Gaudiam et Spes

These are the last of my notes on the Vatican II series.
December 7th, 1965

**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**

Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the modern world. Speaks about the dignity of man. The ideas of the Church for mans betterment. It starts out with man in 1965. Existential..."The joys and hopes of man in 1965 are the same as the Church." There is no mention of Original Sin. "To be a good Christian is to be the most human." Grace and nature are confused. But we shouldn't want to make man more human. We should want to become divine! Justification and Sanctification are not brought forth. Now the Church is a servant of mankind? Even a king acts as a "servant" for the common good, but he rules rather than serves. To be of the image we need divine intellect and will. The document says it "bares about an element of the divine." If its not talking about grace, then what? It even talks about the "Brotherhood of Man." The Free Masons use that phrase a lot, too. And they mean it in the same way Gaudiam et Spes does. Free Masons mean what you think of. One big world where everybody drinks Coca-Cola holding hands. This departs from the Church's perennial view that we are brothers in the true sense that God is Father, and the Church is Mother. We share in the divine sonship. If you try to fit this definition in the document it doesn't make sense. It all starts with idea that Christ came to serve and not judge is not traditional, nor biblical.
How does the Church judge. In the confessional with penance and absolution. Excommunication and Anathema. Can we use contraception? The Church has passed her judgment on that, as well. The Church is here to judge! Well, does mankind desire to be saved, or not? There is a lot of talk about all this "aspirating." Its all New Age, critical and swift upheaval. Current trends lead to ecumenism. There is a new vision (Free Masonic) where we are all citizens of the world (really Free Masonic) "civis" of a "civitas" with one state with the order to the service of man? or God? (St. Augustine talks about how these two are very different.) In justice, what do we owe God? Our conscience is an act the intellect makes regarding the morality of a decision. *Morality involves God.
Another quote "To develop [Man's] dignity" that page comes strait out of the United Nations. Is man really asking deep questions today? Is the person playing Halo 3 on the couch really asking "what is my vocation?" This document declares "All things should be ordained to man for the center and summit." What happened to dying to oneself, may I ask? Are we born free? Guadiam et Spes makes a good case for that idea. Man can do whatever he wants.
"Adam and Eve had the first relationship between persons." Does the Church not remember Adam and Gods relationship. *Freedom is the capacity to choose between two varying goods... so is it my freedom is protected or my freedom is restricted.
Nowhere does this document mention Communism, which so many hoped it would. Does only a body belong to the state? Does the soul belong to God? Does only the soul belong to God, or the body, too?

on De Verbum

November 11, 1965 on Divine Revelation...

**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**

Msgr Ghardini says this Council shouldn't be weighted as much as the others. In the constitutions, only the repeated dogmas are infallible. Anything new, not dogmatic, no definitions, no condemnations.
Revelation by scripture and tradition. Two sources.
Inspiration-Movement of the Holy Ghost. Whereby God directs the writing of human authors so that those and only those things that God wishes are written. Nothing more, nothing less is there that is meant to be there. Only Scripture is inspired (written.) Even eccuminical councils are not written in only the words that God wants. Infalibility and Inspiration are not the same thing. Councils that are infalible are only protected for writing something erroneous.
Scripture is inerrant. No error. None. Not just in theology, not just morals. We're talking geographical, chronological, etc, becuase God cannot direct error to happen. Inerrant is not restricted. It excludes/forbids error. There is no difference... no split between God and the human authors. They couldn't even think of something wrong. It is not true to say "only the religious elements are infalible." That was condemned in 1920. Words are dictated by the Holy Ghost to the person writing.

1) Devine Revelation- all recolation ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John. Traditionally the will submits, and the intellect receives the Content of Faith. These "truths revealed" are "communicated by God himself. Now, people don't want to adhear to God Himself but to man. That leaves room for protestants, Jews, etc. The Truths of the Faith are learnable things, not experiences.

2) "From the Gospel comes truth, morals." What about tradition? That is the other source. It doesn't talk about it at all. The deposit of Faith is dead to the Modern Man. They talk about the living Gospel They really wanted it to grow and change. Can you believe Nicea, Trent, in the same way the Church believed it then. Or were we wrong then about the meaning, and "now we've grown." The apostles receives, and the hierarchy gives to the people. Now there is a move to blur the lines. Make the teaching church and the lay people equals... Tradition is now subordinate. "It just sheds light on scripture."

The idea behind this is "If we can put tradition on the back burner, then we can focus on scripture. That way we can talk to protestants on an even playing field. You bet the protestants who were invited to the Council loved this document. The council may have been "invoked" by the Holy Ghost, but then the hierarchy refused to use the power.

The Holy Ghost was definitely at the Council. He was there to protect the Faith from the liberals binding heresy.

The sixth sense

On Sacrosanctum Concilium (part II)

**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**

to be ecumenical, a council must wither be called by the pope, or haves the pope's approval. Like Nicaea I, called by Constantine. They define doctrine or dogma, and condemn heresy(Infallible.) To be defined, you must positively decree, (its not new revelation) that is to be held by all. The deposit of faith ended with St. John. Cannons, or "rules of faith" condemns whats said. They also can definitively reform aspects of Morals (which will be infallible too)
In 1959 when the Council was called, Belgium, Germany, and France were full of well organized liberals, like Rhienner. The group called the "Schemata" made sure Rhienner got in the council the second time it met. Yes, Vatican II is a council, but it is not infallible in definition. In 1983, it was said that infallibility rests in defining Faith and Morals.

Here is the testimony of four popes that prove Vatican II is fallible.
Oct. 6, '65 "Different from other councils, it is disciplinary and pastoral...avoids infalible teaching"
1964- "Avoided proclaiming infallible dogmatic teaching"
John Paul II- Eccesia Dei, "Vatican to renew committee, perhaps because teachings are new and not well understood."
Benedict XVI (Card. Ratzinger) to the Chilean Episcopal Conference "The truth is [Vatican II] defined no dogma at all, merely pastoral in nature... it chose to remain clear [of exorcising infallibility.] Now the council does have infallible teaching in it...When it repeats existing dogma.... but it cannot give "assent of faith."
John XXIII said on Oct. 11, 1962 "No need for any new definitions. Everything that needed to be defined was already defined!" ....
... A Dogmatic Council? No! Calling a council at this time was most inopportune because of the rampant modernism and liberalism. Sometimes heresy does "help" theologians be more precise. In the face of it they may guard the deposit of faith more efficaciously. Councils always deal with problems in the present time, but what were the problems the Church was dealing with. Communism? No, they didn't touch that. What they did say was "This doesn't touch the fundamentals" and it "should be passed on through MODERN thought." Substance is one thing, expression is another....

The vocabulary is totally different in this Council. Truth is attacked, because the words are not scholastic. Words with more than one meaning are used on purpose. Views of Truth...
Ancients' view- Conformity of the mind to reality
Modernists'- Subjectivity (exact opposite.) Because in the 17th century we learned we can be enlightened by truth, but not know it (and God who is Truth.) You can sense a tree (touch, feel, smell, taste) but you cannot know the "treeness." What about an artificial tree, that is an exact replica, and they even sprayed pine on it, and shellacked it with something that tastes like bark? Is it a tree? You cannot sense that it is not a tree, but you can know that it is not a tree.

Don Bognini was kind of a council father. "we exclude condemnation of errors"
Re clothe truths in modern thought. We need to fix families with a renewal. Archbishop Lefebrve tried to have Vatican II condemn Communism, but it was never touched.

Councils are not inspired. It would be heresy to say that Vatican II was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Just like it would be heresy to claim that Vatican I or even Trent was inspired. Only sacred scripture is inspired!

How does a liturgical document get started. Don Gueranger restored the Benedictine Abbey of Solemes. He was very Anti liturgical-heresy. He compiled Gregorian Chant and came up with a missal for the people. He really wanted to bring the people to liturgy. He combated...
Quietism- best thing is to be indifferent. Practice no virtues..."as long as I feel good towards God.
Jansenism- man is utterly wounded. Incapable of doing anything. Cannot approach sacraments unless perfect. What happens... people do not come to the sacraments.
Galicanism- Limited power of the pope in France.
Don Gaspar Lefebrve produced the St. Andrew's Missal. St. Pius X restored liturgy in Chant. Don L. Bodunin joined the Benedictines, but was a secular priest at first. His idea was that to really teach you the Faith. Private prayer/piety is nice, but the individual must give way to the community -public prayer. Bring liturgy to the people vs. bring people to the liturgy. He befriends the future John XXIII in 1924. They really start getting all excited about the parish youth movement. At this time, Archeologism is condemned. That is the idea that everything after about 300 AD is corrupt. And that the Church should go back to the primal means.
But what does "the spirit of Vatican II do?" 35 years later, it turns the altar into a table, it throws out most of the vestments, it makes the Mass "understandable" by dumbing it down.
This document of the Second Vatican Council want laity to get involved with the sacraments unlike they ever were before. All should be involved. And Latin (Western) things were distrusted.
That is why in the New Order there is the influx of the Eastern/Greek "Lord, hear our prayer."
It is "Christian variety."

