Holy Fathers Francis and Dominic

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

The New Pope

I just heard the second season of the Young Pope will be called "The New Pope." A) I can't stand John Malkovich. He is a terrible actor (think Galbotorix in Eragon.) But B) it does pose the question: What would I do if I was named the new Pope?

My Top 20 tasks below...

Week 1:
  • Make the holy priests that are known to me Princes of the Church in Pectore.
  • Question every Cardinal to see if they have the Faith. (A good litmus test would be to see if they can say with confidence the Oath Against Modernism for starters.)
  • Remove the red hat of all who cannot from the Sacred College sending them to a monastery. 
  • Immediately abrogate the New Mass, and give the celebrants the alternative to say the Old Mass in the Vernacular until we sort this out.
  • Ask all bishops for letters of resignation.
Week 2:
  • Hold the consistory.
  • Accept all bishops' resignation who have not said the Latin Mass in the last 40 years. Send them to that monastery of washed up has-beens on an island somewhere. 
  • Conditionally ordain and consecrate those bishops left in the Old Rite for good measure.
  • Seriously consider consecrating to the episcopacy all priests who have said the Old Rite in the Traditional groups. E.g. SSPX, ICKSP, FSSP, St. Marcel Initiative and the Fr. Michael Rodriguez types.
  • Try to spread them over sees that were just made vacant.
Week 3:
  • Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in union with all the Bishops
  • Call a council.
  • First order of business, dismiss Vatican II for what it rightfully was, a Pastoral Council, and make it a foot note in history.
  • Condemn Modernism, Communism, and all the 'isms' that Vatican II should have condemned.
  • Suspend all priests who have not said Mass in the Old Rite before
Week 4:
  • After having the remaining diocesan priests conditionally ordained who are of good faith (chose to say the Old Rite without being forced to) give them a crash course in Traditional Seminary. Some exceptions could be made for priests of good faith like Fr. Mark Goring who is clueless, but still fought Evil in the best way he could) Let them go back to saying the Traditional Mass in their own tongue for two years while they are learning Latin.
  • Demand they go to seminary in waves for half the year until their rector clears them. Alternate priests in that just completed their 6 months.
  • Laicize all the other priests and bishops (in that remote monastery) who refuse to follow suit. 
Week 5
  • Call a commission to seriously look into the previous pontificates (with the right outcome, that should clear up a few problems)
  • Define Mary Mediatrix of All Graces
  • Canonize Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
I don't know how far I would make it before I was poisoned, but I think making the cardinals up front would at least put the Church in better hands than she is now. If I could make it to the end of Week 5, I think I would resign since I have absolutely no clue on how to be a bishop, let alone the Bishop of Rome.

Sunday, May 6, 2018

Young Pope : Episodes 2-10: Was it Enough?



Because there is too much material to cover, I will write this blog to wrap up the material of the show, and finish the analysis in a separate and concluding blog. This blog will be a work-in-progress.  
The Holy Father is revered.
There is a lot of eye candy in this T.V. series. Its refreshing to see things like kissing the popes feet as a sign of submission. However, we have to wonder what emotions are the producers trying to evoke? The cardinals that have been in the popes circle come to him begrudgingly and it makes you wonder if its true humility. Because this pope is known to send cardinals he doesn't like to Alaska (more on that later) they may be doing so because, if they do not, they might get exiled. Or there is the mentality that if you can't beat him, join him. Its plain to the viewer, the reverence made to the Successor of Peter is not due to love. Pius XIII lets it be known that he is not interested in collegiality. He is no longer a brother bishop, but the Father of Fathers. He takes the tiara back from the Smithsonian, and is the first pope Since Paul VI to wear the tiara. His address to the cardinals would make anyone shake in their Episcopalian slippers. The speech is quite intriguing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmbyWGCwX90 I would say if there was one clip that sums up the show it is this clip. In essence, the new pontiff draws a line in the sand, and he makes people choose which side they want to be on. There are too many quotations to quote in this blog. "I don't expect any applause... what I do expect is that you will do what I've told you to do.... I know you will obey, because you've already figured out that this pope isn't afraid to lose the faithful if they've been even slightly unfaithful, and that means this pope doesn't negotiate."
So there you have it. Pius XIII will either destroy the Church, or purify it. After watching the whole series, I am not sure he even knows what he is doing, but he will not let his cardinals know that.

Mystery is restored.
The Young Pope series does have something that peaks my interest. The newly elected pope does not allow himself to appear in public. There is an attempt to restore the sublime mystery of Catholicism. He fires the person in charge of travel. His publicist says he is going to commit image suicide, and he is okay with that. He said "I doesn't exist. Only God exists." While the rest of the show is the story of how Pius XIII tries to pull as many strings as possible from behind the walls of Vatican City, this should make a lasting impression on us. There was once upon a time where Catholicism wasn't about trinkets with the popes image, it was not about audiences, it was not about Papal visits or the popes face on the front page every day. It was about doctrine and dogma. For hundreds of years, the popes were not jet-setting, but defending the faith from Rome. For 1400 years, Catholics did not know even what the Holy Father's visage looked like. It wasn't till MAYBE Gregory XVI's time before Catholics saw a lithograph of their sovereign pontiff.  The clergy and the faithful merely trusted and obeyed, because whoever was on the chair of St. Peter was a vicar. He came, and he went. So an unbroken line of faceless pontiffs came, protected and guided, and left the Faith intact for his successor. Pius XIII tries to build a morbid curiosity. He says that when he was a just a bishop and cardinal, we would not allow himself to be photographed. So we glean two things. He is not into selfies, which automatically makes me like this fictional character. But at the same time, it means that he has been plotting something this whole time.

