasphemed our Lord Jesus Christ. He accused
Jesus of mortal sins of the flesh -- sins too horrific for us to reprint.
Many other crazy teachings.
1. Luther rejected the sacramental nature of Matrimony. "There is no
difference between the married state and whoredom." (Denifle, page 290)
2. He sanctioned adultery, expressed his approval of divorce, polygamy,
concubinage.
3. His "sola fides" (Faith alone) and "sola scriptura" (Scripture alone)
was the basis for him to deny guilt for sin. His aim was to establish a
"guilt-free" philosophy.
(The New Jersey Catholic News, No. 40, Summer 1999, p. 2)
A curious letter from Martin Luther to his mother has been
preserved among the many and valuable manuscripts in the library
belonging
to the Dominican Convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva at Rome. This lady
wrote and asked him whether she ought to change her religion and adopt
his
new persuasion. He replied: "No, remain a Catholic, for I will neither
deceive nor betray my mother." What better refutation of Luther's
doctrine
could there be than such a reply, which conscience wrung from his filial
affection?
=========================================================================
===
MASONS (FREEMASONS)
Not only is Freemasonry unlawful in the eyes of the Church as a
secret society to the detriment of religion but also is really a
sectarian
body, having its own formulae of belief about God, the soul, conscience,
etc., and its own secret and public rituals. A Catholic cannot be a
Freemason any more than he may be a member of any other Church than the
Catholic Church.
Freemasonry professes Naturalism and hence is opposed to
Supernaturalism. It is opposed not only to Catholicism and Christianity
but
also to the whole system of supernatural truth. It systematically
promotes
religious indifferentism ("all religions are equal"). Its ultimate
purpose
is, according to its Universal Manual of Freemasonry, "the overthrow of
the
whole religious, political, and social order based on Christian
institutions
and the establishment of a new state of things according to its own ideas
and based in its principles and laws on pure Naturalism." Although
claiming
religious toleration as one of its principles, it openly attacks
Catholicism.
Since 1738 Catholics have been, under penalty of excommunication
incurred ipso facto and reserved to the pope, strictly forbidden to enter
Masonic societies or to promote them in any way. In 1894 Pope Leo XIII
issued the Encyclical Letter "Humanum Genus" [On Freemasonry], in which
the
pope specifically warned the faithful to beware of organizations
associated
with Masonry that "hide their real character under the mask of universal
toleration, of respect for all religions, of the mania of reconciling the
maxims of the Gospel with those of revolution" (para. 9).
In the same year, the Vatican added to its condemnation three
other
secret societies: the Knights of Pythias, the Elks, and the
International
Order of Odd Fellows. A decree of January 18, 1896, allows a nominal
membership in the Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias, and Sons of
Temperance,
secret societies, if these conditions are fulfilled: (1) the society is
entered in good faith, (2) there is no scandal, (3) grave temporal injury
would result form withdrawal, and (4) there is no danger of perversion.
Even for the post-conciliar Church, on November 26, 1983, after
the
New Code of Canon Law had been promulgated in Sacrae Disciplinae Legis on
January 25, 1983, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
issued the Declaration Regarding Masonic Associations, which stated in
part:
"The negative decision of the Church regarding Masonic associations
remains
unchanged since their principles have always been considered
irreconcilable
with the Church's teaching, and, consequently, membership in them remains
prohibited by the Church. Members of the faithful who enroll in Masonic
associations are involved in serious sin and may not approach Holy
Communion."
Sometimes the question arises about the Masonic affiliation of
arguably the Church's greatest composer, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-
1791). The facts are these. Mozart joined the Freemasons in 1784 and
remained an active member until his death. His choice to enter the lodge
was influenced by his attraction to the lodge's "shared devotion to
Catholic
tradition." Mozart's particular lodge in Austria was a specifically
Catholic one rather than a merely deistic one.
Mozart was in the same Masonic Lodge as another great Catholic
composer, Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809). Mozart's last opera, "Die
Zauberfloete," includes Masonic themes and allegory, and Mozart wrote a
piece of Masonic Funeral Music. It seems quite peculiar that if
Freemasonry
were condemned by the Church then, the world's two most notable Catholic
composers, prominently working under Catholic archbishops and kings,
would
be Freemasons.
The explanation is this. Freemasonry had been banned by the
Papal
Bull "Eminenti apostolatus specula," issued by Pope Clement XII on April
28,
1738, but the ban was promulgated only in the Papal States, Spain,
Portugal,
and Poland. It was not promulgated in Austria, where Mozart lived, until
1792 (after Mozart's death in 1791). Hence, in Austria during Mozart's
lifetime a good Catholic could perfectly well become a Mason, and it is
clear that Mozart saw no conflict between these two allegiances.
In 1784, before the French Revolution, which intervened five
years
later, Freemasonry in Austria obviously didn't include the anti-Catholic
fanaticism which then became obligatory and which was later solemnly
condemned by the Church, but was considered rather as a humanitarian
organization compatible with Catholic Faith. It wasn't until the mid
1790s,
in the turmoil of the war with France that the Austrians grew concerned
about secret societies, and in the mid 1790s Masonry was officially
forbidden in Austria, after Mozart had died.
=========================================================================
===
NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING (NFP)
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is not artificial birth control,
but
rather the selective use of continence, which is one of the moral virtues
(when rightly applied).
Pope Pius XI discussed it as an option under various
circumstances
in Casti Connubii (Encyclical Letter on Christian Marriage, December 31,
1930). Pope Pius XII stated the moral principles covering the use of the
Rhythm Method as follows:
(1) There is a vast difference between contraception and the Rhythm
Method
because the former consists in the abuse of the sexual powers, the later,
in
the non-use of these powers at certain times in the month.
(2) A married couple may ordinarily use the Rhythm Method only when both
agree to the restriction that it involves.
(3) This method may not be used if the parties are yielding to sins of
incontinence in the period of abstinence from sexual relations.
(4) A couple may not lawfully use the Rhythm Method unless they have a
very
good reason for not having children, at least for the time being.
"We affirmed the legitimacy and at the same time the limits -- truly very
wide -- of that controlling of births which, unlike the so-called 'birth
control,' is compatible with God's law.... Serious motives, such as
those
that not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic, and social so-
called
'indications,' may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive
debt
for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.
From
this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be
lawful, from the moral viewpoint, and it is lawful in the conditions
mentioned." (Pope Pius XII, Allocutions to Midwives, October 29, 1951,
and
to the Associations of the Large Families, November 26, 1951).
=========================================================================
===
NON-CATHOLIC WEDDINGS AND FUNERALS
There are several common cases concerning attendance by Catholics
at
non-Catholic marriages. In one case, both parties are non-Catholic in a
first marriage, and one can look to the following principle from Canon
1258:
"It is not lawful for the faithful in any way to assist actively or to
take
part in the religious services of non-Catholics. Passive or merely
material
presence can be tolerated of a civic duty [civilis officii causa tantum]
or
on account of respect ... at funerals, marriages, and similar functions
of
non-Catholics, as long as there be absent the danger of perversity or
scandal."
To participate actively in these ceremonies is to be guilty of
communicatio in sacris, which is a violation of the First Commandment.
Given the Protestantized nature of the New Order, the same principles can
reasonably be followed when attending a Novus Ordo service at which two
Newchurchers are being married.
But what does "passive or material presence" mean in practice?
Pastoral guidelines have been given, indicating that standing or sitting
at
these ceremonies is allowable and is not to be considered as "active"
participation. Beyond that, the following guidelines accord with the
spirit
of the canon:
1) Sit and stand with the congregation, but do not kneel when it does
(sit
instead).
2) Pray to yourself during the sermon rather than be influenced by the
words
of the one who is speaking.
3) Do not use "holy water" at the entrance.
4) Do not genuflect, even if you can see a "tabernacle."
5) Do not repeat any prayers that are said.
6) Do not shake hands at the Pax before the Agnus Dei.
7) Do not make the sign of the cross when the congregation does this.
A second case involves the attempted remarriage of a divorced
person. Apart from the most unusual circumstances, a Catholic would not
be
permitted to be present at such an attempted marriage, nor, a fortiori,
to
act as bridesmaid, best man, etc., knowing full well that such a union is
invalid in the sight of God. Such attendance would ordinarily be gravely
scandalous (Fr. Francis J. O'Connell).
A third case arises when one or both parties are Catholic and are
marrying outside the Church. Assistance at a mixed marriage in a
Protestant
church would not be tolerated, since this would be cooperation in
violating
a serious church law, as well as a divine positive law of danger to the
Catholic party's faith, that forbids mixed marriages without
dispensation,
and such a marriage would be invalid (Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology
I.286).
The assistance of a Catholic at the attempted marriage of a
Catholic
before a non-Catholic minister, except in very rare cases, is so
proximately
a cause of grave scandal and even a manifestation of contempt of the
authority of the Church that it must be regarded as a grave sin. A
decree
of the Congregation of the Propaganda in 1874 stated that such attendance
is
forbidden. Moreover, as their presence manifest or imply their approval
of
an invalid marriage near relatives, and especially parents, brothers, and
sisters, because of their obligation to admonish the one who is sinning,
would not have a reason to justify their presence (Bancroft,
Communication
in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics, p. 129).
In effect, the attendees would be witnessing the excommunication
of
the Catholic party or parties, as any Catholic who marries before a
Protestant minister or Justice of the Peace is traditionally held by that
act to be excommunicated. One would, therefore, not wish to be present
at
such an "excommunication ceremony" because of its scandal, perversion of
religion, and contempt of ecclesiastical authority. Hence, when priests
are
asked about the lawfulness of attending the marriage of a Catholic
relative
or friend in a non-Catholic church, the answer should practically always
be
"No."
Naturally, one needs to explain to the involved parties the
reason
for one's non-attendance in as reasonable and sincere a way as possible.
Aren't we all supposed to be so "understanding" these days? Well, the
people involved will have to understand that the traditional Catholic's
religion is important to him and that although he cannot attend the
religious ceremony, he will continue to pray for the parties' conversion
and
will do his best to keep family peace, without implying approval of the
action. In some cases, for peace in the family, one might attend the
subsequent reception, which is a social event, not a religious one, but
even
that could cause scandal. Catholics must use great discretion to avoid
scandal to others.
As to funerals, Catholics, apart from the most unusual
circumstances, Catholics should not attend non-Catholic funerals because
of
the prohibition against syncretism by the First Commandment of God and
because of the scandal it causes others. Instead, a Catholic may attend
the
"wake" or "visitation" at a funeral home, sign the memorial book, and
offer
condolences to the grieved. A wake or visitation is not a religious
service
and therefore does not come under the prohibition against a Catholic
attending a non-Catholic religious service.
=========================================================================
===
OPUS DEI
Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of Opus Dei,
anticipated
and Developed 30 years before Vatican II a revolutionary, new, secular
theology of the laity, and accepted the principle of pluralism and
indifferentism: a Novus Ordo Seclorum.
In 1982 John Paul II created this group as a "personal
prelature."
Suspiciously, this act occurred in the same year that the wealthy sect
allegedly had transferred almost $1,000,000,000 into the Vatican Bank,
bailing it out of an embarrassing bankruptcy. In a second maneuver that
raised eyebrows, the pope placed the founder of Opus Dei on the "fast
track"
for New Order sainthood, accelerating an often centuries-long waiting-
period
for canonization to a mere twenty years.
Opus Dei is a New Order cult. It is a chameleon organization,
being
liberal or conservative, whichever benefits its agenda. Juan Estruch in
his
book "Saints and Schemers" described this as "dual ethics." Michael
Walsh,
in
his book, "Opus Dei: An Investigation Into the Secret Society Struggling
For
Power Within the Roman Catholic Church," has also written in detail about
the
inner workings of Opus Dei.
