Negros Orienatal CFD

From: www.traditio.com 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 1994-2012 CSM. Reproduction prohibited without authorization. Last Revised: 09/06/12 666: 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) =========================================================================== ANNULMENTS 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 Novus Ordo sect. Traditionally, there are few cases that truly warrant an annulment, after a detailed investigation of the facts and arguments on both sides. Many people 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 "for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." Remember the 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"? That 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 or affinity. For practical purposes in individual cases, traditional Catholics should put the facts before their personal confessor or priest where they are attending the Traditional Latin Mass and follow his judgment. The New Order apparatus, which is not Catholic, should not be approached. ============================================================================ APPARITIONS/PRIVATE REVELATIONS/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 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. 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," loosely called extreme Fatimism, 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). Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) clearly expressed the traditional place of private revelation in the Church when he stated: "[The Church] simply permits them [private revelations] to be published for the instruction and the edification of the faithful. The assent to be given to them is not therefore an act of Catholic Faith but of human faith, based upon the factthat these revelations are probable and worthy of credence. 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." ============================================================================ BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS 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 good will 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 (absolute necessity). 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, can be saved." 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 fourteenth session (cap. iv) 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, of desire, by the grace of the Holy Spirit]. 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 not sint: anathema sit. [If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and taht 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 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 form 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. =========================================================================== 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 & SABBATINE PRIVILEGE When one is invested with the Scapular of Mount Carmel (the "Brown" Scapular), one accepts 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) The so-called "Sabbatine privilege" 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." ============================================================================ "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 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. ============================================================================ 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." 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). ============================================================================ 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-Catechumenate, Legionnaires of Christ/Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, Miles Jesu, Wicca (Gaia), and Life Teen. 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 "Fatimism," which finds a new basis of faith in private revelations, prophecies, visions, "signs and wonders." 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). Regardless of the fact that certain New Order Church officials have made personally favorable statements or that the post-conciliar popes have addressed groups of Charismatics, no official pronouncement has been made or official approbation given. Even the U.S. bishops in a "Statement on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal" (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." 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. ============================================================================ CLERICAL CELIBACY Clerical celibacy has a biblical basis in the evangelical counsel of Our Lord as relayed in St. Matthew's Gospel (19:12), 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 (14:4-5). It is clear that once the Apostles received the call, they did not lead a married life. The tradition of clerical 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. 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 clerical 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 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." 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 clerical celibacy on the virginity of Christ. The universal law of clerical 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. ============================================================================ 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 (1963-1978). "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Apostolic Epistle "Memoriale Domini") POPE JOHN PAUL II (1978-). "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). 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. 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 ("é") 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. ============================================================================ "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 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). 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, attorney, and the traditional priest, in order to ensure that they will know what to do immediately. These arrangement must be discussed with, and accepted by, the priest in well in advance, as one cannot just and assume at the last minute that he can get a traditional funeral. You must be an active and contributing member of the Mass site for some significant period beforehand. That is only simple justice. A possible text is given below. My understanding is that a signed statement is sufficient, although the requirements may vary from state to state 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. Instructions for a Traditional Funeral I direct that my funeral be conducted as follows, under the supervision of my executor. 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 the [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. ============================================================================ CRUSADES September 11, 2001, was certainly not the 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 Sapin 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 against 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 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 Mohammedan 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: "The [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 Crusade was 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. ============================================================================ "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 was in fact scientifically false since he based it on the tides of the sea, which he claimed were 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. 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. Galileo was not condemned. In only one trial, in 1633 (not the two that some erroneously allege, as in 1616 his friend Cardinal Bellarmine only advised him informally), he 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) =========================================================================== 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 ("meat and drink"), has come to have a narrower meaning. This is the bane of the vernacular, which is why the Church does not use a vernacular 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 Church of the New Order became reduced to meaning "Spirit," then to "spirit," and now into non-descript, generic meaning, e.g., the "spirit of Vatican II," which has not reference to the Holy Ghost. =========================================================================== 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 an Aristotelian philosophical quibble on the simultaneity of the grace with the conception). "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 & 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. ============================================================================ 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: agape (charitas) - a reverential, selfless love directed toward God; a god-like love philia (amicitia) - a love of a friend, or even of a thing (philosophia, love of wisdom) eros (amor) - erotic love storge (pietas) - familial love 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! ============================================================================ 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." ============================================================================ 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 party, which is more of a social event than a religious one, but even that could cause scandal. ============================================================================ 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 Escrivá 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 The Conciliar popes have typically used a staff fabricated by Lello Scorzelli immediately after Vatican II for Paul VI, which is topped by an image that is not a traditional crucifix. Some claim that this is modeled after the "Bent Crucifix," or, as some call it, the "Twisted Serpent," which has satanic associations. It consists of a bent, or broken, cross with a distorted figure of the Christ. The traditional crucifix, on the other hand, is not bent, and the representation of the Christ is a full figure without any kind of distortion or disfiguration. Others maintain that this crucifix follows a rough sketch made by St. John of the Cross from a vision. True, there is some resemblance, but the cross is different, and the perspective, which is the significant factor in St. John's representation, is entirely different. Even so, what is the point? 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 of the Catholic faithful. ============================================================================ PAPAL INFALLIBILITY To say that the pope 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 Spirit 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, sick, and poor, they were never considered as sharing in the true office of deacon. Even the post-conciliar Vatican has maintained this traditional doctrine of the Church, in the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the 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 post-conciliar language. Pope John Paul II confirmed this teaching in an arguendo infallible form in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994). ============================================================================ 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." Scipture: 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. ============================================================================ 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 known 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 heresy to Modernism and the New Order, amounts to a merely personal opinion on the part of someone that involves applying certain principles of Roman Catholic theology to a specific factual situation. It 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. It 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. Thus, sede-vacantism was considered at least a theoretical possibility by even Doctors of the Church. The TRADITIO Network doesn't hold to the sede-vacantist position because we do not think that Church history and Catholic theology require that conclusion under the present circumstances. "De Romano Pontifice" of St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, and other authoritative works on the theology of the papacy give us 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. 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. What a particular priest's opinion about an individual pope (as opposed to the doctrine on the office of the papacy itself) may be does not impinge on the traditional Mass, Sacraments, or Faith. Those are set in Catholic doctrine and Tradition, no matter who the pope is or is not. 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 Vatican II (1962-1965). 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. In the end, if you have a priest who professes the traditional Roman Catholic Faith, celebrates exclusively the Traditional Latin Mass, and 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. ============================================================================ 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 & BODY PIERCINGS 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/DR). 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, 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 unnecessary medical risks. The inks contain carcinogens like led and mercury. Tattooing transmits HIV and Hepatitis C. These viruses can erupt virulently, or it 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 as not to transmit the viruses to others. Skin cancers, including the all-too-frequently lethal melanomas, have been reported within tattoo sites. The same principles apply to body piercings. 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 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 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" or "Motu" Mess purports to be 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 in the heart of the Mass and 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. 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 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, given each nation its due (not for greed, cruelty, etc.) In 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 major, and not just 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 comment is unjust. Hence, he must go to war if commanded, unless he has the sincere conviction in his conscience that the war is unjust. (Francis J. O'Connell) One must also 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 spiritual matters. The Catholic religion teaches that the State has divine authority, as well as the Church. =========================================================================== YOGA 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 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 Catholic, 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.