Dignitatis Humanis

1965

**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**

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. He says this pragmatic mindset of "if it works than okay" neglects principal. Principal is primary. Whether it is true or not is not important for American minded people. The French for instance, would rather die for principals, to them it is not about getting along. They killed a king because they didn't like how life was.

For the Catholic mind, error is evil. Ideas can lead you to Hell. Not just morals. Fr. John Murray, Society of Jesus, tried to incorporate American Ideas into ecclesiastical law. If you have more than one religion, there's always going to be an evil. Now, whether you put up with them is a different thing. Now, all Religions are good. Age of Communism. "more interested in personal judgement, not subject to coercion, sense of duties. Existentialism." Man has now "come of age." Christianity treats people like children. Duty of Man to search for the truth. Free by Nature, man cannot be coerced. Innate Freedom to publicly practice his religion.
Now man has the Right to worship according to his conscience. There should be no external force. "the state must recognize inherent right to follow his conscience."
3. Public order. This goes against past teaching! Syllabus of Error. Absolute Naturalism. No regard for religion. Moderate same validity for the true religion as for false religion. Public peace may require. But it is almost word for word condemned! (This document may be whats called the counter-syllabus of Error.) Exorcise virtue so that he may save his soul. True religion can not be treated as a false religion, then people cannot know the difference. If they contradict, then we have a problem. They lead to unbelief. If you treat Evil the way you treat Good, you destroy Good. Not difficult. God provides truths. Inquisition.- St. Pius V (inquisitor himself.) He knew that the act of Faith cannot be forced. You cannot for Baptism. But he and the other inquisitors judged sessions concerning non Catholics on things that you can know by reason. Ex. Sodomy. Jews, Muslims, Catholics, all could be tried, because that is understood by all to be wrong. You could even be excommunicated if you were a civil leader who didn't get rid of heresy. But, if one openly practices and entertains heresy after baptism, they can and should be suppressed.

Religious freedom is condemned under Mirare Vos. Look it up. People do not choose whats herder if they have the choice. And it doesn't get much harder than Catholicism. No divorce. No homosexual marriages. But, recent polls for some reason now, "Catholics" are the biggest supporter of this stuff... then the nut job protestants.

Dignitatis Humanae is simply not realistic. People wont come to Catholicism if its just as good as another religion. Cannot approve a system where schools teach only natural reason. Catholics must not hold that the Church is not the only true religion. Roman Pontiffs must not come to terms with Modernism. Explicitly condemned to do so. Their only goal is to protect and further the True Religion.

It is okay to tolerate a false religion if it leads to a civilization where you end up with a worse situation. (like if it would lead violence) but is that where we are at? Toleration of a false religion is not the same thing as an inherent right of a false religion.

Recent thoughts

I wanted to break from the Vatican II series for one more post, and share some thoughts. I saw some pictures recently from a Catholic group on Campus. The pictures were of a Christmas party that was celebrated on Dec. 2nd (the first day of Chanukkah, not that that has anything to do with anything.) Some of my friends dressed up like buffoons, literally ripping up a present. And cheering them on, on all fours (unless he was looking for a lost contact) was a clergyman. I don't know what else to write. I'll try, but what do I say? "What am I doing hanging out with this group" is a start.
They were four days into Advent, and already couldn't stop themselves from opening a present. I don't know what was in there, but I hope it was worth it. St. Nick stopped by... excuse me, Santa. Maybe he was called St. Nick, I hope not, I don't think St. Nicholas would be to happy with how he was portrayed at a "Catholic event." The pictures were sick, everybody was standing on chairs, giving high fives. Its like an extension of Life Teen. Could you imagine Our Lady standing on chairs, celebrating the birth of her Son three weeks early?
What do you call the age that is in between "Teen" and "Adult." Maybe "young-adult?" Well, whatever you want to call that age, no one was acting like it.

"When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child. But when I became a man, I put away the things of a child." St. Paul tells us in his first Epistle to the Corinthians.

How will these poor kids grow spiritually if they are subjected to cake all the time. I don't buy the "not everybody is ready be a hard-core Catholic, so you have to compromise" argument. It is true, not everybody is ready. But don't piss on them and tell them it's raining. If you want to be Catholic, you must reject the world. Jesus Christ and every saint has taught that. What I saw in the pictures was "the world." I just pray that I have the strength to continue to avoid that stuff. I cannot wait until Christmastide, when I can worthily celebrate the Nativity. Until then, Ill keep saying the Joyful Mysteries. I hope you'll join me.

To end with a short prayer...
O Redeemer, born in humility, lived in humility, died in humility, teach me this virtue. Let me know where I stand before Thee. Let me not be intoxicated with the pleasures of the world in the season before Thy Nativity. Help me to avoid paganism and frivility. Grant me the grace to be charitable when I talk about Thee and defend Thy season of Advent. I'm sorry I typed a vulgar word up there, but I was angry. I hope this is justified anger. If it is not, purge me of it. Let me die to myself, so that I may reign with Thee, now, in Christmastide, and forever. Amen.

The Gift of Baptism!

I saw the most beautiful baptism. It was of an adult (a girl about my age) who was born unto Eternal Life last Wednesday on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. A brief description of the 48 min ceremony.
She was questioned in the vestibule ("outside the Church").
What do you seek? Do you renounce Satan? Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, etc? She knelt down three diffrent times and said the Lord's Prayer each by rising and saying Amen. Tasted the salt of wisdom, and after about 30 minutes of exorcisms, she was ready to be brought into the church. About half way into the nave, she laid prostrate for a few moments. This is when I was a little overwhelmed. I couldn't begin to imagine what was going through her mind, but I can tell you what was going through mine. I just wanted to lay on the ground with her, adore God, tell Him I was sorry for everything I have done to hurt him since my baptism. Promise Him that I would be a good tabernacle for Him to reign from, that I would rather die like Saint Bartholomew then to loose what was about to be given to me. Then I gave thanks, and was so happy that anyone (including me, the biggest sinner I know) could renew the promises of Baptism with one good Confession. She then arose, looking stronger than ever. We all said the Creed. Her ears were open with saliva, her breast and back were anointed with oil. At last, she moved on to the baptismal font. She was anointed one last time, then Baptized in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. A candle was given to her, and she donned the white garment of new Christians.

We can all be as pure as this dove. With a proper examination of conscience, and true contrition for our sins, and the Sacrament of Penance, we will be reconciled to Our Father who is in Heaven.

Nostrae Aetate

Oct. 1965 On non Christian Religion

**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**

If you're non-Catholic, can you be saved? Baptism of desire...
(explicit) Unity to the Church by explicit desire (catechists)
(implicit) What about all the New World before the missionaries came bringing the Gospel? What about their ancestors? Was there salvation for them? Well yes, there could be, but supernatural Faith, Hope, and Charity would be needed when you die. Underlying theme of how you can say others in different religions can be saved.
Invincible ignorance- vincible is willful. If you took the necessary means you could know the truth, then it is not invincible. (Like if you choose not to read Card. Hoyos's declaration on whether the SSPX is schismatic, you are not left in invincible ignorance.) But if you lived in a jungle and no missionaries have come to your tribe yet, then you can claim it.
Invincible doesn't save, it just excuses guilt. But God still gives them grace to do good, and avoid evil. Friendship between Christians, that is men of good will.
Community- organization of man. But should we have one community? No! There shouldn't be a one-world religion that compromises so everybody can worship together. "Quest for God?" Excuse me, God has already revealed the Faith, we don't have to search for anything. (but its true, you can still grow, if that's what you mean by "quest")
This document talks about "one human race" with "one common destiny" and "exist in peace" (a peace without truth.) Mutual appreciation of different religions. What about St. Boniface, who desecrated the pagan's holy groves by chopping a tree down himself? St. Justin Martyr gets brought up. But, is this mutual appreciation what St. Justin martyr talked about when he spoke of seeds of the Gospel? Other non-Christians are now having "authentic religious experiences leading them to Catholicism. (yeah, maybe the Anglican bishops, but that's more intellectual and less "emotional." I don't see many Buddhists packing the parish seats after they reach enlightenment. There is a basis in common, sure. They are pretty nice to their neighbor. But that can be natural. They deny the supernatural. Pope Benedict says that St. Justin was talking about philosophy, NOT RELIGION in his series that made him a doctor of the Church, okay, but that's not like the council taught. Other religions are not fruits of the "search for Truth."
Science says primitive religion was monotheistic. The more you advance, the further you get away from one God, though. Starts with Hinduism. They haven't discovered any divine mystery. It 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. St. Francis Xavier went to Sri Lanka. He converted the little Hindus and told them o go destroy the temple. Because that was true Ecumenism.
Lets just leave them in invincible ignorance. Do religions lead you to God? Away? In history, saints destroyed everything they could get there hands on. The Catholic rejects other religions. The gods of other religions are fallen angels. They deceive. the Church sent missionaries against their "better judgement" (they knew they would probably die) to convert the natives. BECAUSE OTHER RELIGIONS DONT SAVE.

