Sunday, January 26, 2014

Cardinal Now Openly Proclaiming New Church of Vatican II

As the Church continues on its rough voyage to the promised land, we are seeing even more bold statements being made in the highest levels of the Church proclaiming a "New Vatican II Church." In times past it was a general rule for the modernist to proclaim modernist heresy under the facade that they were proclaiming nothing new. Now however, things are changing. As we know, Pope Francis has picked eight of his favorite Cardinals to advise him on Church matters who are being referred to as, "Super-Cardinals". I refer to them as the "Super-friends", much like the cartoon characters we all remember from our childhood who came to save the day from those pesky evil villains. Unfortunately these Cardinals do not appear to be friends of the Church but part of the problem. One of these "Super-friends" is Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga. One of the Cardinal's recent statements clearly puts him at odds with Magisterial statements made by several previous Popes as well as dogmatic proclamations of the First Vatican Council. Contrary to Vatican II which was proclaimed as a pastoral Council, Vatican I was a dogmatic Council.

There is a two part article online well worth reading if you want to understand the erroneous thinking of many of today's bishops, including those chosen by the current Pope himself to advise him. It is amazing that a Cardinal can now openly state that he is in total opposition to the dogmatic Council of Vatican I, and that Vatican II openly contradicted the previous Council. There is no ambiguity to his statement that is usually readily apparent with modernists. The Cardinal is quite clear in proclaiming that he rejects Vatican I's rejection of modernism. Why are so many faithful in the Church ignoring those in the highest positions in the Church today? It is because they are now openly denying dogmatic truths of the faith. They are now openly proclaiming that Vatican II had power to change the Church's stance on a condemned heresy. Just for the record, it cannot happen! We as faithful Catholics should openly reject the Cardinal's recent statement quoted below, and I would hope that the CDF will not let Cardinal Maradiaga keep his hat or his position while holding such heretical ideas.

The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person. The Vatican II Council officially acknowledged that things had changed, and captured the need for such a change in its Documents… (Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga)

Sunday, January 19, 2014

The Novus Ordo: A Good Idea?

There is a simple question to ask to regarding the invention of the Novus Ordo liturgy concocted by "experts" under Pope Paul VI. The question is, was the Novus Ordo, the Mass of Paul VI a good idea or a bad idea? Now of course it is much easier for someone like myself to come along and look at everything in hindsight, but that is exactly what I am going to do, because, well... I can. The old saying, "put yourself in their shoes" is only relevant when you can actually do so. Most of us who were not living or not old enough to remember the times of Pope Paul VI cannot really put ourselves in their shoes.

I would however in this post put the ball back in the court of those who lived in the time of Pope Paul VI who actually supported the new liturgical changes and ask them to put themselves in the shoes of Catholics today who come to Church looking for that beautiful and enriching tradition that the Mass of Pius V provides, that the Novus Ordo did away with.

Being able to look at the last 40 years or so allows me to challenge those who thought the New Mass was going to enrich the faithful and improve the understanding of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Only 30 to 40 percent of Catholics now attend Mass regularly, down from approximately 60 to 70 percent before the liturgical changes. Surely the watered down Novus Ordo Mass is not the only reason for low Mass attendance, but the mentality that shaped the New Mass goes right along with the mentality that has watered down Catholicism since its inception. And that is much of the cause of low Mass attendance.

There are a few facts we must face if we are to answer the proposed question.

1. Catholics do not understand the faith or the theology of the Mass any more than they did before the liturgical changes, in fact, Catholics now do not understand the Mass as well today. Studies show that large numbers of Catholics think the Mass is similar to Protestant services, and many have no problem attending Protestant services. They do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They do not view the Mass as a Sacrifice, and now view it as primarily a memorial supper.

2. The vernacular did nothing to improve the understanding of the Mass or the Scripture readings at Mass. This was a motive that Bugnini and the liturgical "reformers" after the Council used to essentially do away with Latin, despite the call for its use in the Vatican document on the liturgy. The Vatican II documents are in my opinion, based on what we see going on in the Church today, are not worth the paper they are printed on. They are so ambiguous and full of, "ands, ifs and buts" that they are in many cases worthless.