There is an episode which dives deeper into this topic.  
The pope is not a rock star.
The Holy Father is told he has given the people "all stick and no carrot." So he makes a decision to visit a war-torn African village that is serviced by a Catholic humanitarian effort/mission. The Mother Superior of the effort sounds like a modern day Mother Theresa, but when we meet her, she is everything he despises: a proud, lesbo, tyrant that the villagers worship, but what they don't know is hording the precious water for herself and her lover. Pius XIII is not amused, and its kinda fun to watch him destroy her. The above image is a comic scene in the show where we finally have the pope in public, but the villagers are showering their supposed savior with adoration. Pius definitely doesn't feel like an icon or a rock star. The view gets to juxtapose the two figures, and the irony is not lost. The social commentary of HBO's show is obvious to me that the the Catholic Church is mostly based on people's emotions. The media phenomenon strips real "diligis" love for the person, and substitutes love out of convenience.

Was popes = rock stars Vatican II's fault? I don't believe so. I know Pius XII was very theatrical. And if international travel was safe... His Holiness of fond memory might have been a globe trotter, too. Were their popes in the past that would have pumped social media for all its worth? Sure, absolutely! But these World Youth Days and selfies with the pope are disgusting, and must stop! I keep thinking of St. Pius X's words "it is not fitting for the servant to be applauded in the house of the Lord."  

He will have to practice prudence and be a man of prayer.
Pius XIII is a strange character. One one hand, he is often seen confiding in a trusted advisor that he has no faith. Other times, he is teaching others how to pray. There are two Pius XIIs on the show, but there must only be a single undivided successor of Peter. The Pope who will have to deal with the crisis must first and foremost of a sound spiritual life. None of us know if a priest is in the state of Grace or the state of Mortal Sin. But with the help of the lay people's prayers and support, and the sustaining gift from the Almighty, the future pope will be  faithful always. He will be a good humble example of what it means to be a priest, bishop, and pope. The world is watching for the next scandal to come from the Vatican. His Holiness will have too much at stake and too much on the line to abandon his daily meditation and prayers. The fictional sovereign pontiff was able to move God Himself by his prayer. The real pope will have to have a Faith so great he could move mountains as well. And he will have to be charitable, on top of it all. True charity! Not global warming or immigrants, but genuine prudent charity. 
The Pope will have to defend his kingdom.
The World demands the complete annihilation of everything Christian and will not stop until she has what she wants. The scene was extremely curious. You have two handsome, powerful men. One represents the progress (regress) of Modern Man. The other is the Vicar of Christ till He comes in glory. The pope hands the President of Italy a list of demands and that any modern man would laugh at. In fact, he does get laughed at, but takes it with a smile. Then he breaks it down for the president. He is here, not for popularity, but for God. The list:
  1. Greater Assistance to Catholic families
  2. No to common law marriages.
  3. No to gay marriages
  4. More money to Catholic schools
  5. Further tax and banking benefits to the Holy See
  6. Absolute prohibition of abortion in all cases
  7. Absolute prohibition of divorce in all cases
  8. No to any temptation to accept euthanasia 
  9. Retsriction of the re-entrance freedom of Muslims and Hindu
  10. Opening of discussion to the Lateran Act
  11. A full review of the territorial boundaries of the Vatican State
This is probably one of my favorite parts of the show. This is the real mindset of a Church Militant General who is in a war to restore Christ as King. Even if the Bishop of Rome is the laughing stock on the world stage, he will be a man of principal! When he stands naked before God with the indelible mark of a shepherd, he will say "I worked to restore Your Order, O Lord."
His Holiness must re-institute the Traditional Latin Mass.
This is a given. I have written most blog entries on why this is necessary and will not bore you with the details. What I would like to bring up is something that I heard on a Dr. Taylor Marshall vlog. A guest priest and Dr. Marshall spend 1:40:00 talking about how to restore the crises in the church, and it starts with the nature of the bishop. While I don't agree with them on everything, I do agree with the modernist priest on one thing he said. "Some Traditionalists think that if there were only a Cappa Magna in every Cathedral" then the crisis would be fixed. YES!! Exactly my point. And why there are so many topics spun from The Young Pope. Its not about external decor. Having pretty churches, having, nice vestments, having sodomite priests say the Latin Mass, having modernist bishops wear 18 inch tall miters with gloves and gold wrought crosiers are not going to fix the problem. Getting back to Pre-Vatican II teachings and having true Catholic Faith and identity of our forefathers will. The Latin Mass manifests the Deposit of Faith, and its return would form our disposition to the grace that God would give to make the change we so desperately need.
This next pope must be in line with his predecessors.
No more innovation.  No more heresy. No more "who am I to judge." We just want a Pope who is in agreement with the 2000 years of history and will defend the deposit of faith. I have my doubts as to whether history will say Pope Francis was in line with his predecessors. We will see how history remembers the current pontificate.
The Holy Father will deal with the perverts in the Church
I have been busy/too lazy to blogging. But how can I not when this parallel is slapping me in the face! We have the same exact scenario in the church as we do in the Young Pope. Did HBO know something the media didn't? When the consulted the priests, did the priests lay it all out? This is spooky! The show deals with two sexually deviant cardinals in two ways
  1. Pius XIII's childhood friend, Cardinal Dussolier was an unchaste man. One of the parts I had to skip over is an orgy seen where he breaks his vow of celibacy with men and women. He is killed by his lovers spouse and the wages of sin is death.
  2. Abp. Kurtwell is much like our Cardinal McCarrick, and loves him some young men. Kurtwell surrounds himself with handsome priest aides and his character also encompasses the priest sex offenders in the news by pursuing lay people, too. He is great at raising money, and is said to be the most powerful man in the city. Pope XIII sends a Monsignor who was abused as a child to handle the Kurtwell case. The victim-now-Cardinal is able to gather the necessary evidence to try Kurtwell, and there the viewer gets a sense of closure. The pope confronts the Archbishop and knowing what will happen next, sentences him to a new assignment. Pius XIII sends him to a sub-freezing isolated diocese that he keeps on standby for the reprobate/dissenting bishops who need an example made out of them. Justice is best served cold.
I want to make mention that HBO does try to pull something sneaky. The show first gives the viewer a glance into the pontiff's mind. At first, His Holiness tells his Secretary of State that he wants to "prosecute all the cases of homosexuality that is infesting Our Church... This time for real, without exceptions and without hypocrisy." When the Sec. of State implores Pius XIII to not confuse pedophilia with homosexuality, and that he is proposing going after "two-thirds" of the clergy, Pius XIII is un-phased. Later, HBO makes the character arch of the Pope end with him softening on this stance. He knows about the victim-now-Cardinal's sexual attractions, and still asks him to be his personal advisor. This shows a human element to the character. BUT, I say that whatever Lenny's pontificate does is 1,000 times better than what Francis is doing.