Even if a cookie is 99% good, and 1% poison, it will still kill you. Just like if a false religion is almost there, but they still deny Christ, it will still send you to Hell. The document talks about preserving some of the cultural influence. Well, St. Pius X says the Catholic culture is superior to others. Vatican II has a high regard for Muslims? Bl. Urban II waged a war on them! St. Catherine of Sienna called them "infidel dogs" and supported the Crusades. St. Joan of Arc did, too. Muslims worship a God who "has spoken to man" in the Koran. No condemnation of any falsity. They believe in Jesus, but not as God. Yet they worship a god without the second Person of the Trinity. (in alms, fasting, prayer, sometimes even invoke the Blessed Virgin Mary.(I don't remember why I wrote this. Maybe the Muslims do?)) St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached the necessity of the Second Crusade, But John Paul II apologizes for it.
The Document is only on how other religions unite. Not how they are wrong. The Church is a Mystery (see last blog, yeah, back to that again.) We are all linked by "spiritual ties." God revealed the truth to the Jews in sight of Christ. If we draw from the original 12 disciples (pretty much all Jews) we get the Truth. But now is not the time to draw anything from the Jews or Gentiles. St. Peter and St. John went into the temples, but why? God still loves them! He pushes them towards the Church, but now, their rites are no longer a valid means. They even think they cannot enter heaven because their has been no savior. Just like we are wounded by Adam's sin, Jews are caught up in their curse. "Let His blood be on us and our children." True, they are not personally responsible for for the actual crime.

So are we not supposed to persecute anybody anymore? What about Communism? What about the Nazi SS after the war? Yeah, well they actually committed crimes against humanity! Ecumenical Council Lateran IV forbids Jews from holding office. That is punishment for them committing the Crime against Humanity. The Fourth Lateran Council also says that Jews must be marked if in public to be kept separate. That's your Faith, ladies and gentlemen. As a Catholic, you must believe what this council binds and what it condemns. Don't talk to me about Vatican II if you're not willing to talk about Lateran IV. And Lateran IV was a doctrinal council. Vatican II is Pastoral, what ever that means (it means it doesn't bind.)

The Church reproves to the mind of Christ the discrimination or harassment of any man. This is Rejection of everything taught before.

St. Boniface, pray for us,
St. Justin Martyr, pray for us,
St. Francis Xavier, pray for us,
St. Pius X, pray for us,
Bl. Urabn II, pray for us,
St. Catherine of Sienna, pray for us,
St. Joan of Arc, pray for us,
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us,
St. Peter, pray for us,
St. John, pray for us.

on Lumen Gentium

Nov. 21, 1964
On the Church
**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**

We started this meeting off by talking about Cardinal Gharardini. He is a Canon in St. Peter's who wrote a book that came out this year called Vatican II: A much needed discussion. This is what he said in a nut shell. The Church didn't start with Vatican II, the council was not infallible, and that Vatican II was basically the destruction of Papal authority. He reiterates what all the Popes have said since the council (and is blatantly ignored) that Vatican II was not dogmatic, and nothing new is to be believed. Therefore if you deny of the new things, you are not a heretic.
De Fide means "from faith." It is when something is judged or condemned by Faith. Not only can Vatican II err, it has erred. Statements need to be made on weight, and it needs to address the parts that are not congruent with tradition.
It defines the Church as being the kingdom of Heaven founded in mystery-means of salvation (sacrament.) Establishes unity. The visible establishment Christ founded with a hierarchy. A political order also establishes unity in the natural order. (Remember, the document is written in Latin.) Key parts of this definition are written in the subjunctive case: what you use when it is not a statement of certainty. Indicative is the case that should have been used, but they chose to use subjunctive. Why?
This is the traditional definition of the Church. The visible, supernatural, perfect (not lacking anything to accomplish its goal) society which is united by a union in faith, subjection to (legitimate hierarchy) to the Pope, and which shares the same sacraments for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. (I think founded by Christ is implied, or maybe I didn't write it down.)
Leo XIII and Pius XII did say the Church was the mystical body (material) of Christ, and bodies are seen. Therefore the Church cannot be invisible, nor solely spiritual. It has five marks... the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church. (St?) Mary of Agreta, a Franciscan missionary said the Holy Ghost vivifies the Church, moves, makes holy, is the soul.
What about non-Catholic churches? Vatican II's concept of society is about
1) the Church is a mystery and cannot be seen by all... unlike the old definition: a visible society. It is unknowable in its essence...well, thats not totally untrue, as finite beings, we cant see the entire universe as God sees it, and the beatific vision is witheld from us. But the non-Catholics mean it more along the lines of "don't try to figure out the soul, its too complicated." The church "discovers" its nature. That's weird, what does that mean.
2) Holy effects which others have. So the Holy Ghost doesn't hesitate to use members of heretics?
3) Subsists in the Catholic Church? No! The truth is the Church, it doesn't subside in it. This is problematic. If the true society only subsists in the Church, it is not efficacious.
4) Communion (not membership basis of unity) not the traditional way. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Totally new-Baptism is, not communion. If you lack Faith, you don't have anything.
It talks about the "people of God." This doesn't sound heretical, but it is written not as the Catholic understanding. First comes Christ, he brings the twelve. First comes Moses, then Aaron, then the tribes. Then you understand the "people of God." But in the modern terms, "people of God" is now like "we the people." Nowhere does it talk about the Church Militant. Supreme authority resides in the Pope and the college of Bishops, led by the pope. Nowhere is the Vicar of Christ/Successor of Peter mentioned.
Consecration comes from the apostolic succession. The Power of Orders and the Power of Jurisdiction are two different powers. One comes first, then the other can be granted. But all of the sudden, now apparently you get both at the same time. Just like the Orthodox. They have validly consecrated bishops and orders. But consecration gives you the power to receive jurisdiction. (I don't know where we were going with this.)
Against the Council Fathers, Pope Paul VI exercised powers without them. It was called "Black Tuesday." The Catholic church does not hesitate to call the Blessed Mother our Mediatrix. But he did not condemn, and did not affirm. There were Protestants and Orthodox at the Council, and they talked with the council Fathers.

Okay, so I have no idea what half these notes mean. I remember it all making sense when I took them, but this was like 6 months ago. I am half tempted to not post this, but I know how few people read it. soo....for the two of you out there.... let me try to sum the differences. 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. But Vatican II is pretty sure that the fullness of Truth exists in the Roman Church. It uses a lot of vague flowery words to get around saying that there is an apostolic line that only can claim Truth for its own.
Also, a bishop can consecrate a priest and it be valid, but the new bishop is only then able to receive jurisdiction from the Pope. Also, Paul VI actually acted without the Council, and that is totally within his limits.

On Sacrosanctum Concilium

We studied the documents of Vatican II at church (yes, we don't pretend that it doesn't exist)... and these next blogs are my notes...

**What is below is my shorthand mixed with my own thoughts. This post is a note/thought dump and may not make sense! If I can clarify anything, please let me know so I can edit/explain further.**

Dec. 1963 Sacrisanctum Concilium
This constitution was for the restoration of the Liturgy. It had "fallen away." It needed to be clarified/ Reformed. There was the liturgical reform itself, then there was the reform of the Office, music, and art. Adapted to things that are subject to change, but never tells what is what. "If Christ established it, it is not subject to change." Apostles, early Church Fathers said the same thing. But later... it is now "subject to change"
Purpose of Reform.

• To foster and promote union to whoever believes in Christ. (non-Catholics).