3. The gutting of the prayers of the New Mass, such as doing away with repetition, the prayers at the foot of the altar, the changing of the confiteor, etc watered down the theology of the Mass, and made it harder to see the theology of Sacrifice and redemption in the Mass. It has also taken the focus off of our sinful nature, and Our Lord's perfect Sacrifice which redeems us. These changes made the Mass man centered, not Christ centered.

4. The loosening of the rubrics and the allowance of the many optional prayers, etc, in the New Mass has taken focus off of Christ and has placed it on the priest. The priest no longer disappears into the person of Christ, priest and victim, but now inserts his preferences and personality into the Mass. This is problematic both for the laity and the priest.

5. The abuses at many Novus Ordo Masses is not the reason why the Novus Ordo is a failure, it is the mentality of the Novus Ordo that made these radical abuses a reality. Many have said that Vatican II never wanted the priest to be facing the people for example, yet that is how the Popes themselves have implemented the New Mass, and even have celebrated their Masses in the same manner. Again, it is mentality that drives the ideas behind the New Mass that have been the catalyst for its failure.

These are only a few facts which lead me to believe that the Novus Ordo, the only liturgy of the Church to ever be assembled ad-hoc by a committee of so called, "experts," to have been a very bad idea. The fact is, all the changes that these experts claimed to be needed to improve the Mass turned out to be a colossal failure. The noisy and distracting Novus Ordo did not improve upon the Mass of Pius V. The vernacular did not improve the understanding of the Mass, and the very fact that these "experts" assumed that the faithful were too stupid to use their Latin/English Missal to learn the language and theology of the Church was and is still insulting. As a result of living 40 some odd years after the implementation of the Novus Ordo, I can come up with a good idea. The Church needs to make at least one Latin Mass at every parish available once a week on Sunday, in preparation for its restoration as the norm. The Novus Ordo experiment of Paul VI was a bad idea, and in hindsight it has been a complete failure.

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Advice From Saint Pius V: Consueverunt Romani

As we feel the enemies of the Church advance upon us from both inside and outside the Church, perhaps a little advice from Saint Pius V is in order. Saint Dominic and his spirituality is a powerful antidote to what ails us.

Pope St. Pius V - 17 September 1569 

The Roman Pontiffs, and the other Holy Fathers, our predecessors, when they were pressed in upon by temporal or spiritual wars, or troubled by other trials, in order that they might more easily escape from these, and having achieved tranquillity, might quietly and fervently be free to devote themselves to God, were wont to implore the divine assistance, through supplications or Litanies to call forth the support of the saints, and with David to lift up their eyes unto the Mountains, trusting with firm hope that thence would they receive aid.

1. Prompted by their example, and, as is piously believed, by the Holy Ghost, the inspired Blessed founder of the Order of Friars Preachers, (whose institutes and rule we ourselves expressly professed when we were in minor orders), in circumstances similar to those in which we now find ourselves, when parts of France and of Italy were unhappily troubled by the heresy of the Albegenses, which blinded so many of the worldly that they were raging most savagely against the priests of the Lord and the clergy, raised his eyes up unto heaven, unto that mountain of the Glorious Virgin Mary, loving Mother of God. For she by her seed has crushed the head of the twisted serpent, and has alone destroyed all heresies, and by the blessed fruit of her womb has saved a world condemned by the fall of our first parent. From her, without human hand, was that stone cut, which, struck by wood, poured forth the abundantly flowing waters of graces. And so Dominic looked to that simple way of praying and beseeching God, accessible to all and wholly pious, which is called the Rosary, or Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in which the same most Blessed Virgin is venerated by the angelic greeting repeated one hundred and fifty times, that is, according to the number of the Davidic Psalter, and by the Lord's Prayer with each decade. Interposed with these prayers are certain meditations showing forth the entire life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, thus completing the method of prayer devised by the by the Fathers of the Holy Roman Church. This same method St. Dominic propagated, and it was, spread by the Friars of Blessed Dominic, namely, of the aforementioned Order, and accepted by not a few of the people. Christ's faithful, inflamed by these prayers, began immediately to be changed into new men. The darkness of heresy began to be dispelled, and the light of the Catholic Faith to be revealed. Sodalities for this form of prayer began to be instituted in many places by the Friars of the same Order, legitimately deputed to this work by their Superiors, and confreres began to be enrolled together.