In a touching scene, we get one more look into Pius XIII's mind. When the pedophile Bishop is recounting his story, he asks the pope "what do you care about a 12 year old boy on his knees in front of a man in wet clothes in February of 1955?" Pope Pius XIII answer's "We care, Archbishop. We care about all children." If that is the case, then his efforts to rid the church of practicing homosexuals is precisely the remedy. We do not, however, get the same luxury of a look into Pope Francis mind. All he can say about the allegations made about him is "I wont say a single word."



All the errors that have been allowed to go on in the last 50 years must be annihilated. 
I don't know how this last part will work. But it is almost to the point where you have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I will write a conclusion blog on my overall thoughts soon.


Thursday, April 12, 2018

Young Pope and What They Got Right - Episode 1

Young Pope and What They got Right
Episode 1
"I am a contradiction"
So I have to start off by giving you my overall feeling. This crew definitely consulted people on how to be Catholic. And then they kept all of the externals and dumped the internals. HBO gives us exactly what the world wants in 2018. A flawed main character, who is so bad, hes good. Jude Law is lovable in this for sure. His American accent disarms you (all villains in Disney have British accents, right?) For the point of this Young Pope analytical series, I will assume that us traditionalists are stuck with the flawed character of Lenny Belardo AKA Pope Pius XIII to end the crisis in the Church and everything that means. We shall see if God can use a miserable character developed by HBO to save the church IMO.  Also, I have acquired a list that allows me to fast-forward through the naughty parts of the show, so you get a clean analysis in red

This show starts out with newly elected Pius XIII delivering his first address. It starts out extremely humanistic, Novus Ordo, Francis-forward. Then it takes a sharp turn, where you don't know if he is being ironic. Summarized: we have forgotten to masturbate, contracept, marry same sexes, have homosexual priests - married priests, euthanize, fornicate, divorce, allow woman priests, use invetro-fertilization! We then find out its just a dream. Okay, this is going to be a wild ride.
So right off the bat, we know HBO recognizes the Churches firm opposition in the way of "progress." All of the vices listed above is what Hollywood, the Left, most protestants and all Catholics-in-name-only want. If this is a show with an agenda, they will try to make the Church compromise on these topics either through Faith or Morals. 

There is a rather funny exchange next. The Vatican prepares the pontiff what looks like every breakfast item a 5 star hotel would be able to prepare. However, Pius XIII "Didn't they tell you? I eat hardly nothing. All I have in the morning is a Cherry Coke Zero" An overfriendly old sister comes in and pinches the pope on the cheek. He scolds her in front of the kitchen staff and we get an idea of how his pontificate will be.
This really gets to my point. Can we save the Church with this fictitious pope? He seems like an A-Hole so far. But can an A-Hole turn the bark of Peter 180 degrees, and return to Tradition? Well, I'll put it this way, I haven't seen anything yet that says no. In fact, a little brashness is going to be needed when everyone is so politically correct while basing everything on how they feel. So far he passes.