• Strengthen and to call all mankind into the Church. (intro of culture into liturgy.)

But NOWHERE does it say anything about God being worshiped in a more fitting manner.
The price of our redemption, the Precious Blood, feast no longer first class. "Christ becomes sin (man) for us" He does take on so much for us.
The "Paschal Mystery" is the NEW thing.(1) The Cross (meritorious), the (2)Resurrection and the (3) Ascension (exemplary/non meritorious) These three made present by liturgy. We encounter the person or events... not the merits.
Meal~ This is what its about. That is why there is now a Jewish table blessing. The people are in the pews for the Last Supper. True presence is not fortified. Transubstantiation is not mentioned, but the presence is now found in the Word. The table of the Word. "where two or three are gathered in My Name, I am there..." (that's why in the procession, now the Missal is held above the head processing in... looks so cheesy.)
But 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. The Resurrection and Ascension didn't and could not merit any thing for us, and this document makes no distinction. (the authors did not want it to!) The Sacrifice was a finite historical event. How could it happen again? Accidents (like appearances, not like car accidents) happen only once. Calvary happened 2000 years ago, and it will never happen again. But what about the Mass? We can have the effects of the historical event applied to us, AND THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT.

The Bible is inspired, yes. But no "presence it brings" is inspired. Infallible does not equal inspired, and this is very important to understand. The Faith comes through a medium: the teaching church (not us lay people.) Not directly.....As a side note, this makes me wonder how everybody and there mother believes that God is using the "Holy Spirit" to help them make the right decisions. Maybe their conscience that God gave them, yes. But the Holy Ghost?..... St. Paul asks "How can I believe/hear with out a preacher" Rom 10:14. The Church has always been the vehicle the brings you the Faith. Now, lay people are encouraged to come on up and read from the book. Why? Because there is no mediator now. We get "inspiration from the Word proclaimed" with or without the clergy of Christ's Church.

Redemption is now the manifestation of God's love. It expresses the Father's love for us. No longer is it a sign of God's justice. (boy, I havent heard the j word in a while.) Charity has been divorced from Justice....

This document does say true things. In themselves, they are okay, but it leaves out everything that should support it, so when you read it, you can come out thinking like a Modernest. There are no traditional terms left in it. Has the Church been out of Harmony for the past 1500 years, beacause what is implied is very different from what was taught? The reform of liturgy was to be understood with ease, but no person (priest/bishop/cardinal/pope) can change it on his own authority. Read the Council of Trent. You have to believe everything it says in order to be Catholic!
I will leave you with what Sacrosanctum Concilium says...
Latin is to remain preserved in the Roman Rite.
The people should be able to sing in Latin to "sync your devotion to Liturgy."

But why was the Office changed from where the priest had to do 150 Psalms in a week to finish all 150 psalms in a month. I guess the Vatican thought they would have less time on there hands with all the seminarians that were going to come with Vatican II.

St. Paul, pray for us.
St. Peter, pray for us.

Are there still Thomists?

Today, I would like to provide an argument in favor of the Tridentine Mass. Surprised?..

This Saturday I was told that the religious group, Home of the Mother, celebrates Mass according to the '62 sometimes. Well, good. I told the person "that Mass will bring your religious order and the world many graces." I was expecting a "yeah, I know, right!" but instead I got an "all Masses bring graces. There is only one Mass, you know that, Alex."

It was clear that my reputation precedes me...
I laughed to my self, and had to admit that with every true Mass comes infinite graces. But on my way home, I thought of an argument...

Studying St. Thomas' Summa, at our last chapter meeting, the question of why we have different Masses (I.e. Mass for the dead, Mass for the election of a pope, Mass in honour of the Blessed Virgin, the saint of the day, etc.) was the topic. The answer the Angelic Doctor gives is that the Mass is two things. First and foremost a Sacrifice. It is the same Sacrifice in any valid Mass (A Tridentine Mass, a Novus Ordo Mass, yes, even a Black Mass) Second, the Mass is a prayer. And it is THEE highest form of prayer possible. This is what makes the Masses different. Some are for some intentions, some are for others. And as we all know, some prayers are more pleasing to God, because of how they are offered. One form of the Roman Rite undoubtedly makes the sacrificial nature of the Mass more concise and clear. The more direct our intention is, and the better we prepare ourselves for the prayer; the better it is for us and He Who Is. If you take a the Mass codified by St. Pius V and you take even the best, most conservative, Latin Mass of Paul VI there's still trouble (Google the Ottaviani Intervention if you don't believe me.) Then, if you take the Tridentine Rite, and compare it to a Vulgar mistranslated (not even close) Mass,-full of women readers,-"Eucharistic ministers,"-priest dishing out Communion in the hand saying "Good morning, Bill, Body of Christ"-folk guitar, drums and chimes -and people shaking hands and throwing out peace signs... its simply not comparable. Let me ask you this.

Why are there two forms of one rite? Why is there an Old Rite at all. If two things are the same, that means there is no difference. "Six of one, Half dozen of the other", right? If there is no difference in the "extraordinary form" and the Novus Ordo, why did the bishop of my diocese turn away the Fraternity of St. Peter? Why wont he provide funds for priests who want to learn the ancient Roman Rite? Isn't it the same Mass, Your Excellency? Or is it a waste of time? Is he scared of a Parish that preaches Purgatory, that teaches from the Catechism of St. Pius X, that has a Dominican community which practices penance and true Dominican Spirituality?

Apples and Apples, or Apples and Oranges? Happy feast of St. John of the Cross.

St. Thomas, pray for us.
St. Dominic, pray for us.
St. John of the Cross, my Confirmation patron, pray for us.

Its like magic, but real

I spilled some wax on my dress pants. I thought I was screwed. But a Servite told me this is how you get it off.

Cut two strips out of a paper bag. Each fat enough to cover the whole spill.
Put one immediately under the the stain, and on on top.
Iron that bad boy on medium heat.
The wax gets hot and soaks into the paper and off your pants/shirt/cassock/altar cloth.

True story!

Quick thoughts

I would like to jot down some of the things that are going on upstairs.
Truth. Do you love truth. Do you hate evil. Do you hate the schism or the schismatic. Do you love your local ordinary, or do you hate him. Do you love the Bishop of Rome or do you hate him. If one says that attending an SSPX Mass can fulfill your Sunday obligation, and it is not a sin to go there, and the other says you can't go there because he doesn't like Tradition, who do you believe? (I'll give you a hint, if you're Roman Catholic, you believe the Pope.) Tradition has been all but outlawed. But it is worse. It is tolerated. It is the ugly stepchild. It is not worth your time to read Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Timebombs of the Second Vatican Council, or even a Novus Ordo book Ecumenical Council Vatican II; a much needed discussion, written by Monsignor Gherardini in Rome, because if you do you will not be open to the Holy Spirit. You will be a bad Catholic. You wont even be Catholic, because it is schism to question the local priests. It is "pompous to think you know better than the Pope."
Open a book, its out in the open. Open Catholic Code of Cannon Law, soften your heart and your mind, and let God work. Love God, and hate what offends him. Do not remain ignorant. Do not think what you don't know wont hurt you. It is a tremendous disservice to God if you choose to blindly be a yes-man your whole life. God will not be fooled. If you can read this, 1. You can read, God has given you the gift of literacy, use it to get smarter/more informed. 2. You have the internet. 3. You have the names of three books that will make you love Jesus more.
Are you a Catholic to fit in? It sure would be a lot easier. Or are you a Catholic to worship God in the most and pleasing manner possible, so that He might be glorified more than ever. Dont be scared to be persecuted for justices sake...there is a second part to that beatitude.

Meditatio

Once in a blue moon I have a good idea. I'm sure about a million people have had the same idea, but this is the first time I have heard about this meditation.

I have been told a melancholic must view all things from the perspective of the Foot of the Cross. I was viewing the Joyful Mysteries from said vantage point and came to a very simple realization.

What horror would it be to take a whip to an infants back! Scourging a baby is one of the most despicable, nauseating thoughts I can come up with. Yet, it is basically what happened 2000 years ago. Let me ask you, what difference was there in the man, Christ Jesus, and the little baby born in Bethlehem.
Was it okay to whip Christ because he learned how to talk? Was it because he grew facial hair that allowed the Romans to gasp for air in between lashings? No. Well then what was different? The answer is really nothing.