There are numerous reports of how Opus Dei is operated as a cult
and
how it has harmed its adherents. When Newvatican was near bankruptcy in
1982, Opus Dei bought off JPII with 1,000,000,000 U.S. dollars to become
a
"personal prelature" and to buy its founder, Jose Maria Escriva, a Novus
Ordo
"sainthood" in 2002. The Opus Dei Awareness Network (ODAN), a
collaboration
of former members, has exposed the violent practices of the Opus Dei
cult,
which were fictionally represented in the Da Vinci Code. Former Opus Dei
members who were refused a hearing during the nomination for sainthood of
Escriv? because JPII had been bought off.
=========================================================================
===
ORGAN DONATION
Donation of organs for medical purposes can be morally
permissible
under certain conditions. Informed consent of the donor or his designees
must be secured, and the donor must be certainly dead. The problem is
that
the traditional signs of death, the onset of rigor mortis and
putrefaction,
has generally been replaced today by a definition of "brain death," which
is
not always clear.
In a May 14, 1956, Address to the Delegates of the Italian
Association of Cornea Donors and the Italian Union for the Blind, Pope
Pius
XII stated: "A person may will to dispose of his body and to destine it
to
ends that are useful, morally irreproachable and even noble, among them
the
desire to aid the sick and suffering."
Yet much caution is necessary. The pope also stated in that
address:
"Public authorities have the duty to supervise their [the laws']
enforcement
and above all to take care that a 'corpse' shall not be considered and
treated as such until death has been sufficiently proved." Later, in a
November 24, 1957, Address to Anaesthesiologists, the pope laid down the
following moral guideline: "In general, it will be necessary to presume
that
life remains, because there is involved here a fundamental right received
from the Creator, and it is necessary to prove with certainty that it has
been lost."
In fact, the definition of "brain death" may have come into use
in
place of the traditional signs of death partly because of the desire to
"harvest" organs for transplants into others. Many physicians themselves
will admit that know of cases were a person has been dubiously declared
"brain dead" because an organ recipient is waiting. By the time
traditional
death is clear, the organs are no longer "harvestable." Thus, some say
that
organ donation may have been a foot in the door to a secularized, rather
than
a Catholic, morality.
=========================================================================
===
OUR FATHER -- A PROTESTANT ERROR
The Pater Noster (Our Father) is in the Bible, but the Protestant
version, also followed by Novus Ordo Catholics, differs from the Catholic
version in the addition of a conclusion that was not in the original
Greek
copies of the New Testament. It was inserted first into the Anglican
service
by the heretic King Henry VIII in 1538.
This conclusion, namely, "For thine is the kingdom and the power
and
the glory, forever and forever. Amen" is a marginal gloss, added by some
copyist, who had in mind words borrowed from the Greek liturgy or perhaps
as
an devotional expression of his own. This conclusion was rejected as not
authentic by that great translator of the Bible, St. Jerome, in the
fourth
century. It was added to the King James Version's version of St.
Matthew's
Gospel (16:13), but omitted in the King James Version of St. Luke's
Gospel
(11:4), Modern translations accept the Protestant/Novus Ordo error. Even
the
King James Version omits this gloss in Luke 11:4.
Such an addition was not included by Our Lord in his Pater
Noster,
and that is why Catholics do not use it.
=========================================================================
===
PADRE PIO
Padre Pio da Pietrelcina, O.F.M. Cap. (May 25, 1887-September 23,
1968) was ordained priest (Capuchin) on August 10, 1910. He received
visible
stigmata on September 20, 1918. The Vatican suspended him for a time and
issued five decrees against him. From 1931 to 1933 he was not allowed to
celebrate Mass publicly or to hear confessions. Pope Pius XI said that
he
had been "badly misinformed" about Padre Pio.
Even before the end of the Council, in February 1965, someone
announced to him that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according
to
a
new rite, ad experimentum, in the vernacular, which had been devised
after
Vatican II by the Freemason presbyter Hannibal Bugnini (1912-1982) and
his
committee of six Protestant ministers for the stated purpose "to respond
to
the aspirations of modern man." Immediately, even before seeing the
text,
Padre Pio wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical
experiment and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius
V.
When Antonio Cardinal Bacci (1885-1971) came to see him in order to bring
the
authorization, Padre Pio let a complaint escape in the presence of the
Pope's
messenger: "For pity sake, end the Council quickly." (Rev. Fr. Jean,
O.F.M., Cap., "Padre Pio," apud Angelus, May 1999, p. 31)
Thus, Padre Pio never even celebrated a Missa Normativa, or
interim
Mass. He never said Mass in Italian. The Novus Ordo service of 1969 was
introduced more than a year after Padre Pio had died. A video exists of
Padre Pio celebrating his last Mass on September 22, 1968. Some Novus
Ordo
sectarians try to use this video to prove that Padre Pio celebrating the
modernized interim Mass of 1967.
However, a close look at the video proves just the opposite.
Padre
Pio was clearly in a frail condition and had to be supported in walking.
Therefore, he could not ascend the traditional high altar, so a temporary
altar was placed below the main altar of San Giovanni Rotondo. If one
listens carefully to the audio track, one hears that Padre Pio is
celebrating
the Mass in Latin, in the traditional form. One segment shows Padre Pio
incensing the altar at the Offertory, using the traditional form
(Incensum
istud a te benedictum.... This form had been abrogated in the steps
leading up to the Novus Ordo of 1969.
After Easter 1967, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the
Society
of St. Pius X (SSPX), met with Padre Pio. According to the Archbishop's
report on the meeting, published on August 8, 1990, in answer inquiries
on
the event:
"The meeting, which took place after Easter in 1967, lasted two minutes.
[In
1967 the Archbishop was Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy
Ghost.] I was accompanied by Fr. Barbara and a Holy Ghost Brother,
Brother
Felin. I met Padre Pio in a corridor, on his way to the confessional,
being
helped by two Capuchins. I told him in a few words the purpose of my
visit:
for him to bless the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, which was due to
hold
an
extraordinary General Chapter meeting, like all religious societies,
under
the heading of 'aggiornamento' [the term that was used at Vatican II for
taking the Church down the path of Modernism], a meeting that I was
afraid
would lead to trouble. Then Padre Pio cried out: 'Me bless an
archbishop?
No, no, it is you who should be blessing me!' And he bowed to receive
the
blessing. I blessed him; he kissed my ring and continued on his way to
the
confessional. That was the whole of the meeting, no more, no less."
=========================================================================
===
PAPAL CRUCIFIX
Popes traditionally used as their crosier, or ferula, a cross, not
a
crucifix. In contravention of this tradition, the Newpopes started using
a
rough-hewn staff fabricated by Lello Scorzelli in 1963 commissioned by
Paul
VI-Montini, which is unconventionally topped by a crucifix, which is not
even a traditional crucifix. This untraditional papal crosier was used
for
the first time by Paul VI-Montini on December 8, 1965, at the official
closing of the Second Vatican Council. JP I-Luciani, JPII-Wojtyla, and
Benedict-Ratzinger all used it. In fact, Benedict-Ratzinger used it at
his
Newpapal "installation" on April 25, 2005 (Ratzinger was never crowned as
Newpope).
Some claim that this crucifix is modeled after the "Bent
Crucifix,"
or, as some call it, the "Twisted Serpent," which has Satanic
associations
and sources in heretical Protestant charismaticism. It consists of a
bent,
or broken, crucifix with a distorted figure of the Christ. The
traditional
papal crosier, on the other hand, does not have a crucifix at all.
Others
maintain that the Scorzelli crosier follows a rough sketch made by St.
John
of the Cross from a vision. There is some resemblance, but the
representation is different from that of the Saint, and the perspective,
which is the significant factor in St. John's representation, is entirely
different.
The question, as always with post-Vatican II changes, is what is
the
significance of the change? Why all of a sudden would the post-conciliar
popes reject the traditional papal crosier representing their pastoral
office, a symbol that goes back to Sacred Scripture and the earliest art
found in Roman catacombs, to take up a symbol that has confused and
scandalized many Catholics.
=========================================================================
===
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
To say that the pope in his private person is infallible is a
dangerous half truth.
When the First Vatican Council (1869-1870) considered the draft
of
Chapter 4 of its dogmatic decree "Pastor Aeternus," it deliberately
changed
the title of the chapter from "De Romani Pontificis Infallibilitate" [On
the
Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff] to "De Romani Pontificis Infallibili
Magisterio [On the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff], as it
did
not want to imply that infallibility resides in the person of the pope,
but
rather resides within the teaching authority he was given.
The dogmatic definition on infallibility contained in "Pastor
Aeternus" clearly does not include the false notion that everything the
pope
says, even in the realm of faith or morals, is infallible. This is the
error known as "creeping infallibility."
The infallible teaching authority of the pope is circumscribed by
the necessity that any extraordinary dogmatic pronouncement meet each and
every element of the Council's definition that the Roman pontiff speaks
ex
cathedra only when:
1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of
all
Christians,
2) in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority,
3) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals,
4) to be held by the whole Church.
Popes in history have personally taught error. They themselves
have
so admitted. For example, Pope John XXII taught error in three sermons
he
delivered in Rome on the Particular Judgment. After the College of
Cardinals rebuked him, he did finally recant of his error and reconciled
himself to the Church's teaching just one day before his death.
The point is that such error has been taught by a pope only in a
private capacity, not in his office as Roman pontiff, not in the name of
the
Church, not by Apostolic authority, and not with the purpose of imposing
the
teaching on the Church as a matter of faith. The pope as a private
person
can turn his back on the Tradition of the Church, and he can err in so
doing, but no pope has ever infallibly imposed such a teaching on the
Church
as a matter of faith.
It is important to note that the First Vatican Council prefaced
its
definition on the infallibility of the teaching office of the Roman
pontiff
by setting the traditional context within which this infallibility must
be
exercised if it is to be considered valid:
Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus
est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, se ut eo
assistente traditam per apostolos revelationem seu fidei
depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent.
[For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some
new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might
religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation
or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.
The pope must speak in conformity with Sacred Scripture and
Sacred
Tradition, as he has been given no authority to act outside the authority
given him by his Principal, that is, Christ. The pope is the Vicar of
Christ, as such must act in conformity with the commands of his
principal.
If the Vice President of the United States issued an order contrary to
that
of the President, do you think that the former would have any validity?
Of
course not.
=========================================================================
===
PAPAL AND SPANISH INQUISITIONS
The Church does not have to apologize for the Papal Inquisition,
the
most just and benign tribunal of its time, in the opinion of historians.
It
protected the rights of defendants and established a level of Christian
jurisprudence that the far more death-dealing Protestant countries of the
time were far from attaining.
More false information has been circulated against the Church on
the
topic of the Papal Inquisition than on any other topic. Many Catholics,
including (it seems) the modern Vatican, have simply accepted the common
misconception and unhistorical myth for purposes of "political
correctness."
Until the 13th century the official policy of the Church
regarding
heretics followed the teaching of St. Paul, St. Augustine of Hippo, St.
John Chrysostom, St. Cyprian of Carthage and other Fathers of the early
Church, that heretics were to be permitted full religious liberty and
were not to be harmed in any manner, other than exclusion from the
Christian community.
As St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote: "Of what use is cruelty? What
has the rack to do with piety? Surely, there is no connection between
truth and violence, justice and cruelty.... It is true that nothing is
so important as religion, and one must defend it, but by dying for it,
not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not
by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and
torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For
nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion."
Beginning in the 13th century, however, the Albigensian heretics,
against whom St. Dominic preached, had become emboldened not just to
preach a non-Catholic doctrine, but overtly began, with aggression and
hostility, to attack the Catholic Church, the Holy Mass, the Sacraments,
and the doctrines of the Church as a whole. In addition, with anarchist
tendencies, they began to undermine the moral basis of human society by
subverting oaths, denying the right of the state to punish criminals,
forbidding marriage and procreation, and encouraging suicide, especially
by starvation.
Therefore, the Papal Inquisition, a system of ecclesiastical
courts for trying and punishing heresy, was established in 1230, with
jurisdiction over Catholics and fallen-away Catholics only. These
courts were commissioned to seek first the reformation of the heretics
by warnings or slight penances, which most accepted. Their scrupulous
rules
of procedures protected the accused with more safeguards than defendants
in
modern courts receive today.