We next see a cardinal transact business on his smartphone while in confession.Ah, now we're getting into belittling the Sacraments. Next we get to see a private conversation among four cardinals regarding whether the Holy Spirit lead them to make the right choice. We get the person we deserve. We get an idea of what Hollywood thinks scares the Catholic Hierarchy. Cardinal Spencer is too independent. Couldn't be controlled. Then we get an idea of what Hollywood thinks the Catholic Hierarchy wants... a pope that can be a puppet. Now, dear reader, have we had puppet popes before? Absolutely, says secular history. And I might even venture to agree. Did all of those popes know they were puppets? Nope. Do cardinals and bishops have more power after Vatican II? (not really, but they think they do.) So since the hierarchy in real life is so far gone... and they HBO is not friendly to Catholicism... and wants the viewer to hold the view that the cardinals wish only puppets to perpetuate a moderate and impotent papacy, we are starting to get down to why a our thesis.  

We are whisked away to the popes bedroom where the Holy Father is praying alone in his room. How edifying? The pope who fixes the crisis must have a strong prayer life. But what are the fruits of his prayer? The very next scene is the Pope asking his confessor break the seal of confession. Later, he makes his new secretary (the sister who took him in as an orphan) stand in the middle of the Vatican, and and says "You are at the exact center of the Church. and now the center of the Church takes a few steps back.> This is obviously meant to give the viewer a sinking feeling if you are a lib watching the show. Or it might be a ray of hope if you like externals. Obviously, there can be no internal change if the pope is already breaking the seal of confession for what we presume is his own personal gain.So this is our departure. Hollywood has given us man who has overstepped too much. These are spiritual problems, and those will not fix the Church, no matter what else happens, unless Pius XIII repents..

Two last details from the first episode. Our pope is a smoker. That isn't as scandalous as it sounds, but smoking is the new sin. Also, good people don't smoke, unless, you are a part of the trendy crowd. Then cigs can be alright, I guess. The Cardinal Secretary of State reminds the His Holiness that smoking in the Vatican was forbidden by John Paul II! "Well, there is a new pope now." That is the overall attitude of his pontificate. It shows that he is the law giver and that he is not subject to the past limitations that his predecessors have set.

Finally, we see the pope with his confessor on the rooftop. The Holy Father makes his first real confession when he tells the confessor his sin. He doesn't believe in God. After he sees the look of horror on the priests face, he quickly puts a smile back on and tells the simply friar that he is just kidding. Alright, we have it. This is the crux of the problem. Can someone who doesn't have the Faith fix our problem. That is the new question I will examine. But wait... we say him pray to God when he was by himself! Maybe he does believe in God. Maybe, he is trying to test his boundries. Perhaps test the poor priest. See how he reacts... Whatever Jude Law is doing, he certainly is full of malice, and it makes for a very dynamic and curious character.

Stay tuned for Episode 2 analysis.




Tuesday, April 10, 2018

The Dictator Pope - Not Francis

Today's topic is what does it mean to The Dictator Pope!

No, this blog is not about Francis or the book. This blog is about the future pope, in my opinion, will look like a dictator pope to the world.

The definition a dictator is this (according to Google): a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.

Francis is being called the Dictator Pope, because he is the first pope in recent memory who speaks off the cuff, commits jarring actions (that still somehow surprise people,) or fires people like Trump. That doesn't make him a dictator! He needs to be called something else (by the next pope, but that is a topic for a different blog.) Trump is not a dictator because A) the president does not have total power, and B) because he obtained office not by force. For that matter, neither was Obama. Francis, in the same way, cannot be called a dictator because the truth is (and Vatican I has defined) that the pope does not have total power. Nor did Francis take the Holy See by force. Sure, the reason for Benedict's resignation makes people scratch their head, but Benedict is not in exile. Even if he was threatened to leave, Benedict has made no attempts to claim he is the true head of the Church. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with pope who does things by executive order. And Francis is not the first nor will His Holiness be the last.

The pope that I mentioned above, the one who will be stuck with the mess the last six popes have left us in, will have to take so many executive actions to get the Church back on track its not even funny. The liberal media will have a field day with him! That is why I am am going to review this show: HBO's Young Pope. This series will touch on what would it look like to have a Pope who didn't pander to the world. I have been forewarned, and will take necessarily precautions to avoid the sin. But you have to admit how alluring it would look like for what a pope that pisses off the liberal media would look like. But HBO is the most liberal of all the channels! This should be interesting!!

to be continued...

Thursday, February 15, 2018

The Mass & mass Shootings

Today I would like to speak on the buzz words: mass violence, gun control, mental health from a Catholic prospective.

Mass Violence - 17, maybe more, died in a school shooting. That's 17 too many. One person is dying in a school shooting is too much. What makes 17 worse than 1? The fact that they were random? The fact that they were innocent? The fact they were unarmed? The fact that 17 is more than 1? Yes, all of the above. It's sick. I'm not sure what the shooters motive was, but the commom denominator in Mass Violence is the shooters don't discriminate. I am thinking of two other times when a person didn't discriminate. When the United States dropped not one but two bombs on Japan and wiped Nagasaki and Hiroshima of the face of the earth. Where is the outrage? There were hundreds of thousands obliterated who were random, innocent, and unarmed. Dead. Shame on the U.S. I'm also reminded of Abortion. "No one wants to get an abortion" I've been told. I'm sorry, people should take responsibility for their actions. A life ends because of an abortion. The men and children who died in Parkland were wanted. The children who are aborted are not wanted. We need to change the excepted idea that there are some people that are not wanted. Shame on the U.S. for perpetuating that message.