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

Pray the Rosary

Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary

“One day, through the Rosary and the Scapular, Our Lady will save the world.”~St. Dominic

The Corrupt Theology of the “Seamless Garment”

The Corrupt Theology of the “Seamless Garment”
By Matthew J Bellisario 2010 (reposted from Coalition For Thomism)

I will begin this article by saying that it addresses a highly controversial topic, and I apologize in advance if I offend anyone. But I feel that what I have to say is of the utmost importance for Catholics today. If anyone disagrees with my conclusion, I would welcome a live or a formal written debate on the subject. With this being said, I will start my critique of the “Seamless Garment.”
With the advent of the “Enlightenment” the world began to turn a blind eye to objective truth. Instead of embracing objective truth, the false subjective philosophies of Hume, Hegel, Descartes ,Kant, and many others began to be embraced by the world and later by many in the Church. 

The movement of the “New Theologians” who embraced these deficient philosophies towards the end of the 19th century, but only really started to take up residency en masse in the 1950s and 60s. Theologians like Maurice Blondel planted the seeds in the late 19th century, followed soon after by theologians like Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Edward SchillebeeckxYves Congar, Joseph Bernardin and the like, and with them the liturgical deconstructionists like Annibale Bugnini, Josef A. Jungmann, and Louis Bouyer. They were all part of the quickly sprouting crop of weeds that were planted and watered earlier on by the modernist movement. Soon the great garden giving life to the fruits of Thomism were quickly overgrown by the rotten weeds of modernism. Their errors spread like wildfire throughout the Church and most of the bishops were more than willing to go along with the whole corrupt mindset. The consequences have been disastrous and they can be seen in many arenas throughout the Church today. The degradation of the celebration of the Mass and the destruction or degradation of Church architecture are a couple of highly visible examples, but the corruption goes much deeper to such areas as the destruction of sacramental theology, which we see in most parishes of the Church today, to the subversion of moral teaching. The entire theological foundation of Catholicism, although objectively still intact, as it will be until the end of time, has been hidden under this heretical cloak. As important as it is to recognize these problems in the Church today, I want to focus on another area that has been assaulted by this “new” theological/philosophical movement. A popular platform that many bishops today use to further this destructive mentality is that of a corrupted view of social justice. The best way to get someone to swallow poison is not to put the bottle of poison on the table and tell them to ingest it, but to cleverly mix it in with something that appears to be perfectly edible. It is the vehicle of social justice poisoned by the concept of what is largely known as the “Seamless Garment” that I want to address in this short essay. 
The vehicle of corrupt social justice has been a clever Trojan horse used to spread falsehood in the Church. This corruption, or poison pill is known as the “Seamless Garment.” This idea is one that proposes that there is some “seamless garment” that unites and makes all moral issues and acts regarding human life somehow equal in nature. This is one of the more clever Trojan horses that the modernists have used to spread their errors, since it feeds on emotion and not the intellect. The “Seamless Garment” idea is a flawed moral theological position that claims that all life between conception and the grave are all to be treated equal in regards to social justice issues. It is often based on a misrepresentation of human dignity. The term is thrown around with little or no precision in definition. The distinctions of innocence and guilt however are completely done away with in relation to moral life issues, as well as the morality of the acts in and of themselves. The promoters of this nefarious idea falsely promote that the saving of a convicted mass murderer is as important as saving an innocent child in a mother’s womb, although their actions often make it seem as if the lives of the guilty are somehow worth more than the innocent. 
Although Cardinal Bernardin, the main proponent of this theologically bankrupt idea, often paid lip service to these distinctions of guilt and innocence, he did not apply them in principle. This is typical for those who have been in the game of corrupting Catholic doctrine in the modern age. Notice the bait and switch tactic he pulled in his William Wade lecture series given in 1984. He stated first that he acknowledged the distinction between the innocent and the guilty in regards to moral issues such as abortion and capital punishment, but the conclusion that he draws right after this statement is completely at odds with his acknowledgment. It is like saying, “I am against abortion, but I think I should not let that influence my decision on who I will vote for.” First Bernardin said, “Some of the