Only relapsed or intransigent heretics were eventually found
guilty
and, as the ecclesiastical courts' authority ended there, were turned
over
to
the state, which at that time considered heresy a crime of anarchy and
high
treason, undermining the state. The Papal Inquisition was revived in the
15th century to deal with false conversions of Jews and Mohammedans (the
so-
called conversos), and in the 16th century to deal with the virulent
Protestant heresy that was sweeping Europe.
Individual Protestants may have been sincerely religious, but
Protestantism, as a movement, began as an instrument of greed and bloody
tyranny in the hands of Martin Luther and others, which produced civil
and
international wars, enslaved the common people under the principle that
their
ruler might determine their religion by the principle "cuius regio, eius
religio," and led directly to absolutist nationalism.
Even the Spanish Inquisition (as distinguished from the Papal
Inquisition) did not proceed against sincere followers of any religion,
but
only against those Spaniards, Jews, and Moors who, having once been
members
of the Catholic Faith, pretended to be Catholics, but had actually given
up
their faith and become involved in treacheries against Spain.
Circa 1492, the top Jews in Spain had wormed their way into high
positions of Church and State by pretending to be Christians. These
false
Marrano Jews, as they were called, were working with the Muslims across
the
strait of Gibraltar to overthrow Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, and
turn
a Christian country into a Moslem country.
Queen Isabella reacted in time and instituted the Spanish
Inquisition, which was constituted to inquire who were the false Marrano
Jews
were who were working in Church and in State to betray both. The Spanish
Inquisition was not a mad rampage where millions were killed
indiscriminately, but a careful rooting out of traitors who were about to
betray and perhaps destroy Spain first, and then Christian Europe.
In a recent documentary produced by the British Broadcasting
Corporation (certainly not a pro-Catholic organization!) called "The Myth
of
the Spanish Inquisition," historians presented their conclusions from the
first-time-ever study of the actual cases taken from the archives of the
Inquisition itself, from which they are discovering that the common
notion
of
the Spanish Inquisition as some horrible, fanatical, all-encompassing
blood-
thirsty monster could not be further from the truth.
The documentary stresses that the Spanish Inquisition was
governed
by
very strict manuals of procedure, which spelled out what could and could
not
be done. By contrast to the other (Protestant) tribunals of Europe, they
emerge as almost enlightened. Anyone breaking the rules was sacked. The
inquisitors were interrogators, but restrained interrogators, skeptical
of
the usefulness of hardship and torture. The torture chamber was never
used
in Spain. It was practiced in the Protestant Northern European countries
at
the time. For example, the register of Bernard Gui (1261-1331), the
Inquisitor of Toulouse for six years, who examined more than 600
heretics,
shows only one instance where a (mild) torture was used. In the vast
majority of cases, those who were found guilty were enjoined to say some
prayers, or perhaps recite the Seven Penitential Psalms.
The documentary notes that from 1450 to 1750 there was a terrible
persecution of witchcraft in the Protestant countries of Europe and in
the
United States. At the merest accusation of horrible crimes such as
killing
babies or sleeping with the devil, women were tortured or burned at the
stake. The Papal Inquisition, however, said that witchcraft was a
delusion,
and in fact no one could be tried or burned for it.
In Protestant Europe 150,000 persons were prosecuted for the
crime
of
witchcraft, and perhaps half that number were condemned and executed. In
one
year alone (1692), in the United States, the Protestant Salem Witch
Trials
executed 20 "witches." Protestants even sold as slaves those they
considered
heretics, like Anne Hutchinson, under the authority of the General Court
of
Boston, and four of them were hanged, including the Quaker, Mary Dyer.
Historian John Tedeschi described the Papal Inquisition as "not a
drumhead court, a chamber of horrors, or a judicial labyrinth from which
escape was impossible. Capricious and arbitrary decisions, misuse of
authority, and wanton abuse of human rights were not tolerated."
The Inquisitors were theological experts who followed the rules
and "instructiones" meticulously and were dismissed and punished when
they showed too little regard for justice. When, for example, in 1223
Robert of Bourger gleefully announced his aim to burn heretics, not to
convert them, he was immediately suspended and imprisoned for life by
Pope
Gregory IX. (Maycock, The Inquisition, pp. 128-129)
If these are the facts of the Inquisition, how has the myth that
many
today associate with the Papal Inquisition attained such currency? In
fact,
the myth is known to have been manufactured. It is known by whom. The
common misconception, moreover, confuses the highly-political Spanish
Inquisition (1480-1834), which was conducted by the Spanish government
for
secular political purposes, from the Papal Inquisition, which was
conducted
by the Church under strict canonical rules.
In the 16th century, a body of writings, termed the "Black
Legend," which vilified both Spain and her Catholic faith, emanated from
the Protestant countries of Northern Europe, which were in a pitched
political battle with Catholic Spain, then the great continental power.
Her Protestant enemies were jealous of Spain, and many resorted to the
lie of the Black Legend to help bring down Spanish power and control.
This Black Legend is known to have been fabricated principally by
one Montanus (Renaldo Gonzales Montano), who in 1567 published his
Sanctae Inquisitionis Hispanicae Artes Aliqout Detectae ac Palam
Traductae (A Discovery and Playne Declaration of Sundry and Subtill
Practices
of the Holy Inquisition of Spayne), which was soon translated from Latin
into
all the major languages of Western Europe (English, French, German, and
Dutch) and widely circulated. In this work, which one would call
"racist"
today, Spaniards were described by the Protestant Northern European
sources
as dark, cruel, greedy, treacherous, ignorant, and narrow. The Papal
Inquisition was fiercely attacked with gross exaggeration.
Myth can be destroyed only by fact, and the fact is that between
3000
and 5000 people were killed in the 350 years of the Inquisition, whereas
during that same period in Protestant countries 150,000 witches alone
were
burned for heresy. As Prof. Stephen Haliczer of Northern University of
Illinois verifies, the Inquisition never used the method of torture that
were
common in Protestant countries -- disembowling and gouging out of the
eyes,
for example. The Inquisition compared to other tribunals in the
Protestant
countries has virtually a clean record in respect to torture.
For example, Spain and Spanish America executed during the 350
years of the Inquisition only 40-50 were executed, in comparison to the
Protestant English Inquisition, which during just the reigns of Mary and
Elizabeth (1553-1603) executed 400 people, and in the anti-Catholic
persecutions generally, 72,000 souls. In England, thousands of
defendants
were being executed for crimes as insignificant as damaging shrubs in
public gardens, poaching deer, and stealing a woman's handkerchief. Yet
these facts are generally hidden through a very successful campaign by
Elizabeth, which historians call the "Mask of Elizabethan Propaganda."
Thus, it was a combination of political rivalry, contempt for the
Catholic faith, and anti-Spanish nationalism that has created a distorted
myth of the Inquisition. In the United States, abetting that myth were
the admittedly brilliant and unforgettable, though fictional, short-
stories of the master story-teller Edgar Allan Poe.
Recently, a study of 61 volumes of the procesos (official trial
records) of the Mexican branch (1593-1817) of the Papal Inquisition was
conducted by two University of California scholars. Profs. Thomas Brady
and Arthur Quinn (California Monthly, April 1997, pp. 18-19) confirmed
that, in contrast to the secular criminal procedures of the time, the
Papal Inquisition allowed counsel to the defendant, required a formal
charge, and gave judges wide discretion in mitigating sentences (most of
which were religious in nature, like the recitation of the Seven
Penitential Psalms or wearing a cross).
The scholars concluded that the trials were "remarkably fair
and weighted heavily on the side of the accused." They further
concluded: "Long-held myths represent and nourish deeply felt needs,
but they must be abandoned because they falsify history."
=========================================================================
===
PAPAL TIARA
The pope's traditional triple-crowned ("beehive") tiara
represents
several things:
* The pope's priestly offices and powers: to teach, to rule, and to
sanctify -- as teacher, lawgiver, and judge.
* The pope's authority over the Church Militant, Church Suffering, and
Church Triumphant.
* The pope's threefold sovereign authority: the first crown standing for
the pope's universal episcopate (power of orders); the second, for his
universal jurisdiction (spiritual power); and the third, for his right to
govern the Patrimony of St. Peter and other States of the Church, and his
rights as Vicar of Christ in relation to other sovereigns and states
(temporal power).
* The Holy Trinity
In the Coronation rite of the Pope, which took place by the
imposition of the tiara with three crowns, says: "Receive the tiara
adorned
with three crowns and know that thou art the father of princes and kings,
to
direct them on earth, the Vicar of our Savior, Jesus Christ, to Whom be
honor and glory for ever and ever."
At the end of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI descended
the
steps of the papal throne in St. Peter's Basilica and laid the tiara on
the
altar, as "a sign of the renunciation of human glory and power, keeping
with
the renewed spirit of Vatican II." By that act he seemed to be rejecting
the
Roman Catholic dogma on the papacy, as defined by the First Vatican
Council
in favor of some non-Catholic view of an "oecumenical, collegial" primus
inter pares.
The papal tiara was presented to the National Shrine of the
Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., on February 6, 1968, by the
Apostolic Delegate and is featured there as part of the papal exhibit
entitled, "Vatican Treasures." It is on permanent display in Memorial
Hall
along with the stole of Pope John XXIII, which the latter wore at the
opening
of the Second Vatican Council.
Pope Paul VI was the last pope to be crowned. Some argue that by
refusing to be crowned, the succeeding popes too were implicitly
rejecting
the traditional dogmatic teaching on the papacy. John Paul II strongly
seems
to imply so in his 1995 Encyclical "Ut Unum Sint."
During a visit to the United Nations in October 1965, Pope Paul
VI
had given Secretary General U Thant, a Buddhist, a pectoral cross of
diamonds
and emeralds and an episcopal ring of diamonds and rubies, valued then at
about 150,000 dollars, and asked that the proceeds be used to start a
United
Nations Freedom from Hunger Campaign. These sacred items were purchased
in
1967 by Chicago jeweler Harry Levinson at an auction for 64,000 dollars.
The sacred items were next seen decking the person of a female
performer who appeared on "Late Night with Johnny Carson" and were then
possessed by stuntman Evel Knievel. Most recently, a North Carolina
widow
got possession of them and hired Perry's Emporium to sell the items. On
April 12, 2011, Alan Perry announced that he would auction the sacred
items
on eBay for between 800,000 and 900,000 dollars.
=========================================================================
===
PHENOMENOLOGY
The true philosophy and theology of the Church is what is known
as
"Scholastic Philosophy." This is the greatest philosophical structure
developed by the mind of man, founded upon the best of high classical
philosophy, particularly Aristotle, and developed for Christian purposes
from
the early Church. It reached its height in the work of the Universal
Doctor
of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and therefore also becomes
known as "Thomism."
Crowning the testimonies of popes in praise of St. Thomas Aquinas
is
that of Pope Innocent VI (1352-1362): "His doctrine above all other
doctrine, with the one exception of the Holy Scriptures, has such a
propriety
of words, such a method of explanation, such a truth of opinions, that no
one
who holds it will ever be found to have strayed from the path of truth;
whereas anyone who has attacked it has always been suspected as to the
truth."
Pope Leo XIII in his 1879 encyclical "Aeterni Patris," On the
Restoration of Christian Philosophy according to the Mind of St. Thomas
Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, canonized the primacy of St. Thomas Aquinas
and
Scholastic Philosophy in Catholicism. He wrote: "Let, then, teachers
carefully chosen by you do their best to instill the doctrine of Thomas
Aquinas into the minds of their hearers; and let them clearly point out
its
solidity and excellence above all other teaching.... Let it be used for
the
refutation of errors that are gaining ground."
St. Thomas held to a what is known as "moderate realism," the
philosophy that all knowledge begins in the senses and that the human
mind
can move from knowledge of material things to a knowledge of supernatural
and
spiritual things.
Phenomenology attempts to base human knowledge on the
"phenomena,"
that is, what appears to the human mind, rather than on an exploration of
external existing things. Whether a thing truly exists or not is
unimportant
to a phenomenologist; only what he cogitates exists for him.