Not one thing was different between the man and the child Jesus, but age! He never merrited the whip. Not for one instance in His life did He transgress. It would be okay to punish any other man by the whip, but not Our Lord. I have earned this punishment. Not He who did nothing wrong. Justice is rendering to God what is His due. This act was unjust! Never did God need to shed His blood. He should not have had to go through the torment. A convict must make reparation for his past faults. I convict myself of sin. A baby who grows up and sins just once owes Almighty God penance. But He was a Lamb, pure and white. The Lamb that made us, and we slayed the Victim in a humiliating, hot, red sacrifice.

He was equally as mild as the bambino in swaddle. Christ was equally as obedient as the baby presented in the temple for circumcision. He was as innocent as the infant who nursed on Our Lady's breast. He was as forgiving as the Lord who knew Peter would deny him thrice. Literally, nothing but growth changed in Our Lord on his way to Mount Calvary.

It is haneous to think of the crimes against Our Lord after one comes to this understanding. And we did that to Him. We woke a toddler up, took him out of his crib, took his pajamas and diaper off, and lashed his back to the bone with nine-tails. Spit on his opened body, and crowned his once adorable, now unrecognizable head with thorns.

Jesus Christ, crucified, have mercy on us.
Our Lady, refuge of sinners, pray for us.

Pray the Rosary. It helps!

Receive ye the Habit

I have blogged about numbers 4 & 6 on my "playing catch-up list." Now to hit on 1.

For a little over a month, I have been trying to keep the Rule of St. Dominic. Two others and I (the novice on the left) were incorporated into the folds of the ancient brotherhood that started in Spain and set flame to world. We are called the Order of Penance; the Militia of Jesus Christ; Order of Friars Preachers. I now wear the same habit that our Holy Father Dominic received from Our Lady. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Rose of Lima, Pope St. Pius V, St. Vincent Ferrer, the list of holy men and women goes on and on. I just hope I do not bring any shame to the good names who proceed me.

Why in the world would a Dominican brother take St. Francis, founder of the Franciscans as his name? Well, it so happens that the two founders bumped into each other at the Fourth Lateran Council. Thats Right! What a small world, but it is not surprising to me. Both orders honor the other Holy Father as a founder of their own order.

I think I can learn a lot from both of my Patrons. I pray to repent like St. Francis, and to spread the Truth and zeal for God like St. Dominic. I don't think either of them had beds. Maybe that will go next. They both liked walking. There is a soup kitchen under the patronage of St. Francis that I checked out. That was pretty cool. St. Dominic always kept his conversation with God, or about God. I ask for his intercession to trim the fat, so to speak.

I am so blessed to have been exposed to truly Catholic teachings. Teachings that are older than 45 years old. At the Dominican meetings we go over the Summa and encyclicals that the New Order probably doesn't want you to see. Taking these books off the shelf and blowing dust off is not worth many peoples time anymore. Does the Church not have these problems anymore? Is the Church really in "Spring Time?" Mass attendance down, next to empty seminaries, tradition is the ugly step child. I do see some promise. Some of the youth want strict Catholicism more than the hierarchy. But the problem is the youth have been subjected to nothing but "feel-good" Catholicism. Guitar Mass has replaced Gregorian Chant. Obedience has turned into the blind leading the blind... I just feel that the Church is being married to the world and other religions, which for hundreds and hundreds of years was the opposite goal.

At these meetings we do not get any of this feel good nonsense. What happens when things don't feel good anymore. If everything is based on feelings, St. John of the Cross would warn you to get ready for a very dark, dark night. There is comfort in knowing you walk away from a group meeting intellectually stimulated and not just warm and fuzzy.
Let us pray for people who will teach, preach, and stand up for Dominican Spirituality and Catholicism.

The Name Game

The Four Temperaments are quite a useful tool in squeezing the most out of life. They help you win over others, they show you the strengths and weaknesses in your self, they give insight to the way the world goes 'round. It is a sneaky way to cut at some ones being. A great way to continue a conversation (and a light way of judging people) To conquer your own shows who is boss.

The Choleric gets stuff done. All of the dictators and conquers of history were cholerics. If you're not first, you're last, and its their way or the highway. They can be the greatest saints, or the worst sinners. They get excited easily, and it will make a lasting impression. Pride is their downfall, but there is not a better temperament to get others to Heaven.

The Sanguine is carefree and not the deepest group of people. Mirrors are their best friend and they get exited easily, too. However, after something looses its novelty, the Sanguine is ready to move on to something newer and more shiny. They talk just to talk (to hear their own beautiful voice) and forget why they started talking. They help others because they can be very empathetic, but first, they must help themselves. Quite the active temperament.

The Melancholic can be characterized as serious and careful. They are slow to get excited, but after they process the person, place, thing or idea, the impression is lasting. When put on the spot, they know what they want to say, but can not make it sound just right. The old saying "the glass is half empty" applies to melancholic outlook, but they make up (I dare say) the mojority of the saints.

The Phlegmatic is a passive type and needs encouraging. They don't excite very easily and are more forgiving. A wrong first impression with this temperament, and you're not totally dead just yet. Spanking Plegmatics as kids is more acceptable, because the emotional scares are not deep. This temperament is almost like the absence of the above three. Phlegmatics just have to work a little harder than most.

I find myself to be Melancholic. A couple of examples why. Friday was my birthday and I had people over. I knew it was going to rain, and sure enough it did (monsoon like.) I used too much power from the single outlet in the garage, and it blew. It did not surprise me. I will remember why I do not like people and it sticks for no reason. I get tongue tied all the time, etc.

A matter of interest... I get along with Choleric Catholics, but can not stand them if there is no God in a Choleric. I have a really hard time with Sanguine Catholics, but I get the carefreeness of a non-Christian sanguine, and find it amusing and a curiously disgusting. I now have a little better understanding for Catholic Melancholics. We are a little hard on ourselves, but we need to be. But what I dont understand is the non-believing Melancholic. Why be hard on yourself if you there is no God. Why not eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow may never come? I think I would agree with the plegmatic outlook if I didn't have hope for an eternal life. What would be the point of being powerful or popular?

The Temperaments were studied so that we may overcome the shortfalls of our own. The saints embraced the intrinsic good built into their style, and strove for the goods in the others. We should do the same. I have many more thoughts, but want to hear everybody else's!

All's well that ends well

I have wanted to blog about 84 times since the last one, and here are a few updates for you (to be blogs).
1) I became a Dominican Third Order member! Brother Francis, T.O.P.
2) I had a pretty obvious thought pop into my head while meditating on the mysteries.
3) My diocese is very serious, sometimes.
4) I'm a big fan of the Four Temperaments.
5) I have felt like I failed pointing people in the right direction.
6) There was a concert for the priests of our diocese, and my thoughts.

I think I will tackle number 6.
Yesterday, I was asked if I went to a concert held at my university sponsored by a Catholic entertainment company. The concert entitled "Song of Praise" was to show appreciation for all of our priests and what they do. I was asked (ironically enough in front of my priest, who failed to get the invite... if you know what I mean) if I went to the concert. What a shame. I would have no problem going there, showing my support for the men in black, if that was what was really going on. I know folks who put it on meant well, but if the diocese was really bent on getting the souls of its flock to heaven, they could honor** my priest by letting him do what he was created to do.

**Reverend Father does not want honor for the sake of honor, but isn't it Saint Paul who says if one member glories, then the whole rejoices with it.
Its no surprise what happened, but sad that this diocese has an absolute gold mine located in the heart of its biggest city. But no one will take advantage of him. I can't think of a better priest to train other priests in the Tridentine Rite. No one could preach a more traditional (silent) retreat. He knows more about the New Code of Canon Law better than a lot of priests I know, and could hear confessions in a couple of languages. He is a storehouse of knowledge, and would benefit the diocese in many, many ways. But will this diocese ever grow a backbone and tap this font of knowledge? Probably not, because, as Bishop Williamson puts it "as long as we stand up for the old fashion doctrine, we are raining on their parade."

They admit he is a Priest of God, ordained in a Catholic Rite, with the power to share in the Hypostatic Union and make bread Flesh, and wine Blood. But because he cares about the salvation of souls and claims there is a higher authority than the Local Ordinary, he and the chapel where Tradition lives on is worse than my fingers will let me type.
But where is Christ in all of this? Is Christ going to ease judgment of the soul of a priest because he was honored at "Songs of Praise" the night before last? Will Our Lord, the final judge, let the shepherds slide because they are praised in this world? There is a problem there. Priests are not supposed to be popular. St. John of the Cross would tell you that. I see too many priests striving for an approval rating. The more they say "yes," the more the kids like them. Yes to Ecumenism, yes to Life Teen, yes to the feel-good-cafeteria-Catholicism that leaves little kids like me not knowing the simplest of Catechism. Priests in the New Order do know how to say "No." No to fast and penance, no to the reality of Hell, no to the past teachings of Holy Mother Church...