Gun Control - what's the answer? More background checks? The piece of shit (yes, I know I just got done saying that all people should be wanted, but he just forfeited his right to life by become cancer to society and should be removed) was mentally unwell. How could you have kept guns out of his hands? Baker Act him a month ago and declare him mentally unfit so that shows up on his background check? Should someone have sent him to counciling when his mom died or when the girl he was stalking didn't stalk him back? What's the answer? There are sooooooo many crazies out there. Who gets to decide when someone looses the privledge to having a gun. Yeah, I called it a privledge, not a right. I'm reminded of George Carlin's words. Think of the Japanese in California in WWII. Their "God given right" to bare arms was taken away in the snap of a finger.
Do we ban only Assult Rifles? I know you can hunt with one, but other than killing a lot of people at once, i cant think of many things you for which you can use them. Defending your family? It's a stretch, I think the U.S. interior/domestic aggressive task force would have the upper hand in a shoot out with you and some buddies vs. them. But you'd go out saying "I told you so." So, I have a gun. A trusty revolver. Theoretically, I could kill 6 people with it. If I stole my roommates gun, I could kill 12 people if I was a good shot. That's a Mass Violent shooting. I don't think you could ban just ARs and stop all Mass Violent shootings. You'd have to ban all guns.
Ok, so if we ban all guns, first off we turn them over to a government that doesn't value life at all. And we have to trust that the criminals handed over their guns too. It would be a crime to own a gun. Criminals are good at commiting crimes, so they'd probably be in the possession of a gun. I'm thinking of Chicago, which has extremely strict gun laws, and the highest rate of gun violence I can think of. Unless every weapon from every .22 to every nuke just somehow disintegrated at the same time, the bad can very scarily outweigh the good. I could see the people blaming this shooting on guns not accepting the blame when a law abiding citizen can't save his or herself and gets raped, killed, robbed when they have no way to protect themselves.
I'm reminded of the anecdote where I can set my revolver (or even an AR-15) on my porch and not one person passing by will be shot. That's because guns don't kill, people kill.

So that leads us to Mental Health.
I've already proposed the question. Who is responsible for ensuring everyone takes a mental health exam and getting the help they need. Food is more important than a mental health exam, and guess what? Not everybody has been fed yet. How are we going to help everybody that needs help? Could it be to treat others as you would have done unto you? That's a start. But people didn't follow the golden rule and just stop in the late 1990s when Columbine happened. But discipline was out and Godlessness was in.

So what's the answer? I would like to propose that everybody starts by valuing the life of not just themselves, but their neighbor. All people. The young, the old,  the blacks, your non Catholic neighbor. But I can't put a gun against your forehead and make you. It's got to come through prayer from within. Where can you find discipline? How about the desire to love all and value all people? Mass.

Requiescant in Pace

Friday, February 24, 2017

Brass Tacks

This web log entry is a brief(?) take on the crux of the problem. What is the underlying question here? One might be able to get down to brass tacks if the question(s) was/were presented like so:

Why do the Vatican II changes matter so much as to lose confidence in the Roman Catholic Church. If Vatican II didn't change Dogma, then what is wrong with it and why is making Mass more accessible a bad thing?

1. Is the confidence in Our Lord's Church (The Roman Catholic Church) shaken by Vatican II?

No! Not in the least! Our Lord promised the gift of Indefectability to the Church Herself. In Her teachings and in Her Dogmas. In Her Sacred Tradition and in Her Magesterium (teaching arm). By the very words of those in charge of the Church (quotations of John XXIII, Paul VI, and Benedict XVI in my blog entry "Is George B. Shaw Correct") we see that Vatican II doesn't even claim to want to mess with these Pillars of the Church. What I would suggest rather, is the hierarchy is where the faithful are experiencing the loss in confidence. And the gift of Indefectability does not lie with the hierarchy, as Christ never promised Peter he would never be wrong! To be completely honest, there are only a few bishops left in the entire world that would not be called a Modernist by Pope St. Pius X. The hierarchy and the Church are thankfully not identical and stand separate when it comes to criticism. Lets quickly call to mind the current situation where we have Pope Francis vs. Cardinal Burke on Communion for the divorced/re-married. When the hierarchy is loosing it, one can doubt (dubia) the leaderships opinion when it differs from the Faith that has always been taught. We got so use to having GREAT leaders looking out for heresy that we just took for granted that everything out of the mouths of the popes were good and trustworthy. Look at the string of Popes: Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII! Wow, if you read what these popes wrote, you would understand whar it meas to be the Good Shepherd. These popes saw what was coming and warned the clergy and Church at large what was going to happen... and then it happened.


2. What is wrong with Vatican II?

All normal people must admit Vatican II is a recognized Council of the Church because it was called by the Pope... certainly part of Her history. Some people say the Holy Ghost was not invoked as in other Councils because there weas no need for His gift of Infallibility for the first time in a Council of the Catholic Church. Rather, I'd say the Holy Ghost was certainly with the Council, as under His wing, none of the novelties or conflicts with past teachings were declared to believed by all Catholics as a matter of faith (which would have compromised question one!) Here are some of the conflicting/new ideas in Vatican II:

Dec. 1963 Sacrisanctum Concilium - On the Restoration of the Liturgy. The following is an excerpt taken from my entry of 29-November, 2010. Please see on Sacrisanctum Concillium for more. ***"Introduces the "Paschal Mystery" which was never taught before and makes no distinction on what is actually going on at Mass. Tradition says the death of Our Lord is the sacrifice that saves us, not the Paschal Mysteries. The Mass is the application of the merits won for us while Christ was alive. Once you die, you cannot merit. And neither could Christ"*** [This is regarding whether the Resurrection and Ascension was meritorious and whether those mysteries won grace to be applied to us in the Mass]" This document flies in the face of Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum July 1570 and many sessions of the Council of Trent on the Nature of the Mass.