Moreover, phenomenology describes "meaning" as the combined
observations of a multitude of observers, past, present, and future.
Thus,
meaning can never be isolated. The true meaning of a symphony may never
be
known, because it resides alternatively in the written score, what was in
the
mind of the composer, the variety of performances different orchestras
and
different conductors, and also involves future performances.
One can easily see how this philosophy is one of the modernist
"subjectivist" philosophies, basing itself not on an external reality or
standard, but upon one's own personal conceptions. Thus, it easily leads
to
moral relativism and dependence upon personal or subjective opinion
("what
feels good") as opposed to external or objective reality (e.g., the Ten
Commandments).
It is quite compatible, therefore, with the New Order, which
seeks
to
substitute for the objective doctrine of the Church mere popular opinion.
On
the other hand, the Novus Ordo rejects Scholastic Philosophy because it
applies the test of objective reality, which the Novus Ordo fails.
Because
Novus Ordoism is vague and subjective, it frequently expresses itself in
language that is vague and ambiguous -- so-called "Vatican II-speak."
=========================================================================
===
POPE "JOAN"
At about the time of Pope Leo IV (847-855), some anti-Catholic
polemicists alleged that a so-called "Pope Joan" held the papal office.
There is in fact, no truth in the story of the woman-pope. The legend is
based on ignorance of Latin, since this purported "Joan" is simply the
common
abbreviation "Joan," for "Joannes" (John) in early mediaeval manuscripts!
In fact, it was a Protestant Calvinist who first (1657)
demonstrated the unhistorical character of the allegation. He was
followed by Petrarch, Leibniz, Dollinger, and all historians since. An
array
of reference books, from the Encyclopaedia Britannica to the Oxford
Dictionary of Popes, as well as Edward Gibbon, author of "The Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire," dismiss "Pope Joan" as a mythical or legendary
figure, no more real than Paul Bunyan or Old King Cole.
The chief weakness of the Pope Joan story is the absence of any
contemporary evidence of a female pope during the dates suggested for her
reign. In each instance, clerical records show someone else holding the
papacy and doing the deeds that are transcribed in church history.
Another problem is the gap between the alleged event and the news
of
it. Not until the 13th century -- 400 years after Joan, by the most
accepted
accounts, ruled -- does any mention of a female pope appear in any
documents.
That's akin to word breaking out just now that England in 1600 had a
queen
named Elizabeth.
So, if a woman didn't become pope, what did happen? One
explanation
is that somebody was trying to be humorous. On the narrow Roman street,
where Joan was supposed to have been exposed as a woman in the papal
procession, is called the Vicus Papissa, named after the wealthy family
of
Giovanni Pape. Years after the Papes were gone, it is suggested that a
visitor joked that Vicus Papissa meant "the street of the woman pope
[papissa]" instead of what it really means, "the street of Mrs. Pape"!
=========================================================================
===
POPE PIUS IX AND THE JEWS
When Pope Pius IX was beatified on September 10, 2000, there were
a
number of articles in the liberal press that seemed to be smearing his
reputation, claiming that he was "anti-Semitic." Here is the report
given
in
Inside the Vatican, August-September 2000, giving the Catholic
understanding
of the situation at the time.
"Edgardo Mortara was the son of Italian Jewish parents. In 1852,
when he was just two, he was thought to be fatally ill. Doctors
reportedly
declared he would not live. His young Catholic nursemaid, on hearing
this
and fearing for his soul, baptized him. The doctor called the boy's
subsequent recovery "surprising." Several years later, when civil
authorities were told of the secret baptism, Pius IX faced a dilemma.
The
law in the Papal States at that time required baptized children to be
given
Christian religious instruction in order to ensure their eternal
salvation.
Could the baptized child be left with his parents if they refused to give
this instruction?
"Pius was not just the Pope; he was also the civil ruler of the
Papal
States. Moreover, might not Edgardo have been saved from death by a
divine
act? Pius felt obligated as Pope, as civil ruler of the land, and by the
strange circumstances of the baptism, to see to it that Edgardo would be
educated as a Catholic. He appealed to the child's parents. Would they
see
to it that the boy would be so educated? Understandably, they refused.
"The civil authorities took their decision. Edgardo was removed
from
his parents' home at the age of seven and brought to Rome. There Pius IX
personally directed Edgardo's education, and was like a father to him....
A
decade passed.
"Edgardo returned to his parents' home at the age of 18, was
reconciled with his mother and father, and had the choice of what
religion
to
follow. He decided to stay with his parents only for a month. He
remained
a
Catholic, then chose to enter a seminary. He was ordained a priest in
1873,
and remained one his entire life. When Pius IX's cause opened, the
elderly
Edgardo appeared as one of the first witnesses, and testified to Pius
IX's
kindness, virtue, and holiness....
"It seems clear from the historical record, in fact, that Pius
had
no
hatred of Jews. Upon his election in 1846, he was hailed by Jews as
their
best friend in Italy. In 1847, Mose Israel Kazzan, Chief Rabbi at the
Israeli University in Rome, dedicated a psalm and prayer to the "glorious
and
immortal" Pope....
"On the night of April 17-18, 1848, Pius IX ordered that the
doors
of
the Jewish ghetto be knocked down. He abrogated the undignified and
humiliating tasks the Jews were forced to carry out. He declared that
"they
were not foreigners," and had their streets patrolled to protect them
from a
popular uprising that had broken out against the ghetto's emancipation.
=========================================================================
===
POPE PIUS XII AND THE "HOLOCAUST"
Both the quantity and quality of Holocaust awareness shifted
drastically between the 1940s and the 1980s.... During the early postwar
years, American consciousness of the Holocaust had a far more
universalistic
focus -- that is, while emphasizing that Hitler had murdered millions of
people, it did not focus on any one group of victims, and certainly did
not
focus exclusively on the Jews. In a sense, Americans in the 40s and 50s
regarded the whole war as Hitler's holocaust (the word was not generally
capitalized at that time).... The feeling was that the Holocaust was an
attack on humanity, and that was the way it ought to be remembered.
Today,
of course, we find the Holocaust treated more and more as an almost
exclusively Jewish event, one which is so absolutely unique that even
making
comparisons between it and other atrocities is viewed as diminishing the
suffering of the Jewish people. --George A. Kendall, Inside the Vatican
(June-July 2000), p. 49.
Although the media constantly fixate on the Jewish "holocaust,"
they
rarely if ever mention the Christian "holocaust." Thomas J. Craughwell,
author of The Gentile Holocaust, reports that by the end of World War II
(1939-1944), approximately 6,000,000 Poles -- 22% of the population --
had
died. Half of these were Catholic. Among them, the Nazis killed six
bishops, 2,030 priests, 127 seminarians, 173 lay brothers, and 243 nuns.
The
records of the Nuremberg war-crimes trials show that in Czechoslovakia,
for
example, 437 Catholic priests were arrested and sent to concentration
camps
when the war began. When Warsaw was taken in 1939, the Nazis arrested
some
330 priests. By January 1941 in Poland about 700 priests had been
killed,
and 3000 more were in prison or concentration camps. In Dachau alone, at
least 2,600 Catholic priests died.
Nor do the media talk much about the genocide against Christians
in
the Soviet Union by the Communist thugs, many of whom were Jews. For the
slaughter of Christians by Jewish Communists -- which began in 1918 along
with the first concentration camps of the 20th century -- led to the
death
of
20,000,000 people before World War II and, by 1953, to the death of
40,000,000 people, most of whom were Christians. In the end, the Soviet
Union mega-murders killed nearly 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is
responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps
around 39,000,000, are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit
thereto.
On the contrary, the record of the Catholic Church and Pope Pius
XII
is exemplary and surpasses that of any other European government. The
Vatican saved 800,000 Jews from the camps, more than all other rescue
operations, including those run by Jews, according to Israeli diplomat
Pinchas E. Lapide (The Last Three Popes and the Jews, London: Souvenir
Press, 1967). Pope Pius XII was instrumental in protecting the Jews of
Rome,
even to the point of gathering 50 kilograms of gold to provide ransom
money
to save them from imprisonment. The historical fact is that nowhere in
Europe were more Jews saved than in Italy -- 85%, and Pius XII was the
one
who orchestrated this effort.
He also ordered that all monasteries and convents be opened to
hide
Jewish refugees, and the Vatican coordinated a wide effort to obtain
passports and other documents to help thousands of Jews to escape. At
the
end of the war, the chief rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, was converted to
Catholicism and chose for his baptismal name, Eugenio, after the pontiff.
In his lifetime, Pius XII received more praise and expressions of
gratitude from the Jewish people than any other Bishop of Rome in
history.
Among these was Albert Einstein, who wrote a letter to "Time" magazine in
December 1940 stating: "Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution
came
in Germany looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had
always boasted of their devotion to the case of truth; but no, the
universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great
editors
of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed
their love of freedom. But they, like the universities, were silenced in
a
few short weeks. Only the Church stood squarely across the path of
Hitler's
campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the
Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because
the
Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for
intellectual
truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess, that what I once
despised, I now praise unreservedly."
The praise for the courage of Pope Pius XII in being the only
European head of state to speak out during the war was well summed up by
a
New York Times editorial of December 25, 1942, which stated: "The voice
of
Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe
this
Christmas.... He is about the only ruler left on the continent of Europe
who
dares to raise his voice at all."
Further developments indicate that Pope Pius's behavior was
exemplary
in comparison to some Jews' actions toward their own people. The
Associated
Press has reported that Shlomo Ben-Izri, a member of the Israeli Knesset,
charged on August 14, 2000, that the leaders of the Jewish Zionist
movement
"did nothing to try to smuggle deeply devout Jews out of Eastern Europe
to
Palestine.... The Zionist leaders said they preferred a cow in Ein Harod
[a
communal farm] to a religious Jew from East Germany." Pope Pius XII
certainly smuggled many Jews to safety through the convents in Rome and
throughout Italy.
Good sources for a balanced view on the subject are the
following:
* Harold C. Deutsch, The Conspiracy against Hitler in the Twilight War
(University of Minnesota Press, 1968)
* Pinchas E. Lapide (Israeli diplomat and historian), The Last Three
popes
and the Jews and A Vatican Lifeline (with William Simpson, a British
Presbyterian prisoner of war in Rome and Msgr. O'Flaherty of the Vatican
underground)
* Margherita Marchione, Yours Is a Precious Witness, a well-researched
book full of facts from Catholic, Jewish, and secular historians
* Pope Pius XII: Architect for Peace, making available for the first
time
English translations of Vatican documents and wartime correspondence
* Michael O'Carroll, Pius XII: Greatness Dishonored (Roman Catholic
Books)
* Anthony Rhodes, The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators (1922-1945)
(Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973)
* Ronald J. Rychlak, (University of Mississippi law professor), Hitler,
the War, and the Pope (Genesis Press), a book that defends the wartime
role
of Pius XII, which Rabbi David Dalin, writing for The Weekly Standard,
singled out from among numerous books on Pope Pius XII, calling it "the
best
and most careful of the recent works, an elegant tome of serious,
critical
scholarship"
* Evghenija Tokareva, Fascism, the Church and the Catholic Movement in
Italy: 1922-1943, the first Russian monograph, maintaining that Pius
XII's
attitude toward Nazism "was dictated by prudence" and assures that "the
Vatican was not subject to an anti-Jewish policy"
=========================================================================
===
PRIESTESSES
Only a baptized male can be validly ordained a priest. Divine
positive law excludes women from strictly priestly functions. Such is
the
teaching of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:11) as interpreted
by
the Fathers and as acted upon in the Church, so that certain sects
(Pepuzians or Quintillians, and Collyridians) that admitted women to the
priesthood were condemned as heretics.
Moreover, although widows and deaconesses were allowed by the
Church
to perform ceremonies that had no sacramental efficacy and to exercise
certain functions in respect of female catechumens, the sick, and the
poor,
they were never considered as sharing in the true office of deacon.