When Christ comes down at the Consecration does He like what He sees in the Kum-biah picture above? Is a rock concert an appropriate place for the Second Person of the Trinity to dwell? (Yes that white table is the altar.)
Our poor Lord mistreated... our poor Lady shedding tear after tear for priests whom she loves so much. Do we have to take part in this, or at least this mindset? Would the saints attend?

***

In truth, I can bet the concert was, as I was told, amazing. I'm sure the pianist and vocalist were exceptional. I can think of no other group of men who deserve to be treated to a nice night. The servants of God are not to be taken for granted! It is time we put our pride aside and see our problems as problems that we are either okay with, or problems that can be remedied.

As usual, I would like to end with a short prayer. O, Most holy Lord, we give Thee praise, due and fit! Please make us patient, grant us obedience, form us into soldiers for Christ. Give us the strength we need to fight the good fight, and although it may seem like David and Goliath all over again, we know how that turned out! O, most merciful Mary, refuge of sinners, intercede for us. Ask your Creator, Son, and Spouse to make us whole, and may we never compromise the Truth. Amen.

We do not know the future. But we do know that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church. All is well that ends well...

Up next, the Four Temperaments

Can I go to a church without regular jurisdiction?

I have printed the following out for some friends. Some names will be left blank to protect the innocent.

Q. Can I go to St. __________?
A. One could not go to St. _______ if it were Invalid or Illicit?

Valid- i.e. the person celebrating Mass is not a priest, the words of consecration are not said etc. Fr. _____ would be happy to show you his "chelebrant" or his paper from the Vatican, issued by Ecclesia Dei, signed by the cardinal and Msgr. Pearl on July 3, 2000. It says he may celebrate Holy Mass with the use of the 1962 Missal, and he is incardinated in the Diocese of Scranton, PA. Proof he's valid! However, you are supposed to get the permission of the local ordinary to celebrate public Mass. This brings up the question of whether it is licit (lawful) or illicit (illegal.)

Licit- Until the Bishop of ___________ recognizes St. _______, people will always be quick to point this out. However, in the New Code of Canon Law, the rule clearly states that "any Catholic Rite can fulfill your Mass obligation." Msgr. Pearl (who is a priest of the New Order) tells a Catholic who asks about going to the SSPX for the sacraments (the SSPX is the society that ordained Father ______,) "If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in Communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of Devotion, this would not be a sin."

It is true St.____ does not have ordinary jurisdiction (yet.) But does Holy Mother Church foresee instances when her ministers receive jurisdiction for the supreme law to save souls? Yes! Exceptions are made, open a book! Read when the faithful are not bound to go to their local parish. Ecclesiastical Law must be obeyed unless it conflicts with the Divine Law, but as Catholics, we have a duty to worship Almighty God in a due and fitting manner! The Faith and tradition of Catholics go back 2000 years. The Church was founded in 33 A.D, not 1965. All new ideas ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle. Read the past teachings of the Church and see what she has defended and made clear! Learn what the Councils of our holy and unified church bind you to believe and curse you (anathema) if you hold the erring opinion (their words, not mine.)

The Bishop may not like it, but he cannot pick and choose what goes into out Faith. He is subject to a higher power. What did the last two popes do for the Traditional Mass? Pope JP II came up with Ecclesia Dei, Pope Benedict proclaimed the Summorum Pontificum and lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops! Why did he do that? Do you know what these encyclicals say? Do you have access to a computer? (I bet you do reading this.) The popes like the Traditional Rite. Why don't we? One possible reason is we cannot like what we do not know.

After we take the time and make the effort to the research the condition of the modern church, we can come to one of two conclusions. There are either problems or there are not problems. If we "feel uncomfortable" with the liturgical abuses or irreverence, the Holy See does not bind us to go to a parish that has these issues. St. _______ exists because it has none! They hold fast to the teaching that has been handed down from Jesus Christ to his Apostles. St ____ teaches nothing schismatic or heretical. St Paul says there should be no division among members. I Cor 12:25. Bp _________ himself comments on this passage by saying "namely, there should be union, not necessarily uniformity" Hmmm...

If you have any questions, the Catholic Church has the answers. If you need help finding these answers, please clear your afternoon, and contact Alex Walker @ (phone #) theviateam@yahoo.com

St. Paul, pray for us.

Mind your tongue

One day I found myself (don't ask me how) in a really modern Novus Ordo Church. You know, the ones with the Art Deco paintings , a table, and a tabernacle embedded in the side wall. Well, a friend and I follow a small group of guys in a side room and take our seats. I haven't been mixed with the Novus Ordo very often, and it took me a few seconds to realize that it was in fact a chapel, and Our Lord was present in the wall. I then put down a kneeler and kneel. My friend taps me on the shoulder and whispers... "is the Euch in there" I nodded "yes" and then shook my head...
Try not to throw the word "Eucharist" around. First off, always capitalize it. The Most Holy Eucharist actually means something more than just "my home boy" so show Him some reverence by throwing "holy" or "most holy" or "bless-ed" in front. It is of such importance that these adjectives get capitalized with It! Traditional Catholics make it a point to reserve their speech and watch what ever words are put in the same sentence with this life giving word. Of course, a consecrated host is the Eucharist. But try not to throw the name around like its a substitute for "bread." Remember, every time you say it, you basically say "the Sacrifice of Calvary." Some Synonyms you can use are "Blessed Sacrament" and "Holy Communion." I have heard the word "Eucharist" said more times since Ive been with the schools Catholic group than I have heard it in 10 years. AND NO, THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING. The Traditionalists are not afraid of saying "Eucharist" but show It the reverence It deserves. We love It, we embrace It. Its not something common to us. We have It everyday, but It never loses Its novelty. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Ive heard someone say "go up and get the Eucharist" or "then, when it was time for Eucharist." No! Do you know who has "the Eucharist" instead of "the Mass?" The Episcopalians.

We don't "eat the Eucharist." We receive Holy Communion" ---or--- after we pray and mentally prepare ourselves for a worthy reception, we communicate with the Blessed Sacrament found in the Most Holy Eucharist, where Christ is present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Then give sufficient thanks.

I pray for a worthy Communion. You only need one to become a Saint.

Easter Lilies

I read my last couple blogs and they seem to me written in the way that I was trying to avoid. I wrote the Tale of Two Alters out of frustration, and although I meant it, I said some things I would like to clear up. I spoke about my friend as if he was a blinded ninny who was as illogical as a protestant. I may have stripped the words that came from his mouth to a meaning that suited my blog. And for that, I apologize. Well, hes my best friend. And if this writer writes that kind of stuff behind Friend B's back, he wont have friends for very long. I would like to clarify that I still stick to what I said, I just could have been more diplomatic about it.
Concerning the Good Friday post. I wrote that under the influence of an uncharacteristic slight depression. It sounds so bleak rereading it. I let hear-say get the best of me. I know the Catholic ministry on campus will think. They have more patience and charity than most, and I didn't give them the due respect I should have. Forgive me! I do not think the group at school is a kangaroo court that has it out for me. If they are, they have a good way of hiding it. Being on the other side of Easter can open my eyes a bit more.
Recently, I have been compiling evidence/arguments with two guys. I think this is good, because until this past year, things have just felt right. Well, that would only do for so long. Now, I KNOW things are right. And that is very comforting.

Now that I've gotten this off my chest, on to the blog---

Diplomacy and Strategy. How important are these ideas in the fight for Tradition? We could look at the saints! St. Louis de Montfort had a bull from the Pope saying he may preach basically wherever, whenever, and to whomever. He had Truth on his side (and the Pope) but yet he set a humble model of patience and obedience. Why? Could we learn from this Saint?
Sure, Jesus was angry once. It was just anger, too. He saw merchants in His Father's temple. He literally fliped (tables.) What would Christ do if he walked into a Lifeteen Mass? Or someone told me a story where "kids were high fiving each other after they got back into their pugh after communion." Is this a cause for righteous anger? Yeah, probably. But we must look at Christ's example, too! He knew how the Holy Eucharist would be abused and he still decided it was best to leave the Most Blessed Sacrament with us. So... should we go rushing into battle, sometimes ill prepared, withOUT an interior life that matched the "holiness" of our exterior? Who will listen if we just go out in a fury of melee condemning everybody and their brother? We should first get our act together. God will fix this crisis! We don't change people, He does! It all starts with a life a prayer, then a life of detachment. A life of action will follow. If we are true to God and die to ourselves, He will use us as a tool in His strategy. Just watch...