Nov. 1964 Lumen Gentium - On the Church. The following is an excerpt taken from my entry of 02-December, 2010. Please see On Lumen Gentium for more.  ***"Tradition says that the True Church must be seen, you must be able to put your finger on it, and outside of it, God does not use other religions to save souls. Now, the Church is actually a mystery, that we can't quite figure out (which is in some ways true, but we can still know the Church and that is not stated clearly.) Vatican II is pretty sure (as it uses the subjunctive case instead of the indicative case) that the fullness of Truth subsists in the Roman Church. This is problematic. If the true society only subsists in the Church, it is not efficacious. It uses a lot of vague flowery words to get around saying that there is, in fact, an apostolic line that only can claim Truth for its own."*** [This goes against everything the Encyclical "Quas Primas" stands for of Pope Pius XI regarding the Social Kingship of Christ

Oct. 1965 Nostrae Aetate - On Non-Christian Religions. The following is an excerpt taken from my entry of 07-December, 2010. Please see On Nostrae Aetate for more. ***"The Document is only on how other religions unite. Not how they are wrong. Starts with Hinduism. The Hindus haven't discovered any divine mystery. But this documents says they worship God, free from the illusions of this world. There is no condemnation of anything false. Buddhism can strive to obtain the enlightened one. Islam worships God the Father. St. Francis Xavier went to Sri Lanka. He converted the little Hindus and told them to go destroy (the statues in) the temple. [This document totally contradicts Mortalium Animos (on Fostering True Religious Unity) and Qui Pluribus (on Faith and Religion) of Pope Pius XI.

Dec 1965 Dignitatis Humanae - On Religious Liberty. The following is an excerpt taken from my entry of 12-December, 2010. Please see On Dignitatis Humanae for more. ***"This is the hardest document for Americans to understand. We take for granted the rights of Man (according to the French Revelation.)"We the people!" Life, Liberty, and (property) the pursuit of happiness. You do what you need to do, as long as you don't hurt anybody and you pay your taxes, and you're good to go. We have a very pluralistic mentality. Well, (it was actually called) "Americanism" was condemned by Pope Leo XIII."*** In fact, most ideas of this document are condemned by Maxima Quidem (Again, Pius IX in 1862 just 100 years earlier.) This document completely goes against Paul VI's predecessors and wasn't signed by several bishops.

So what is the big deal! We don't have to believe any of the new ideas of Vatican II, right?!?!?

Well, the big deal is that these ideas are condemned and we were told to stay away from people who preached these very condemned ideas. It is for the good of our souls, and our loved ones' souls. Not only do the novelties of Vatican II not save, they can lead us on the road to hell (or else why would they have been condemned?) Some of Vatican II was good. Some of Vatican II was unclear. Some of Vatican II went against what was previously taught.

3. Why is the New Way of Mass a bad thing (isn't it more accessible?)

The Novus Ordo, I admit, is more convenient to the general population. It is in the common language so no subtitles needed. I think that Mel's Passion of the Christ is better being in the Aramaic and Latin as it maintains a certain aura of mysteriousness, authenticity, and the supernatural.Well, that is nice, but that is just this author's opinion. Hey guess what? The Novus Ordo Mass was promulgated in Latin in 1969! So lets come to a few conclusions. The New Mass IS NOT he Old Mass translated into English. "Why" is a question that you have to ask yourself! They are objectively not the same Mass (while they share in the same Sacrifice as do all valid Masses) and if the New Mass was merely a translation of the Old, then we would be having a very different one-sided-blog conversation here. Okay, so what are we left with critiquing? Well, the Novus Ordo was critiqued by someone who, unlike this blogger, was a theologian. Cardinal Ottaviani along with seven other cardinals undertook a critique of the text of New Mass.  The Ottaviani Intervention was simply a letter to Pope Paul VI on what was theologically incorrect with Novus Ordo Mass in its pure form. I wont go into whats wrong with it, as that matter is exhausted in the Intervention which is available below. Its only 14 or so pages and a must read! But I will tell you the conclusion... The Novus Ordo Mass is not only lacking, but harmful even if it is said in Latin, said facing East, and with no liturgical abuses.