Even the Newchurch of the New Order, which is not Catholic, has
(so
far) maintained this doctrine of the Church, in the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the [New Order] Faith's Declaration "Inter Insigniores"
(Declaration on the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood) of
October 15, 1976 (AAS 69 [1977], pp. 98-116), which gives a detailed
summary
of the traditional doctrine, albeit couched in Modernist language. Even
Newpope JPII-Wojtyla confirmed this teaching in an arguendo infallible
form
in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" of May 22, 1994.
=========================================================================
===
PRIESTLY CELIBACY
Priestly celibacy has a biblical basis in the evangelical counsel
of
Our Lord as relayed in St. Matthew's Gospel (19:12), in St. Luke's Gospel
(20:35), also taken up by St. Paul in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians
(7:8-9, 25-27, and especially 32-33), and confirmed by St. John in the
Apocalypse (14:4). It is clear that once the Apostles received the call,
they did not lead a married life.
The tradition of priestly celibacy was solemnly proclaimed by the
Council of Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Council, in 325. Canon No. 3,
unanimously approved by the Fathers, admitted of no exceptions
whatsoever. The Council considered that the prohibition imposed thereby
on
all bishops, priests, and deacons against having a wife absolute. All
subsequent councils that have addressed the subject have renewed this
interdiction. Pope Siricius, in 385, condemns clergy not observing
celibacy,
writing that they are to be deposed.
Not only would it be a violation of Sacred Tradition to blot out
a
custom decreed for 2,000 years to be absolutely obligatory, but also one
must recognize that priestly celibacy is to be seen not merely as of
ecclesiastical institution, but part of what is more broadly known in
Catholic moral theology as "divine positive law," initiated by Christ and
His Apostles. That is, it is not merely disciplinary in nature.
The Council of Elvira in 304 stated that all bishops, priests,
and
deacons, and all other clerics should abstain completely from marrying.
The Council of Carthage in 390 stated that celibacy is of
Apostolic origin.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315-403): "It is the Apostles
themselves who decreed this law."
St. Jerome (ca. 342-420): "Priests and deacons must be either
virgins or widowers before being ordained, or at least observe perpetual
continence after their ordination.... If married men find this
difficult to endure, they should not turn against me, but rather against
Holy Writ and the entire ecclesiastical order."
Pope St. Innocent I (401-417): "This is not a matter of imposing
upon the clergy new and arbitrary obligations, but rather of reminding
them of those which the tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers has
transmitted to us."
St. Peter Damian (1007-1072) wrote: "No one can be ignorant of
the fact that all the Fathers of the Catholic Church unanimously imposed
the inviolable rule of continence on clerics in major orders."
The Second Lateran Council of 1139 confirmed that clergy are
forbidden to marry.
There is a reason for this Tradition. The cleric in major
orders,
by virtue of his ordination, contracts a marriage with the Church, and
he cannot be a bigamist. St. Jerome in his treatise "Adversus
Jovinianum," bases priestly celibacy on the virginity of Christ.
The universal law of priestly celibacy confirmed by the Council
of
Nicaea applied, and still applies, to the Eastern Church as well as the
Western. It is noteworthy that at that Council, the Easterns (Greeks)
made up the overwhelming majority. Previously, the Council of Neo-
Caesarea (314) had reminded all Eastern clerics in major orders of the
inviolability of this law under pain of deposition.
The Eastern Church began at a late date to violate its own law of
celibacy. The Quinisext Council of 692, which St. Bede the Venerable
(673-735) called "a reprobate synod," breached the Apostolic Tradition
concerning the celibacy of clerics by declaring that "all clerics except
bishops may continue in wedlock." The popes refused to endorse the
conclusions of the Council in the mater of celibacy, and the Eastern
Church planted the seeds of its schism.
The German scholar, Stefan Heid, in his book, Celibacy in the
Early
Church, demonstrates that continence-celibacy after ordination to the
priesthood was the absolute norm from the start -- even for the separated
married ordinand -- a triumph of grace over nature, so to speak. The
Eastern
practice we now see was a mitigation of the rule, not, as the Modernists
like
to claim, the original practice from which the Roman Catholic Church
diverged.
=========================================================================
===
PURGATORY
It is a de-fide (dogmatic) teaching of the Catholic Church that
"the souls of the just, which, in the moment of death, are burdened with
venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter Purgatory." No
pope or council can ever abrogate a dogmatic teaching of the Church.
We receive teaching about the Christian Faith not only from
Sacred Scripture (the Bible) but also from Sacred Tradition. The former
includes a limited amount of teaching that was written down; the latter
includes all the Apostolic teaching that was not written down.
Scripture itself refers to the authority of the latter in several
passages (John 20:30 and 21:25, 2 Thessalonians 2:14, inter alia).
In fact, Sacred Scripture can itself be regarded as a part of
Sacred Tradition, as how otherwise would we know which books constitute
the Bible except through the Apostolic Tradition? After all, Christ
never handed his apostles a specific book, saying, "Here, follow this
book."
The main source of the dogma on Purgatory is Sacred Tradition,
based on passages from Sacred Scripture. Such early Church Fathers as
St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Cyprian of Carthage, and St.
Gregory the Great all use Scriptural passages to support the Christian
teaching on the existence of Purgatory.
The passages of Sacred Scripture that adumbrate this doctrine are
numerous, according to the Fathers:
* 2 Machabees 12:42-46
* Matthew 5:25-26
* Matthew 12:32 (according to St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei 21:24
and St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4:39). The text clearly implies
that sins other than the sin against the Holy Ghost (the stubborn
refusal of the sinner to repent) may be forgiven "in the world to
come," referring to Purgatory.
* Matthew 18:34
* 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 (according to Origen, Hom., 6, Exod.;
St. Jerome, In Amos, 4; St. Ambrose, Ser. 20, in Ps. 117;
St. Augustine, In Ps. 27, St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei 21:24;
St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4:39). St. Paul tells us that the
soul
of an imperfect man will be ultimately be saved, though he will
suffer for a time as by fire, that is, Purgatory.
* 1 Corinthians 15:29
* Philippians 2:10 (referring to the three traditional divisions of
the Church, namely, the Church Triumphant "in heaven," the Church
Militant "on earth," and the Church Suffering "under the earth)
* Hebrews 12:23
* 1 Peter 1:6
* Apocalypse 21:27
Moreover, the Jews prayed in biblical times prayed for the repose
of
the souls of their deceased relatives and friends. No synagogue service
was
complete without the Kaddish, called "Prayers for the Dead." Following
this
practice of Old Testament times, the Jews of our day pray for their
parents
on the day of death, on the third, seventh, and thirtieth days afterward,
and
on the anniversary of their deaths. For the Jews believe that their dead
go
to a place like Purgatory, where they remain for a time and are aided by
the
prayers of their friends.
The real question is how Martin Luther and the Protestants that
followed him can disregard not only the Old and New Testaments but also
the
continuous practice of the Jews from the time before the coming of Christ
to
our own, as well as the continuous practice of the Christian Church for
fifteen hundred years? The doctrine of Purgatory is so interwoven with
other
doctrine and the consistent Gospel of Christ that the denial of this
doctrine
logically means the denial of many others and implication in heresy.
=========================================================================
===
"RAPTURE"
St. Paul, in his First Letter to the Thessalonians 4:16, writes:
"Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up [Greek
"hapargesometha"] together with them [the dead in Christ 4:15] in the
clouds
to meet Christ, into the air: and so shall we be always with the Lord."
Some Fundamentalist Protestants hold to the error of
Millennialism, believing that Christ will actually reign as king over
the entire earth for a thousand-year period at some time in the future.
These Protestants read the passage as meaning that the entire Church
would be taken to meet Christ in the air on a cloud ("raptured out") at
the start of the Millennium.
Against this error is the fact that this notion was first taken
from a marginal commentary in a Protestant Bible and over time was given
a life of its own. St. Augustine, enunciating the belief of the
Fathers and Doctors of the Church, held that the thousand-year
period allegorically refers to all of time after the death and
resurrection of Christ and that those who are alive at the Lord's second
coming (parousia) will be "caught up," that is, changed by the power of
God from being corruptible and mortal to being incorruptible and
immortal (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51, 2 Cor. 5:2-4).
=========================================================================
===
RUBRICS OF 1956 AND 1962 ("1962 MISSAL")
It is the common belief among many traditional Catholics that
Pope
John XXIII made no real changes in the Missal as promulgated by him in
1962,
but in fact those who accept the 1962 changes are logically forced to
accept
the reason for which they were promulgated, i.e., an interim liturgical
reform dependent upon the changes that would be wrought by Vatican II.
Those
who accept the 1962 changes (like the Indultarians) are forced to accept
also
the other disciplines that came with them. They are forced to turn back
the
clock of time to the turbulent years of the 1960s with all the anguish of
those changes that lead to such devastation of the Church. Why should
traditional Catholics go back and accept that which ushered revolutionary
changes into the Church and ultimately give birth to a whole new
religion?
The destruction of the Catholic Mass and its replacement with a
neo-
Protestant communion service was the result of a concerted effort (or
conspiracy) by a group of Modernists. It is an undisputed fact that the
Novus Ordo worship service was composed under the supervision of Hannibal
Bugnini with the assistance of six Protestant ministers, with whom Pope
Paul
VI did not hesitate to pose in an historic 1970 photograph. The six were
Dr.
George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shepherd, Dr. Kunneth, Dr. Smith, and Brother
Max
Thurian, representing respectively the World Council of Churches, the
Anglican and Lutheran communions, and the French Protestant Taize
community.
After the Consilium had met and finished its work, Dr. Smith, the
Lutheran representative, publicly boasted, "We have finished the work
that
Martin Luther began." Thurian later recanted, publishing an article
highly
critical of the Novus Ordo, including the statement that "the great
problem
of contemporary liturgical life (apathy towards worship, boredom, lack of
vitality and participation) stems from the fact that the celebration has
sometimes lost its character as mystery, which fosters the spirit of
adoration."
The conspiracy to destroy the Traditional Latin Mass was already
at
work in high places in the Vatican during the 1950's (perhaps taking
greater
control in the mortal illness of Pope Pius XII in the last years of his
reign) and early 1960s. In those years Bugnini and Ferdinando Antonelli
(who
later signed the decree promulgating the Novus Ordo worship service)
headed
a
"Commission for Liturgical Reform," which authored the various liturgical
innovations introduced in the 1950s and during the reign of Pope John
XXIII.
These Innovators freely admitted that the gradual changes that
they
introduced were part of an overall program to create a new form of
worship.
Bugnini quoted a fellow "liturgist"'s comments on the radical changes
introduced in 1956 to the ancient form of the Holy Week rites as follows:
"No doubt it is still too early to assess the full import of this
document,
which marks an important turning-point in the history of the rites of the
Roman liturgy.... This reform is only the first step toward measures of
wider scope, and it is not possible to judge accurately of a part except
when
it is placed in its whole."
The Innovators of these insidious changes introduced in the 1950s
and
early 1960s viewed them as steps in their plan to create a new form of
worship. It seems only consistent that traditional Catholics who reject
the
Novus Ordo worship service reject as well the steps that led to it.
("The
Roman Catholic", September 1984)
=========================================================================
===
SACRAMENTS: THEIR TRUE MATTER AND FORM
For the traditional Roman Rite.
BAPTISM:
Matter: water.
Form: "Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."
Scripture: Matthew 28:18-20.
CONFIRMATION:
Matter: Holy Chrism.
Form: "Signo te signo Crucis, et confirmo te Chrismate salutis. In
nomine
Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.
Scripture: Acts 8:14-17.
HOLY EUCHARIST:
Matter: Wheaten bread and grape wine.
Form: "Hoc est enim Corpus meum." "Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei,
novi
et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis
effundetur in remissionem peccatorum."
Scripture: Matthew 26:26-28.
PENANCE:
Matter: the confession of the sin and the request for pardon.
Form: "Ego te absolvo."
Scripture: John 20:21-23.
EXTREME UNCTION:
Matter: anointing of the senses with oil.
Form: the prayer pronounced for the pardon of sins ("Per istam sanctam
unctionem, indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid delequisti").
Scripture: James 5:14-15.
HOLY ORDERS:
Matter: imposition of hands.