St. Louis d' Montfort, pray for us.

Good Friday

What I have been afraid for a year has started to happen.
The question of obedience has come up. Lines are being drawn in the sand. God, give me the strength to hold fast to the Truth. Decisions are going to have to be made, some have already been made. Lord, please allow Your servants to accept their fate with humility and silence. Just as you accepted Your Fathers will in the garden of Gethsemane early this morning. As I write this, 2000 years ago, You would have have been carrying Your Cross up to the summit of execution! Already tried and condemned in a kangaroo court but a few hours ago. Pilate condemned Our Lord because he was a coward, I ask for You to grant the Catholic ministry at school the grace to think; to look at the current situation and be obedient... not to the local ordinary, but to the Power above him!

May all the meditations and devotions from Noon to Three, and the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified after that, mold my spirit. Wipe it clean so that I may wake up with Thee Easter Sunday clothed with the New Man, who according to God has been created in Justice, and Holiness of Truth!

(i looked up tableform in the common sense dictionary, and it gave me this picture.)

Our Lady, Immaculately conceived, Pray for us!

Do we have to pull up chairs for it to be a table?

A tale of two alters...

The author had quite the informative talk yesterday with a dear friend. Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mediator Dei was the topic of discussion. This writer (we'll call him A) believes he had it in the bag, while friend B thought so too...

In paragraph 62 when it says it would be straying from the right path to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform, I didn't think there was much wiggle room. My friends answer was he doesn't think the new alters are table form. He sees "primitive table form" where it was like the Last Supper and everyone has his or her seat. He doesn't see the four legs and a top as tableform, so I don't know what else I can do. Is it me? Am I wrong thinking that Pope Pius meant something when he said table form? I know friend B is not stupid, but look at it! I have provided a picture of two altars, and I would like you to point out the table. If it looks like a table, it smells like a table, it barks like a table, it is a table.
Also in that paragraph, the Holy Father warns us not to get rid of black vestments. Oops!

Paragraph 109. " Let everything be done with due order and dignity, and let no one, not even a priest, make use of the sacred edifices according to his whim to try out experiments."
Well some brave priest out there must have said, "You know what? I am going to try something new and say Mass toward the people today." And then everybody went along with it and that is the normal way now.
B was anxious to point out that A's priest is the rouge here, and that he is more or less doing what ever he wants. If a priest is faithful to the way the Holy Mass has been celebrated for well over a millennium, how is this according to his whim?
Man has been walking upright for at least 8,000 years :). Somewhere in history, someone experimented and found out that it is possible to walk on your hands. You cannot get very far, but you can get from one location to another. That is what we have here. There is a fun cool way to get around nowadays, and it is called the Novus Ordo. But if my priest chooses to put one foot in front of the other, like the fathers have taught him, who is experimenting?

My dear friend B had an idea. He said that all the Masses around the world should be said like how the Holy Father says Mass. (Hey, you could even kneel and receive Our Lord on the tongue! This writer gives it to B, he hates Communion in the hand as much as A does.) He basically told me that if the Pope is wrong, then that is his sin, and we will be judged whether we were good sheep and followed the head.
That is why Holy Mother Church sets up rules, canons, and laws that foresee the problems of today! You just have to take of your Modernism glasses and think clearly and listen to logic.

Also, Pope Pius XII has some black and white things to say about Gregorian Chant! The music that has been in the priests' hearts and on their lips for over 1400 years. He also has some gray things to say about modern music. I find it hard to believe Pius XII would find 1947 modern music the same as 2010 modern music, but we shall see. We shall see.

A pray that all two of my readers have a fruitful Holy Week. May our suffering bring us closer to the Cross. No Resurrection with out Crucifixion! May all of those present at the foot of the Cross some 1,977 years ago pray for us.

Mother of Sorrows, Pray for us,
St. Mary Cleophas, pray for us,
St. Mary Magdalen, pray for us,
St. John the beloved, pray for us,
St. Joseph of Arimathea, pray for us,
St. Nicodemus, pray for us
the penitent thief, pray for us!
St. Pope Gregory the great, pray for us!

I will possess your heart

I'm not the biggest fan of Death Cab for Cutie (perhaps I covet the front man's wife, Zooey Deschanel) but they do have a fantastic song that can get you thinking, because it points out something so obvious it hurts.

The first time I heard this song, I thought only of the girl whom I spent every hour thinking of, and unfortunately for this author, dear reader, I did not quite get the same response back...

Well, that is very selfish of me. What about Our Lord! He who loves me more than I can fathom. The Word can use these lyrics to move even the most hard of hearts. In the sacred silence of adoration the Holy Ghost can whisper His wish of complete union of wills. Sanctification will come when my will and His Will are one. One Voice singing...

How I wish you could see the potential,
the potential of you and Me.
Like a book elegantly bound...
but in a language that you can't read (just yet.)
You gotta spend some time, love.
You gotta spend some time with Me.
And I know that you'll find love.
I will possess your heart.

You reject my advances,
and desperate pleas,
I wont let you let me down so easily.

We must spend time with Our Lord in front of the Blessed Sacrament. How can we love someone who we don't know? How will we know what we don't try to know? Two of the few real gifts we are all given are time and choice. Sure, some of us have beauty, others of us have money, few have smarts. Woe to those who have all three! But we all can become saints. Beauty, money, or brains wont get you into heaven. Something else will though. But what?

Let us start with Catechism 101. We must know God, love God, and serve God.

Can we say we know God if we don't continually study Him and the works of the Holy Spirit? If we don't take time out from our busy schedule to get on our knees and ask for the graces necessary to know what offends Him and what pleases Him?

Can we honestly say we love Him if we only visit Him once a week? I see old friends more than that. Can we say we love Him who is Love if we receive Holy Communion like snacks? I admit, I have received Our Lord unworthily. I should perhaps reread I Cor. 11:27. And I would do well to remember that the reception of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament needs not only a soul in the state of Grace, but a right intention. How do I know something is wrong? Because I am not a saint. There are enough graces that receiving the Holy Eucharist just once to a predisposed and open soul would make an immediate saint. Time and time again the graces are poured, but like a water on a rock they shed off me and most do not permeate. Why? Because I do not Love Him as much as he loves me! I reject his advances. I try to keep my life instead of saving it. Catechism 1 says to know God, love God, and serve God. Not "know God, love Ourselves, and serve God."

The last of the three commands is to serve God. How should we serve God? Being a postulate to the Dominican order of Penance, I would say take our patriarch as an example. He sold everything he owned, even books copied by his own pen, to relieve the poor. I haven't even seriously considered going near a soup kitchen. He went barefoot and begged for bread from door to door. Ive been eating like a king (and its Lent.) He was walking down a road from one town to another and hired assassins lay in wait to kill him. The hired hands were "struck by the sanctity and dignity of the man of God and was powerless to raise their weapons." They asked Saint Dominic what would he have done if they would have gone on with their plan, and he said "I would have asked you not to kill me with one blow, but to cut off my limbs one by one, and then to put out my eyes and to leave me half dead, bathed in my blood, that I might suffer the longer for the love of my Crucified Savior." I have yet to have a thought like that cross my mind. What service St. Dominic had for our Lord and Our Lady, and what ground I have to make up!

Now that we have heard the Good News, we can no longer stand in the middle ground. It is black or white. It is Jesus Christ or the Prince of the World we chose to follow.
I would like to end with a short prayer...

Oh, most Holy Trinity, grant us more time to do penance and make reparation. Give us opportunities to prove ourselves to you. Let us spend Your time (for it is ours only on loan) in a manner more fit. Let this Passion week be fruitful. Give us an eye for what is easy, and what is right. We beg for a greater desire to devote our gifts to a supernatural end: sanctity. We give thanks to Thee for health and joy! Do not let us let You down. We ask for strength to let us die to ourselves, so that we may rise with you on the third day and reign with You and Your saints forever and ever. Amen.

May Our lady keep you well,

St. Paul, Pray for us.
St. Dominic, Pray for us.

A commentary on United We Stand

I happen to live in the New World's oldest diocese. My bishop turns 75 this year. In the March issue of the monthly magazine our fair diocese puts out His Excellency has a column... and this is what he writes.