Is it more accessible? Paul VI wanted the Mass more accessible to the Protestants. But we know that the Mass is the Propitiatory Sacrifice to God not an opportunity to congregate with non-believers (of course you can take the opportunity to invite your non-Catholic neighbor to come to Mass.) When the emphasis moves from "come to Mass with me and see how people have worshiped God for 2000 years" to "come to Mass with me, you'll fit right in" we know a shift is happening. The graces won at Mass can move non-believing hearts. A non-Catholic seeing a Mass celebrated for the first time can strike a conversion because of what the Mass intrinsically is! But the Mass is not meant as the primary time for people to learn about the Catholic Faith. It is for those who already profess the Faith to worship God in a fitting manner. And it is no to be available to all. That is why the Mass (even the New Order) is broken into two parts. The Mass of the Catechumens (N.O. "Liturgy of the Word") and The Mass of the Faithful (N.O. "Liturgy of the Eucharist) where the Catechumens are dismissed. The Consecration and distribution of Holy Communion is for those who are in Communion with the Church. Its exclusive - thats the way it is! I didn't make it up. Paul VI didn't make it up, St. Pius V didn't make it up. It is Apostolic in Nature that the Mass is not meant to be a teaching tool for others, but the four ends: worship, petition, thanksgiving, and to atone for sin.

Conclusion
When I stand back and look at the whole picture, I would dare say it is not about the Mass but the teaching behind the Mass that is what we are fighting for. The Mass will manifest the teachings.
  • The New Theology of the Pastoral Council comes with the New Mass. The fruits of the New Theology is rockstar popes, 50% of "Catholics" voting for Hilary, and shortage of priests.
  • The Old Theology of the Dogmatic Councils comes with the Traditional Rite. The fruits of the Old Theology were clear teachings and full seminaries. I know the SSPX has a huge wait list for seminarians, as does the FSSP from what I understand.
Is confidence rocked in the Church? No.
Is confidence rocked in the Church's leadership? Yes.

Is there a crisis in the Church? Yes, of course in the Middle East, Churches are being bombed and Catholics are being put to death. Is there a crisis in the Church in the US? Yes, although our bodies are not being persecuted (Thanks, Trump) like our brothers and sisters in the Middle East, our souls, however, are subjected to a crisis of the Faith. My bishop is off celebrating the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation with the Lutherans. Something is not right! All this post is meant to provide is just enough information for those who want dig deeper. Those who wish to no longer wear rose color glasses and pretend everything is honky dory.

The three exhaustive sources that everyone should at least be aware of. (Maybe start by just browsing the Table of Contents!):

Iota Unum - A study of the Changes in Catholic Church in the 20th Century

The Popes against the Modern Errors

The Ottaviani Intervention




Saturday, February 4, 2017

Is George Bernard Shaw Correct?

"Those who can, do. Those who can't... teach"


Today I would like to get in a little trouble with my teacher friends. They are overworked, underpaid, and have one of the most important jobs - namely, forming our children. I had some terrific teachers in my lifetime. I also had some average teachers in my life time. I would like to say, for the record, that even if you are an average teacher, you are twice the person I will ever be! God Bless you for dealing with brats all day. I think George was not talking about my teacher-friends... but more made this statement regarding the tenured intellectual snobs who live only in theory and do not know what it is like in the real world. The professors that cancelled their tests because there might be emotional distraught over recent election results come to mind.

This post, of course, is not about how I feel concerning teachers. I brought up teachers because the topic of this post is "What does it mean to teach?" 

Some words only have one level of meaning. An example is "telephone." A telephone is a telephone is a telephone. Some words have more than one level of meaning. Love, for example. "I love those shoes" does not mean you will take a bullet for those shoes I hope. Which brings us to the word teach. To teach is to pass on knowledge. You can be taught a lesson by example. You can teach your kids to tie their shoes. You can teach them the difference between right and wrong. If you are in a pastor, you can teach your flock what it means to be a good Christian. If you are pope you can do that too with Your Holiness's weekly audiences and actions! If you are a pope, you can also solemnly teach the Catholic Church what they need to believe in order to be called Catholic, and if they do not believe it, they are outside of the Church. 

Allow me to opine with everybody's favorite Council: Vatican Two One.(my editorial words in red)

Chapter 4. 
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff
1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of TEACHING. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

6. For the Holy Spirit God's gift of Infallibility was promised to the successors of Peter, not so that they might, by his revelation not private revelation, not a eureka moment, not a gut feeling, not a enlightenment of Jesuit formation make known some new doctrine, like Benedict XVI's "two people can share in one popeship, the Passive and the Active" - or more his contemporary predecessor's "divorced and actively remarried people can receive Holy Communion" but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard protect from error and faithfully expound define the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. the last one died c. 100 AD meaning no new faith after St. John passed away.

Indeed, their apostolic TEACHING was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error that is taught, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

7. This gift given by God, not made up so Catholics can always be right of truth God's truth, adopted by us... not the other way around and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office actually do what they were put in place to do for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ the Catholic Church might be kept away by them the popes from the poisonous food of error heresy and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine what is to be held by Catholics so that we may go to heaven. Thus the tendency to schism schism like the Protestants or schism SSPX??? is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell. Unity is very important, one of the four marks. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism binds us together.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering clinging/following anything but not doing your own thing to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith not making up one's own religion, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation triumph, supremacy, victory, whats right is placed above what is wrong of the Catholic religion and for the salvation His Holiness's intention is made clear he is doing this for the salvation of souls is making the next statement of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council not that the approval of the council is needed as we'll see, we the popes use to speak in "royal we", so this plural doesn't mean "I need the council's help to do what I am about to do" but it can mean that the bishops are joining in the popes power to teach TEACH and define as a divinely revealed dogma bingo! - key to all of this that when the Roman Pontiff see? only he needs to define speaks EX CATHEDRA, I didn't caps lock this one, it means From the Chair (comes from the time when teachers sat and students stood) that is I love it! here comes the explination of what Ex Cathedra means, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority making clear to all he is acting in the capacity with infallibility he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals not ecology to be held believed as a matter of Faith by the whole Church all Catholics, no exceptions, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility what he possesses which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining draw a line between what can and cannot be held doctrine concerning faith or morals the two subjects the pope rules over. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church again, no synod needed, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity audacity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. Cast out! The condemnations let us what is at stake. It makes it clear that this was always Truth.