Form: "Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos Presbyterii
dignitatem; innova in visceribus eorum spiritum sanctitatis; ut acceptum
a
te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant, censuramque morum examplo suae
conversationis insinuent."
Scripture: Luke 22:19.
MATRIMONY:
Matter: The contract itself is the Sacrament, the contracting parties
are
its ministers, their own persons are the matter affected.
Form: The expression of their mutual consent.
Scripture: Matthew 19:6.
These Sacraments were replaced in the Newchurch of the New Order with
invalid Protestantized forms and made into non-sacraments in Newchurch
(traditional Catholic churches, chapels, and oratories maintain the
traditional forms administered by traditional Catholic priests):
18 Jun 1968 - Holy Orders - replaced with invalid Protestant forms;
priests were replaced by Protetstantized
"presbyters" (ministers)
19 Mar 1969 Marriage - traditional rite replaced
O4 Apr 1969 Holy Eucharist - the true Mass (Traditional Latin Mass)
was replaced with the invalid
Protestantized
"New Mass" (which is not a Mass)
15 May 1969 Baptism - traditional rite replaced
22 Aug 1971 Confirmation - replaced by an invalid Protestantized form
30 Nov 1972 Extreme Unction - replaced by an invalid
"Blessing of the Sick"
02 Dec 1973 Penance - replaced by an invalild
Protestantized "Reconciliation"
=========================================================================
===
SACRED LANGUAGES: LATIN, GREEK, AND HEBREW
The Church regards three, and only three, languages as "sacred."
These, as referred to several times in Sacred Scripture (Luke 23:38, John
19:20, Apocalypse 9:11), are Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. As history
clearly
shows, Providence consecrated these three languages at different periods
to
divine purposes. Each of these languages was, in some form, specially
dedicated to religious purposes in contrast to the vernacular.
It is a common misconception that the Jews of Christ's time spoke
Hebrew. They did not. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian
captivity in 538 B.C., they were speaking a form of Syriac, sometimes
called Aramaic, as their vernacular. Hebrew had become a sacred
language, not a vernacular, reserved for religious services and the
teaching of the rabbis, much as Latin came to be used in the Roman
Catholic Church. (Hebrew is related to Syriac in somewhat the same way
as French to Italian. They have a common ancestor, but the speaker of
one would not easily understand the other.)
The question sometimes arises: what language did Christ speak?
It seems most reasonable to think that He spoke Syriac as a vernacular,
but used the sacred language Hebrew in the synagogues where He taught
among the rabbis. Again, at the Passover it is most reasonable to think
that he used Hebrew for the Seder, which was a sacred service for the
Jews.
What language did Christ speak before Pontius Pilate (and even
with
the Roman centurion earlier)? This is a more difficult question. It is
unlikely that Pilate, a Roman official, would have condescended to speak
the
language of a subject people for official business. The Gospels do not
mention the presence of translators, though this fact might have been
omitted
as a detail of insignificance, so it would have been possible for the two
to
have compromised on Greek, which was commonly used in the Eastern Empire,
even for official purposes, as a kind of lingua franca.
However, there is no reason to believe that the two could not
have
used Latin. There would be some justification for this assumption. It
is known that the Roman emperor Tiberius (r. A.D. 14-37) was passionate
about
the Latin language, and defendants could be forced to address the courts
in
Latin. The emperor Claudius (r. 41-54) "not only struck from the list of
jurors a man of high birth, a leading citizen of the province of Greece,
because he did not know Latin, but even deprived him of the rights of
citizenship, and he would not allow anyone to render at law a defense of
his
life except in his own words, as well as he could, without the help of a
lawyer" (Suetonius, Divus Claudius, XVI.2). Even Cleopatra (51-30 B.C)
studied Latin in order to negotiate with Marc Anthony (ca. 83-30 B.C),
although the two could easily have used Greek.
Moreover, Pilate was known, both in the Sacred Scripture and in
the
secular historians, to have laid the heavy hand of Rome upon Jewish
insurrectionists. Pilate may, therefore, have been disposed to enforce
the
language of Rome upon his administration. Christ, from His human nature,
would certainly have been exposed to at least some Latin, even in the
eastern
empire. There is a sense, when one reads the Latin Bible, that in the
Gospels the Latin quotations of the colloquy between Christ and Pilate
could
be the original, which were only afterward translated into Greek when
written
down.
We learn from Epistle XII of the Roman philosopher and statesman
Seneca to St. Paul, one of fourteen letters between the two, that St.
Paul,
during his captivity in Rome, wrote in Latin, and good Latin at that.
St.
Paul's Latin ad a cadence intrinsic to the language, "the organ tone of
Latinity."
Another misconception is that the Church, even in Rome and Italy,
used a Greek vernacular exclusively for the first two or three
centuries, then changed to a vernacular Latin. Until recently, this had
been the common scholarly opinion.
More recent evidence, however, in the form of a Latin inscription
of ca. A.D. 79, discovered in 1862 at Pompeii, indicates already the
liturgical use of Latin. We know from the Acts of the Apostles (28:13)
that St. Paul visited the nearby city of Puteoli for seven days, where
there already existed a community of Latin-speaking Christians. Of the
1800 inscriptions cataloged in that city, all appear in Latin, none in
Greek.
On the basis of a scholarly analysis of this evidence, it has
been
demonstrated that the language of the Christian ritual at Rome, from the
groundline of its existence, was Latin and not Greek.... The language
that mattered in the Apostolic Age was not Greek, but Latin" (Paul
Berry, The Christian Inscription at Pompeii [Lewiston: Edwin Mellen,
c. 1995]).
It is regarded as highly unlikely that a Roman would participate
in a Christian ritual celebrated in Greek. Even the Greek of the Kyrie
Eleison was not officially added to the liturgy until the close of the
fifth century. The chanting of the Latin hymn Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus
can be traced to a time before the papacy of Pope Clement (91-100), and
a Christianized Latin, harkening back to a formal, classical Latin, was
already beginning to be reserved for religious and sacred use.
=========================================================================
===
SEDE-VACANTISM
Sede-vacantism, the position that the papacy is currently vacant
on
account of the heresy of Modernism amounts to a personal hypothesis on
the
part of an individual, which involves applying certain principles of
Roman
Catholic theology to a specific set of circumstances as the individual
views
them. Some traditional Catholic priests accept the hypothesis of sede-
vacantism to explain the current condition of the Church; others do not.
Sede-vacantism is not a doctrinal issue, as a sede-vacantist certainly
accepts the Roman Catholic dogma on the papacy as defined at Vatican I.
A
personal opinion of sede-vacantism has no impact on the validity of the
true
Mass, Sacraments, and Faith.
Sede-vacantism, unlike the heresy of Modernism, as declared by
Pope
St. Pius X, is not heretical or schismatic. Traditional Catholic
theologians of past centuries indicate various ways by which an official
decision could be made about the vacancy of the papacy through heresy, as
some argue characterizes the present situation. Thus, sede-vacantism was
considered at least a theoretical possibility by even Doctors of the
Church.
Others argue that "De Romano Pontifice" of St. Robert Bellarmine,
a
Doctor of the Church, and other authoritative works on the theology of
the
papacy provide adequate room to deal with the present situation, and
ecclesiastical history provides a number of analogies for handling the
present situation, which is not that unique in the history of the Church.
All Catholic theologians agree that in a time of emergency (such
as
the one that we are in after the Vatican II Anti-council of 1962-1965),
we
are in a time of what immemorial canon law traditionally calls "error
communis," and such a time allows for certain actions on the part of the
Church that during normal times would be considered illicit (illegal).
Such
actions include consecrating fully-traditional Catholic bishops in the
traditional Sacrament of Holy Orders, ordaining fully-traditional
Catholic
priests in the traditional Sacrament of Holy Orders, performing
Sacramental
Marriages, and hearing of Sacramental confessions. In emergency
situations,
immemorial canon law explicitly allows such actions for the good of souls
("salus animarum suprema est lex"), and the Church supplies any and all
jurisdiction and permission needed ("ecclesia supplet iuridictionem").
This
legal consideration allows for the emergency actions of those who
"recognize
yet resist" the Newpopes of the Newchurch of the New Order, as well as
those
who hold that the Newpopes do not have the necessary canonical
requirements
to hold that office.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, and Fr. Francisco
Suarez, called by Pope Paul V "Doctor Eximius and Pius" [Most Exalted and
Pious Doctor of the Church], to name just two of the most eminent
Catholic
theologians, held that there was indeed a possibility that a pope might
fall
into formal, or objective, heresy (not just material, or subjective,
heresy)
and lose the Petrine Office. They also held that some men might be
universally acclaimed as pope, but because of heresy (or some other
canonical defect), they were never actually pope. In both cases, these
theologians held that those of the faithful who reject such dubious
"popes"
in good faith are neither heretics nor schismatics, as long as they held
such rejection as a theological opinion.
Any Catholic who, having an educated and properly-formed Catholic
conscience and using established Catholic theology and established
Catholic
canonical principles, rejects a dubious pope remains truly a member of
the
Catholic Church in good standing. Such rejection is not an act of
"deposing" a pope, because that is a formal canonical and theological
action, not a mere theological opinion.
A new problem exists starting with the Newpontificate of
Benedict-
Ratzinger. Ratzinger and his successor, Francis-Bergolio, were never
consecrated as bishops under the valid traditional Roman Pontifical
(Bergolio wasn't even ordained as a priest under the valid traditional
Roman
Pontifical). They were merely "installed" as Newbishops under Hannibal
Bugnini's invalid Protestantized New Ordinal of 1969. A strong argument
could be made that if these two Newpopes are not valid bishops, they
cannot
be Bishops of Rome, and therefore cannot be valid popes, that a sede-
vacante
situation thus exists.
In practice, traditional Catholics are minimally affected by the
issue. Traditional Catholics are not going with the "New Mass," the "New
Sacraments," the "New Morality," and the "New Theology," no matter who is
or
is not pope, because that would be an offense against God Himself and a
violation of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. Any pope who would dare to
violate the constitution of his papal office is acting outside his
authority, and such acts are thus null and void anyway, according to the
dogmatic decree "Pastor Aeternus" of Vatican I.
After all, the Deposit of Faith does not belong to the pope. It
is
the Church's treasure of truth that has been taught during twenty
centuries,
by some 260 popes, not just one. The pope is obligated to transmit it
faithfully and exactly to all those under him. He is not free to do
anything he pleases. Nor can we follow his error and change God's truth,
just because the one who is charged with transmitting it is weak and
allows
error to spread around him. Remember that dogmatic council Vatican I
found
that some 40 of 260 popes had at one time or another personally taught
error. One pope was excommunicated. One pope was deposed from office.
Catholics must remain faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and the
papacy
of two thousand years, not novelties that have been taught for just since
the Vatican II Anti-council (1962-1965).
Moreover, what a particular traditional Catholic priest's opinion
about an individual pope (as opposed to the doctrine on the office of the
papacy itself) does not affect the validity of the Traditional Latin
Masses
and Sacraments that he offers. Traditional Catholics should be looking
for
a site where the fully-traditional Traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments
are
offered and where the traditional Roman Catholic Faith is preached. Of
course, this cannot be done in the current situation, this cannot be done
within the Newchurch of the New Order, whether by Novus Ordo presbyters,
by
pseudo-traditional presbyters (like those in the Newchurch-connected
Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Priestly
Fraternity
of St. John Vianney, Institute of the Good Shepherd, etc.), or, some say,
the Newchurch-leaning Neo-Society of St. Pius X.
In the end, if you have a traditional Catholic priest not
associated
in any way with the heretical Newchurch of the New Order, who professes
the
traditional Roman Catholic Faith, who celebrates exclusively the
Traditional
Latin Mass, and who administers the traditional Sacraments, support him,
help him, be loyal to him, pray for him. You have a very special gift
for
which hundreds of thousands of traditional Catholics around the world are
praying ceaselessly.