"...As some of you already know, this September I will celebrate my 75 birthday, which according to church law is the canonical age for a bishop to submit his letter of resignation...
As the end to my tenure draws near, I do have one desire that I long to see realized in our diocese- harmonious union."
He cites St. Paul. "...so that there should be no division among the members... If one part suffers, every part suffers... if one part is honored, every part rejoices."

I can think of a little chapel that is suffering now. If it would only but be honored, the whole Church universal would rejoice!

My Bishop goes on to quote St. Paul and St. Augustine (and I'll italicize what he italicizes) "no division among the members... union, but not uniformity," and "in all things charity."

His Excelency remembers Christs prayer before the Agony in the Garden. Is his wish Christ's wish? "May they be one in us."

I will leave you with the bishop's warning. "How can we expect to achieve the unity Jesus desired among the split divisions of Christianity if the parishes continue to harbor an 'us versus them' mentality?... Without the parishes, there is no diocese; and without the diocese there are no parishes- just a mass of congregational assemblies... There is no finer gift you could give me than for all the parishes to work in harmony with the diocese so that together we may make the unity that Jesus prayed for."

hmmm....

St. Paul, pray for us
St. Agustine, pray for us
St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Lent

We have been given a gift. It is the squandered gift of time. Hours, minutes, seconds. Time leading up to the Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord so that we may have life everlasting.

My priest is ill. He started his Lent in the hospital. I'm jealous! Something good has come of this. I already miss going to the Holy Sacrifice daily, and realize I have been taking things for granted. How could I forget the dryness when we were in between priests. I'm so sorry dear Lord for taking Your priest for granted. I thank you for my health, and beg you to restore to the Reverend Father his.

I will now begin fashioning my habit Rosary (the kit just came in the mail.) My heart yearns for the Feast of St. Catherine of Sienna when I can wear it on my left hip as she did.

Yours in Christ Jesus

HOM retreat. Notes IV

The following are the last notes I took on the retreat.

Sin is not the breaking of a rule, but the breaking of a heart. The heart we break is The Heart. The Father's heart, the Son's heart, and the Holy Ghost's Charitable heart. Some would think, "Oh well, I've already sinned once. I might as well do it again before I go to confession." NO! We are not just breaking a rule! It is really like, "Oh well, I have already struck Him across the BACK with a cat-of-nine-tails. Might as well strike Him again." It would do us well to to picture the Roman overseer in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. When we mortally sin it is like saying "Satis..." He then makes the sad gesture to flip the Body that has gone through so much. We say Enough, roll Him over and begin again on His FRONT.
Without sincere purpose of amendment we turn over Our Lord and begin again flailing His fresh skin. We do not just break a law again.

Like an adulterous spouse, we are like an adulterous people to our Bridegroom. All our actions are frivolous and dangerous if they are not derived from the Passion.
Agon is a Greek word that means a contest, a struggle, to combat. Christ was a spiritual athlete from the Agony in the Garden. He teaches us how to live, how to win by suffering. Jesus Christ was reduced to a wreck. He was racked with anguish in the Shadow of the Cross. Sts. Peter, James, and John fell asleep on him. THREE TIMES. How many times have we fallen asleep on Him? The translation in the Gospels does not do it justice. He had extreme fear and anguish. The savior was troubled unto death.
"Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me" writes St. Luke.
The Soul begins to conform...
"Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." records St. Matthew
Then, the final time acceptance...
"And he cometh the third time, and saith to them...It is enough: the hour is come...Rise up, let us go." St. Mark tells us.

His aloneness would keep us awake. We should keep Him company in the Garden when so many will not. Christ sweats blood. He must have been a scared wreck. Be there for Him. The phenomenon has been noted to happen with gladiators, while they wait their turn to go into the arena.
God's pack with his people is fulfilled. The vail is no longer necessary, Christ's death breaks the shroud. There are no more secrets. He will trade His heart of flesh for our hearts of stone. We just have to ask for it. (And again be cautious, for if you beg for Jesus's Sacred Heart, you will get it.)
In the Garden, there were two cups some say. There was the cup that Jesus asked for God to let pass. The cup of bitterness. Full to the brim with scourging, crucifixion, the knowledge that his sacrifice would be useless for most souls. But there was also a cup of consolation, that many would lie down our lives with Him. Be a part of that cup. Use the gift of your imagination. Stretch it and implore God to allow you to know what it was like to prostrate in the Garden of Gethsemani. If His disciples were asleep, you will be there awake with Our Lord, suffering with Him. Ask the Holy Ghost to take you to just one point of the Passion. Meditate on that thought in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Ask for a heart of flesh.

Love is not about feeling. Love is about knowledge. Love is about being there for your lover. 95% of sin originates from loneliness, for self consolation is futile. No one knows loneliness better than the Christ. He did not say we wouldn't suffer, but we that we would not be alone.

Let us unite ourselves to Christ on the Cross as Our Lady has, and may the peace of the Lord be with you.

St. Peter, pray for us.
St. James, pray for us.
St. John the beloved, pray for us.

HOM retreat. Notes III

Seven Deadly Sins. A lesson given by Sister Zenka (sp?)

The Devil is strategic, he studies us first. Then he attacks our predominate vice...

Pride- An untrue opinion of ourselves. To be humble is to see yourself as God sees you. Those guilty of pride will lower themselves to get others to praise/ raise them. "oh i look fat in this" "oh, no you don't." Correcting a proud person leads them to anger or depression. Obedience is a virtue. Religious sisters have been called "pure as angels...proud as devils."
the virtue of Humility~ Christ stays under the appearance of bread, even when He knows He will be mistreated.
Sloth- To neglect duties. Basically cowardliness. Idleness is the mother of all vices. There is spiritual Sloth and physical Sloth. Are we not good Christians because a Christian life is "too intense?" Don't be lukewarm. We all knows what happens to those who are lukewarm. Right now, souls are being loss because we are not doing anything.
Greed-is being in the middle of water and dying of thirst. You are never satisfied with what you have. It is an inordinate love of a good. Anything can be an attachment. A three corded heavy-duty rope and a piece of fishing line can keep a bird from flying. My friend Brian says it doesn't matter if you have 10,000 dollars that you're attached to, or a single dollar bill that you wont let go of, it is greed.
Give! The combating virtue is generosity. "Many will give things. Some will give time, few will give themselves. A handful will live radically for Christ." What group are we in?
Lust- Pleasures contrary to Purity. Trying to deal with this vice on your own is like walking in a swamp... the more you try to free yourself, the deeper you sink. Impurity is the first sin you fall into when you stop attending Holy Mass routinely. (I can agree 100%.) And to lead another into sin is Scandal. This is so much worse. If a guy tries to get a girl to notice him in an impure way he has committed sin! We are supposed to help girls. If our goal isn't to lead a girl to salvation by our actions then we are in trouble. And vice versa. (Girls, please stop doing what you do best. Thanks.) We must do penance. We may not like it, but it is the only thing that can chastise our defected senses.
What does a Christian "I love you" mean? It means "I want you to never die. You will never die. I want you to have eternal life, because I care about your soul. Heaven is your end." When we have sex, there is a union of Body and Soul. You cannot separate the two! You surrender your whole being to your partner, be faithful to your future spouse. If marriage is your calling, then they are out there now, imagine that!
Envy- Follows Pride. It makes you hate your equals because they are your equals, it makes you hate your inferiors because the may one day surpass you, and you hate your superiors, because they are greater than you. Give thanks to God for the gifts in others. Pray these words..."God, thank you for so and so's virtue of _________, talents of _______, strength in _________."
Gluttony- The inordinate love of eating and drinking. This makes us lower than animals, because animals will only eat until they are satisfied. (Maybe not Franklin, my dad's cat, those are not mini hedge loppers.) We become poor slaves of our body. We give in at the most minimal urge in your body. Satisfy me, satisfy me, satisfy me! NO! Have order. (I would recommend 2 small meatless meals and a third regular meal a day for Lent coming up soon. And nothing in between. Think that is hard, try St. Rose of Lima's diet.)
Anger-We become a puppet in the Devils hands. Let Christ become the Master of the heart. Anger is the violence to despise whatever displeases us. Get over it, invoke mildness. (Think about being in the stable on the first Christmas night, and then try being angry.)

Sister Zenka then filled in what brother David could not get to in the Discerning the Spirits.
The Devil acts like a false lover. He doesn't want you to share your dirty little secrets with your confessor. He is weak if you are strong, but he is strong if you are weak. CUT HIM OFF. Do not even flirt with dialogue with Lucifer.

Yours in Christ,

St. Rose of Lima, Pray for us.
St. Blaise, pray for us.

up next... closing thoughts...