Lets look at the language of other Infallible teachings from the last time a dogma has been defined Ex Cathedra in 1950!

From Munificentissimus Deus of Pius XII:
"...have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth... by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God...was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence if anyone... should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he was fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."


Whats on the test? Are things like false worship going to matter when we face our Maker? Yes! Are things like being good stewards of planet Earth going to matter when our soul is judged? Not nearly as much! The point of this blog is to focus on the stuff that actually matters. There are other blogs that have artsy pictures of food from above, or even talk about how great the pope is/isn't. This isn't that blog.

Okay, so far I hope that I have convinced you, dear reader, that the pope speaking Ex Cathedra is the highest form of teaching. What does that mean about when he does mean when he doesn't speak Ex Catherdra? Well...obviously he does not enjoy the gift of Infallibility i.e. can be fallible. When John Paul II said what Archbishop Lefebvre did (disobediently consecrated four bishops in 1988) was a schismatic act, His Holiness was talking off the cuff, not Ex Cathedra. It goes back to "I love those shoes." Love doesn't mean love in that instant... maybe a connotation of affection and desire, but no where near love. When JPII said "schismatic" it didn't meet the real definition of schism. When Henry VIII broke away from Rome and the English bishops renounced their allegiance to Rome, and continued to rule as a counter-Roman church, that does meet the definition of schism!

So the Protestants in England and all over denied the Petrine Primacy, infallibly taught in Chapter One of the First Vatican Council, and they are wrong for doing so. There are probably 100(0) dogmas that were TAUGHT we could go over that the Protestants do not agree with. That makes them outside of the Church, and we should pray for their return. But what about the Traditionalists? They do not accept Vatican II. Why? Well, in short, Vatican two was the antithesis of The Syllabus of Errors by Bl. Pius IX. The Syllabus (hey, thats another teacher word ;) )condemned everything Vatican II stood for. Vatican II is called the French Revolution of the Church so that Fraternity, Liberty, and Equality would reign. What did the Second Vatican Council TEACH? Lets see what the popes said.

"The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way it is presented is another. And it is the latter which must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magesterium which is predominately pastoral in character."
-Pope John XXIII's opening speech of Vatican II. 

"There are those who ask by what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its TEACHINGS, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible TEACHING authority. The answer is known by those who remember the concilliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."
-Pope Paul VI (general audience, Rome, 01-December, 1966)

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet so many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."
-then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (address to the Bishops of Chile, 13-July, 1988)

This post is too long. I need to wrap it up! I will attempt to answer one last question: How does a Traditionalist say that the Church cannot err to a Protestant but say the Church is in error when talking to a non-traditional Catholic? I answer that question with Vatican One. God gave us his Bride, the Church, and handed the spotless Faith which cannot fail because it comes from God, not Man. The Church cannot err. The men leading the Church can, have, and do err. They cannot err if they invoke their potency as the Vicar of Christ teach from the throne of St. Peter and dogmatically teach a truth that all Christians must believe, and that has been held by the faithful since Apostolic times. God has promised us the gift of Infallibility in that circumstance, and if you call yourself Catholic, there is no way around it! If the pope, his College of Cardinals, the USCCB, etc. have their own opinion, that is nothing new. There are lots of times in history the popes have been wrong, and I would be happy to explain to a Protestant why they were wrong. The three cases come that come to mind are Popes Formosus, Honorius, and Liberius. These popes were not wrong because they turned the Vatican into a brothel like Pope Alexander VI... they actually gave their private opinion on matters of faith to the public and were not remembered by history kindly! But they, by the grace of God, never formally taught their "teachings" in dogmatic definitions. The good Christians in those times were right in standing up against the false teachings. They knew the Holy Mother Church is always correct, and someone at the top was screwing up a la St. Paul to the Galatians 1:8.

A Catholic can tell a Protestant that Catholicism is indeed the Inerrant Church that Christ founded on St. Peter. That same person can tell his or her Catholic neighbor that the Church hierarchy is errant and wrong on one or multiple matters (as long as they can back it up) since the pope and the bishops are not the Church The popes and bishops have been given charge to protect the Church's Faith and pass it along unblemished and without adding their own spin. That is why they are there, and it is true that we must obey our Local Ordinaries in everything but sin since they have delegated jurisdiction over us. But with the amount of harm the hierarchy is allowing/promoting, it would be hard to say that we are not in a Crisis of the Faith. There have been persecutions, but we have to acknowledge the past crises and what was the outcome. Here are the Fourth Century words of St. Athanasius to his flock. 
"It is a fact that they have the churches, but you have the Faith...They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray."

If there have been past crises, a current crisis of the Faith, then there could even be future crises. (link to The Lord of the World review here!) But we have Christs words to rest on! "The gates of Hell shall never prevail against it!

St. Athanasius, pray for us.