=========================================================================
===
ST. JOSEPH'S NAME IN THE CANON OF THE MASS
Some ignorant proto-Modernist Catholics were even trying to push
thE
addition of St. Joseph's name to the Sacred Canon of the Mass in the
second
half of the 19th century when the cult of St. Joseph was growing. They
were
essentially saying that the Apostles left something out of Christ's true
Mass, sometimes called the Mass of St. Peter, the Traditional Latin Mass.
Pope Pius IX at the time gave the correct answer for a Catholic pope,
following Apostolic Tradition: "I am only the pope. What power have I
to
touch the Canon?"
Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius IX's successor and a great devotee of
St.
Joseph, in 1892 abominated any change to the Sacred Canon, citing the
Tradition of the Church that the Apostolic Canon was not to be touched.
Again, in 1908, a petition was signed by more than 900 prelates
specifically
requesting that the "venerable name of Joseph, as the supreme Patron of
the
Universal Church, second to the Mother of God, be invoked at the
Confiteor,
the Offertory, the Canon and the Communion of the Mass." Despite the
numerous and prominent petitioners, and 31 "confirmed ... theological
theses"
in this request, Pope St. Pius X refused categorically to violate Sacred
Tradition.
What Pope Pius IX did was the Catholic thing. He extended to the
Universal Church the Feast of the Patronage of St. Joseph in 1847, and in
1870, he solemnly declared the Joseph to be the Patron of the Universal
Church and raised his feastday on March 19 to the rank of a Double of the
First Class (but without an Octave, on account of Lent). Yet he did not
dare
to touch the Sacred Canon.
It was John XXIII-Roncalli, who, on November 13, 1962, violated
Apostolic Tradition and the Sacred Apostolic Canon by adding the name of
St.
Joseph to Hannibal Bugnini's Half Novus Ordo Mess of 1962, the same Mess
that
Benedict-Ratzinger called with the theologically-erroneous term
"Extraordinary." It is that corrupted Mess that has become the
"Extraordinary" Mess of the Newchurch of the New Order, invalidly
simulated
not by ordained traditional Catholic priests, but by merely "installed"
Novus
Ordo presbyters.
One might well ask why the name of St. Joseph was not already
part
of
the Traditional Latin Mass in Apostolic times? The answer is obvious.
St.
Joseph is the last patriarch of the Old Covenant. He did not live to see
the
death of Our Lord upon the Cross, which ushered in the New Covenant. In
the
Communicantes of the Traditional Latin Mass, after the Blessed Virgin
Mary
(who was present at the foot of that Cross), the next names invoked are
Sts.
Peter & Paul, the leaders of the New Covenant Church; then the Apostles
Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon,
and
Thaddeus; then the successor popes, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus; then
eight early Saints of the Roman Church, Cornelius, Cyprian, Laurence
(Deacon
of Rome), Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian.
=========================================================================
===
SUFFERING
Sometimes people wonder why people are allowed to suffer.
Catholic
theology explains suffering primarily in two ways.
The first is by Original Sin. There is a propensity in the human
soul to sin, which offends God's justice. Just as when we break the
civil
law, we have to pay a penalty, so it is with sin. We owe a debt in
justice
to God for breaking his Commandments.
The second is by Calvary. Our Lord suffered great agony to
redeem
us. Should we not in some way share in His suffering to show our love
for
Him as He showed His love for us? Parents willingly suffer for their
children, whom they love. Soldiers willingly suffer for their country,
which they love. This is all part of the First Great Commandment: "Thou
shalt the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and
with thy whole mind" (Matthew 22:37/DRV).
As to specific cases, such as young children dying, we trust that
there is a "higher purpose" in God's perfect wisdom and knowledge for our
good that we ourselves often cannot see because of our limited vision.
St.
Paul expresses this concept in his Epistle to the Romans (11:33/DRV): "O
the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How
incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!" and
in
his Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 13:12/DRV): "We see now
through a glass in a dark manner."
=========================================================================
===
SUNDAY OR SATURDAY WORSHIP
Did the early Christian Church worship on Sunday, the Lord's Day,
or
Saturday, the Jewish sabbath, as some sects like the Seventh Day
Adventists
contend?
St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles (20:7/DR) in the New
Testament,
writes: "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to
break
bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow. And he
continued his speech until midnight."
St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate renders the phrase as "in una sabbati,
which, as usual, closely parallels the Greek "en te mia ton sabbaton,
literally "on (day) one of the week," that is, the Lord's Day, or Sunday.
If
St. Luke had wished to say "on the Sabbath [Saturday]," he would have
said
simply "en to sabbato."
Moreover, St. Paul writes in his First Epistle to the Corinthians
(16:2): "On the first day of the week, let every one of you put apart
with
himself, laying up what it shall well please him: that when I come, the
collections be not then to be made."
Finally, St. Justin, Martyr (ca. 100-165), who writes within a
few
decades of Sts. Luke and Paul, is an early witness to the practices of
the
Apostolic Church and confirms in his Apologia (I.67) that the Christians
worshipped "on day called that of the Sun," that is, Sunday.
=========================================================================
===
TATTOOS AND BODY PIERCINGS (SELF-LACERATION)
Tattooing is regarded in Sacred Scripture as a pagan practice:
"You
shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor shall you
make
in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord" (Leviticus
19:28/DRV).
It is considered to be a mutilation of the body in contravention of the
Fifth Commandment. The fact that the tattoo may be of a religious object
does not justify the practice. Exhibitionism is intrinsically unCatholic
as
falling short of the virtue of humility. Would Our Lord have had a
tattoo?
Our Lady? Of course not.
Tattooing is also related to the ancient Roman practice of
marking
slaves as the property of their master. This practice survives into the
modern day in the branding of dumb animals as the property of their
masters.
There is another argument against the practice, which relates to
the Fifth Commandment of God, which forbids unnecessary harming of one's
body, the Temple of the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul calls it. Catholic moral
theology teaches that by the Principle of Totality, a person is not
permitted to authorize the mutilation of his own body except for the
benefit
of the whole body by the principle of totality. Mutilation of the body
can
be justified only on the supposition that it is necessary or useful
toward
obtaining some physical benefit (as an amputation of a diseased leg to
prevent gangrene).
The practice of tattooing involves taking unnecessary medical
risks, which
is sinful. The inks contain carcinogens like led and mercury. Tattooing
transmits HIV and Hepatitis C. These viruses can erupt virulently, or
they
can lie dormant in the body for twenty or more years after the tattooing
incident. Hepatitis can destroy the liver and thus weaken the body until
it
dies in agony. So dangerous is this practice that tattooed individuals
cannot give blood so as not to transmit the viruses to others. Skin
cancers,
including the all-too-frequently lethal melanomas, have been reported
within
tattoo sites.
Tattoo inks have been found to be contaminated with bacteria that
can
lead to serious injuries and an increased risk of infection because the
skin
barrier is broken during the procedure. Some infections can also leave
permanent scarring.
Some people seem to think that tattooing is morally acceptable
when
the tattoo is of a religious object, such as a Cross or Our Lady.
Actually, the exact opposite is the case. Such a mutilation of
the body is even a graver sin as not only is the Fifth Commandment of
God being violated but also the Second Commandment of God, because such a
perversion of a sacred image constitutes the grave Sin of Blasphemy.
Those
who walk around with such images on their bodies are declaring to the
world
that they persist in Mortal Sin against God.
Nor is tattooing morally acceptable when the tattoo is of a
religious object, such as the Cross or
Our Lady. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Such a mutilation of the
body is an even graver sin as not
only is the Fifth Commandment of God being violated but also the Second
Commandment of God,
because such a perversion of a sacred image constitutes the grave sin of
blasphemy. Those who walk
around with such images on their bodies are declaring to the world that
they persist in Mortal Sin against
God. It is noteworthy that these sins are now rife Hispanic countries,
which were formerly devoutly
Catholic, but now have gone into the heretical New Ordo and other
Protestant sects. These people now
freely desecrate their bodies with demonic tattoos of Our Lady and Our
Lord cut into their bodies.
The same principles apply to body piercings. Minor piercing of
the ears
for women's earrings might be tolerated, but not recommended.
=========================================================================
===
TERM "TRIDENTINE" MASS
The term "Tridentine" Mass should not be used. It is a term
essentially invented by the New Order as a deception. No one before
Vatican
II ever called the true Catholic Mass the "Tridentine" Mass. That
terminology was propagated by Hannibal Bugnini, the Chief Architect of
the
New Order "liturgy." Its intent is to imply that any pope or any council
can fabricate a "Mass" of its own. This is an absolutely heretical
Modernist notion that would be -- and was -- rejected until under Vatican
II
and Paul VI the New Order got going. The notion was condemned by the
dogmatic Council of Trent.
The Council of Trent did not invent a Mass. It simply saw to a
minor clean-up of local accretions that had occurred in the various
nations
like little barnacles over the pure Roman form. If you compare missals
from
before 1570 with Missals after, you will find very little difference --
and
you would have to look hard to find even that difference.
The "Indult" (1988) or "Motu" (1962) purports to use the "Mass of
1962," but it rarely is even that bowdlerized version any more. After 40
years of the New Order, most "Indult" or "Motu" Messes are now Missae
Mixtae, that is, mixed-up "Masses," with elements from the Traditional
Latin
Mass and the New Order service. (An example would be the phony semi-
Latin
service broadcast on the Charismatic New Order cable network EWTN.)
There
have been constant efforts to push up that 1962 year for the "Indult" to
1965, which saw three radical changes to introduce overt elements of the
Novus Ordo service, or even to 1967, which introduced changes into the
heart
of the Mass and invalidated the consecration itself.
=========================================================================
===
THEOLOGY OF THE BODY
A New Order fabrication, the "Theology of the Body," was
developed
by John Paul II in 129 Wednesday talks given between September 5, 1979,
and
November 28, 1984. It is clear from the very first talk that JPII's
approach to theology diverges from the approved theology of the Catholic
Church, that
is, Thomism, founded upon the theology of the Church's Principal
Theologian,
St. Thomas Aquinas and indirectly upon the theology of St. Augustine of
Hippo, the Great Father of the Church. Rather than being rooted in the
realism and objectivity of Catholic Thomism, the Theology of the Body is
rooted instead in the false subjective philosophies of Modernism. The
Church's theology is objective, deductive, and rational. The Theology of
the Body constructs a counter-theology that is subjective, inductive, and
experiential.
An objective view of reality refers to something that is true,
regardless of whether or not I know it to be true. For example, if a
blind
man is outside, but cannot see the trees, the trees still exist,
irrespective of whether the blind man perceives them or not. Objective
reality exists
independent of one's individual perception. The subjective view of
reality
claims that only what I perceive to be real is actually real. For
example,
if I believe that a certain poison will cure my disease, then that poison
is
healthful in my perception, whether the poison objectively will kill me
or
not. A dangerous philosophy!
One can see how Theology of the Body can lead to serious
consequences in the area of morality. The subjectivist view of reality
is clearly
captured by the phrase, "That may be true for you, but not for me!" In
other words, what is true depends on what I believe or accept or
perceive. In
Catholic theology, such a claim is utter nonsense. For example, in
Theology
of the Body, if your perception is that Allah is God, then he is -- for
you.
If your perception is that it is moral to divorce and remarry, then it is
moral -- for you. You can see how this subjective thinking has led to
Vatican II's infamous "oecumenism" ("we all worship the same god"; all
gods
are equal) and moral relativism.
Catholic theology is deductive and rational; that is, it uses
objective reason to determine what is true and false. Modernist
subjectivism determines truth by induction, that is, experimentation and
observation, to
determine what people believe by their own perception and experience.
Subjectivism thus leads, in effect, to doctrine by poll, which the
Protestants already have. For example, it makes no difference what
Christ
objectively said in Scripture against divorce. Since the perception of
(some) people is that divorce and remarriage is moral, then it is moral
-- for them. And no one can tell them that it is wrong -- for them.
The Theology of the Body is the result of the use of a
philosophical
movement called "Phenomenology," an offshoot of Modernism, in which Karol
Woytyla, later JPII, was instructed in Poland. The founder of
Phenomenology
was a German philosopher named Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), who, in the
Protestant fashion, focused on the subjective, individual experience of
people. Phenomenology, in turn, was based on the philosophy of Immanuel
Kant (1724-1804), who had taught that moral norms are unknowable because
they lie
beyond immediate human experience. Thus, morality is not objectively
knowable, as it is in Catholic theology, and morality is divorced from
reality. Therefore, one cannot say objectively that anything (murder,
stealing, perjury) is immoral. Only the conventions of society (i.e.,
civil
law) bind, and they can be changed at any time.
In the 19th century, the Church first took note of the heresy of
Modernism and defined it on September 26, 1835, when the document
condemned
the approach of certain priests, professors in German universities, who
were
using the Modern Philosophy of Descartes, Kant, and Hegel to reinterpret
the
Articles of Faith. At the heart of the Modernist ethos is the belief
that
truth can contradict itself. As God is the author all truth, Modernists
believe that God can contradict Himself, that He has not revealed
anything
that can be defined definitively, that it is up to believers to
"reinterpret" the meaning of "truth" time and events unfold.
In 1864 Pope Pius IX condemned Modernism in his encyclical Quanta
Cura (1864), accompanied by the famous Syllabus of Errors as an appendix.
The Holy Office under Pope St. Pius X published the famous decree
Lamentabili sane (1907), in which 65 condemned propositions drawn from
the works of
Modernist writers were listed, and he himself issued the encyclical
Pascendi
Dominici Gregis (1907), in which he outlined the errors of Modernism,
described as "summa omnium heresum" [the synthesis of all heresies].
The Modernist acceptance of the Hegelian view of the world (that
ideas contain within themselves the seeds of their own inherent
contradiction, thus creating a conflict that is resolved in the evolution
of
a new idea, a synthesis, from the first idea and its antithesis) is the
foundation of the work of men such as the late Frs. Hans Urs von
Balthasar,
Henri de Lubac, and their protege, Father Joseph Ratzinger.
To the contrary, Catholic theology (Thomism) begins with God.
The
Renaissance started to veer off the centrality of God by focusing on
human
beings. Protestantism furthered the emphasis on individual human beings
and
especially on the individual with its insistence on the private
interpretation of Scripture. The same tendency can be seen in the modern
development of "Scientism," that is, the veneration of science as a kind
of
secular "god" rather than as simply a tool of man's mind to understand
the
universe. Many people today are loathe to accept conclusions based upon
principles. Rather, they give more credibility to an individual's
personal
"experience" and the conclusions he draws from that experience. For
example, if his experience is that Mohammedans are good people, then it
is morally
acceptable to believe that Allah is god. The Theology of the Body
results
in a concept of the world which is subjective, irrational, and
experiential.
As a result of this heresy, Newpope JPII-Woytla chipped away at
objective sexual morality ("the
body") and laid the foundation for accepting abortion, artificial
contraception, sodomy, paedophilia, and
other moral evils. Francis-Bergoglio followed "phenomenology" in his
2016 document, Amoris
laetitia ("The Joy of Sex"), which has been widely denounced even by
his own Newchurch cardinals
as heretical. It is not happenstance that the "Unsaint" Wojtyla became
the First Paedophile Newpope,
under whom tens of thousands of sex crimes against boys and girls, men
and women, were committed
by his presbyters and Newbishops.
And that is exactly the moral timebomb that Newchurch is
preaching,
which is, and will continue to, destroy every traditional teaching on
Catholic morality. It just goes to show that the Newchurch of the New
Order
is unCatholic. Both JPII and Benedict-Ratzinger promote this nonsense.
The
leading proponent of the Theology of the Body worldwide is Christopher
West,
a rock musician and disciple of the Newchurch archbishop of Denver,
Colorado, the Modernist Charles Chaput.
=========================================================================
===
TRUE OECUMENISM
God's providence for the human race, extending into every
generation,
is part of the divine plan to help man accomplish the purpose for which
he
exists, that is, through trial on earth, to gain eternal salvation.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, founded only one religion, which He
committed to His Church, the Catholic Church, commanding that all men
accept
it. Hence, religious activities contrary to those prescribed by the
Catholic
Church are not in accord with the will of God, and Catholics may not
encourage or promote them. Any member of the Church who will not admit
this
fundamental doctrine is not a Catholic in the proper sense of the world.
(Fr. Francis J. O'Connell)
His Holiness Pope Pius XI gave to the Catholic world the only
definition of "ecumenism" that makes any sense, in his Encyclical Letter
"Mortalium Animos" on the Promotion of True Religious Unity (January 6,
1928).
"There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be
fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of
Christ of those who are separated from it....
"Certainly such ['ecumenical'] movements as these cannot gain the
approval of Catholics. They are founded upon the false opinions of
those who say that since all religions equally unfold and signify,
though not in the same way, the native inborn feeling in us all through
which we are borne toward God and humbly recognize His rule, therefore,
all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy....
"This Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their
[ecumenical] meetings, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics either
to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so, they will
be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one
Church of Christ....
"It might appear that the Pan-Christians ['ecumenists'], engaged
in trying to confederate the churches, are pursuing the noble idea of
increasing charity among all Christians. Yet how could charity harm
faith?
"All remember how John, the very Apostle of Charity, who in his
Gospel seems to have opened the secrets of the Most Sacred Heart
of
Jesus and who always inculcated in the minds of his disciples the new
commandment, 'Love one another,' had wholly forbidden them to have
relations with those who did not profess entire and uncorrupted the
teachings of Christ. 'If anyone comes to you and does not bring this
doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him, Welcome' (2
John 10[C]). Since charity is founded in whole and sincere faith, the
disciples of Christ must be united by the bond of unity in faith and by
it as the chief bond.
"How could a Christian covenant be imagined in which they who
entered it could in matters of faith each retain, although contrary to
those of others, their own opinions and judgments? Through what
agreement could men of opposed opinions become one and the same society
of the faithful?...
"In such great differences of opinions we do not know how a road
may be paved to the unity of the Church save alone through one teaching
authority, one sole law of belief, and one sole faith among Christians.
"Moreover, we know how easy is the path from denial of this to
the neglect of religion, or indifferentism, and to modernism, which
holds the very same error, to wit: dogmatic truth is not absolute, but
relative; it is proportionate to the needs of times and places and to
the various tendencies of the mind, since dogmatic truth is not
contained in an unchanging revelation, but is such that it accommodates
itself to the life of men....
"Therefore, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why the Apostolic See
has never permitted its children to take part in these ['ecumenical']
meetings. The union of Christians cannot be otherwise obtained than by
securing the return of the separated to the one true Church of Christ,
from which they once unhappily withdrew. To the one true Church of
Christ, We say, that stands forth before all and that by the will of its
Founder will remain forever the same as when He Himself established it
for the salvation of all mankind....
"Let them hear Lactantius crying out: 'The Catholic Church is
alone in keeping the true worship. This the fountain of truth, it is
the household of the faith, it is the temple of God; if anyone does not
enter it or if anyone departs from it, he is a stranger to the hope of
life and salvation....'"
=========================================================================
WAR
The Just War Principle was formulated by the Church's greatest
theologian, the Great Father and
Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine of Hippo, confirmed and approved by
the Church's Universal
Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Augustine's principle, has been approved
by the Church since the
fourth century.
The Catholic Church teaches that the waging of war is not in itself
unjust. St. Augustine, Father and
Doctor of the Church, taught that a just war is "not only excusable but
also commendable" because it is
undertaken "in the defense of [one's] country against enemies that would
invade it." In such a war
"every man fights not for the defense of himself out of a private
affection for himself, but out of Christian
charity for the safeguard and preservation of all the others." However,
three conditions must classically
be met for a war to be just (St. Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologica," IIa
IIae, Q. 40, Art. 1):
1 - It must be declared and waged by the lawful authority of a sovereign
entity.
2 - It must be fought objectively for a good cause (defense against an
unjust attack, recovery of
something unjustly taken, or punishment of an unjust aggression).
3 - It must be fought subjectively with the right intention, to arrive at
a just peace, a just order of things,
giving each nation its due (not for greed, cruelty, etc.).
In accordance with prudence (practical wisdom), four circumstances must
also pertain:
1 - The good to be gained by restoring justice must be proportionate to
the evils that can be anticipated.
2 - It must be as certain as can be that there really was an injustice
committed.
3 - The injustice must have harmed a major, and not just a minor,
interest of the nation injured.
4 - War must be the sole means available of re-establishing justice,
after all peaceful measures were
unable to remedy the situation.
Only a defensive war can be justified. However, a nation that takes the
initial step to war when it is
certain that an enemy is about to attack immediately, can be said to be
waging a defensive war. In the
waging of war, unjust means must be avoided. Means may be unjust because
they are forbidden by the
natural law (as would be the case of a direct attack on the civilian
population), or by the positive law,
such as the use of poisoned gas. However, if one belligerent violates a
statute of positive law, the other
is free to do the same.
As is evident, it is not possible for both sides to be objectively
justified in a war. But it is possible for the
citizens of both nations to be in good faith and to be convinced that
their cause is just. The individual
citizen must take as his norm the general principle that he is obliged to
obey his own rules unless he is
sure that what they commend is unjust. Hence, he must go to war if
commanded, unless he has the
sincere conviction in his conscience that the war is unjust.
One must remember that the State has its proper realm of activity. "The
Almighty," said Pope Leo XIII,
"has appointed the charge of the human race between two powers, the
ecclesiastical and the civil, the
one being set over divine, the other over human things. Each in its kind
is supreme.... Whatever is to
be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the
civil authority. Jesus Christ has
Himself given command that what is Caesar's is to be rendered to Caesar
and that which belongs to
God is to be rendered to God." Inhabitants owe undivided allegiance in
civil or political matters to the
government of the country in which they live. Their allegiance to the
Church is confined to purely to
spiritual matters. The Catholic religion teaches that the State has
divine authority, as well as the
Church.
=========================================================================
YOGA
Yoga is incompatible with Christianity. It is not a mere
exercise routine;
it is an act of worship, a fundamental part of the pagan religion of
Hinduism
and thus has no place in the lives of Christians.
Yoga is a Hindu (pagan) spiritual discipline which attempts to
unite
one with the divine within oneself and unite one with all of creation
through
breathing, physical exercises, concentration, etc. The word "yoga"
derives
from Sanskrit and means to join or to unite. The idea that the divine
is to be sought for and found within oneself is, of course, occultic.
The
idea that the divine permeates all of creation -- the idea upon which the
practice of yoga is based and toward which it is geared -- is pantheism,
reprobated by Vatican I and other councils and teachings of the Church:
The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and
confesses
that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and
earth...
Who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable
spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence
from the world..." [Constitutio Dogmatica de Fide Catholica, Sess. III,
Cap. i]
God is distinct in reality and essence from His creation.
Pantheism
teaches that God and the universe are one. Pantheism teaches that the
grass, trees, rivers, lakes, oceans, etc., were all united with Christ by
virtue of
the Incarnation. Pantheism "divinizes" the material world and leads to
the
"Gaia" belief of the New Agers that the material world lives and has a
soul,
and to environmental radicalism, in which trees and whales have more
rights
that human babies.
Since the practice of yoga is based on the idea of union with the
divine within oneself and within all of creation, the practice of yoga is
therefore an expression of belief in the condemned pantheistic heresy
that
God and His creation are a single thing. Practicing yoga, therefore, is
practicing a false religion and expressing belief in a false god.
The practice of yoga is pagan at best, and occult at worst....
For
the first time in history, it is being widely practiced throughout the
Western world and America. It is ridiculous that even yogi masters
wearing
a cross or a Christian symbol deceive people by saying that yoga has
nothing
to do with Hinduism and say that it is only accepting other cultures.
Some
have masked yoga with Christian gestures and call it "Christian yoga."
Here it
is not a question of accepting the culture of other people; it is a
question of
accepting another religion, the heresy of Syncretism (the Vatican II
Anti-council's "Oecumenism"), the mixture of false religions with true
Catholicism. Yoga is evil also because it leads to a worship of Hinduism
and
other pagan Eastern religions.