responses I have received on the Fordham address correctly say that abortion and capital punishment are not identical issues. The principle which protects innocent life distinguishes the unborn child from the convicted murderer. Other letters stress that while nuclear war is a threat to life, abortion involves the actual taking of life, here and now. I accept both of these distinctions, of course, but I also find compelling the need to relate the cases while keeping them in distinct categories.” Sadly however Bernardin does not keep them separate at all. He continues on using a cloak of contradiction and ambiguity stating, “Abortion is taking of life in ever growing numbers in our society. Those concerned about it, I believe, will find their case enhanced by taking note of the rapidly expanding use of public execution. In a similar way, those who are particularly concerned about these executions, even if the accused has taken another life, should recognize the elementary truth that a society which can be indifferent to the innocent life of an unborn child will not be easily stirred to concern for a convicted criminal. There is, I maintain, a political and psychological linkage among the life issues—from war to welfare concerns—which we ignore at our own peril: a systemic vision of life seeks to expand the moral imagination of a society, not partition it into airtight categories.” (Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, A Consistent Ethic of Life, 1984) 
Far from Bernardin’s rejection of airtight categories, he completely rejects any distinction or categorization at all in relation to the moral acts that are actually being addressed. Bernardin attempted here to sell the idea that if one embraces the State’s right to exact the just use of capital punishment, then they are somehow complicit and psychologically linked to the acceptance of abortion! The two acts are not even in the same category. Not only is this “connection” simply nonexistent, most of the public that supports a pro-life position, (That is they are against abortion and euthanasia, ie the killing of innocent life) are usually consistently pro-capital punishment and vice versa, those who usually support abortion are usually against the death penalty, so even his logic here is severely flawed. It was not as if the acceptance of abortion brought about the acceptance of capital punishment. The connection he imagines simply does not exist on any noticeable scale in society, and where it does exist it is fueled by the noxious fumes of modernity. Notice how he also mentions the political realm here. We should not let this go unnoticed since ones’ perception on these moral issues will affect how Catholics vote on such issues. How anyone can fall for such an absurd concept is truly amazing, but none the less, most bishops today have taken the bait, hook line and sinker. 
It must be stated that there is no sound theological principle that can support the Cardinal’s fallacious conclusion of this “linkage.” There is really no comparison of the two distinct moral acts of murder, and the act of just retributive punishment. One is a negative precept, that of murder, the other is not an immoral act at all. In regards to Catholic morality, and the proper principles used to arrive at understanding the moral act, which is that of Divine Revelation, the Natural Law and the Church Magisterium, it impossible to even equate the two acts, let alone link them in the manner the Cardinal was attempting to do. Aside from them both relating to morality of human beings, there is no related to connection between the two. Only a malformed ideology conjured up by a heavy reliance on modernist philosophy can account for such an incongruous concept. 
In order to drive home the seriousness of this modernist error I would like to quote another comment made by Cardinal Bernardin in 1985 in his address to the criminal court of Cook County. (The Death Penalty in Our Time-1985) It is here that he readily admits that the core moral principles the Church held in a consistent form (The form of Thomism) in regards moral acts like capital punishment had been rejected by the bishops en masse. Pay close attention here, “First, they review four traditional arguments justifying capital punishment, retribution, deterrence, reform and protection of the State. Based on their review, the religious leaders have argued that these reasons no longer apply in our age.” This comment is startling and it is the true telling of the tale. The bishops fully rejected sound moral theology in favor of their modernist inventions. Somehow the bishops concluded that the natural law and moral theology change with the age like dust that blows on the changing wind. Bernardin cited the USCCB’s statement penned in 1980 as denying the traditional Catholic teaching in regards to retributive punishment, “Such punishment might satisfy certain vindictive desires that we or the victim might feel, but the satisfaction of such desires is not and cannot be an objective of a humane and Christian approach to punishment.” No longer did the UCCB regard retributive punishment as a valid argument for the use of the death penalty, despite the Council of Trent’s doctrinal claim to the contrary hundreds of years before, ”well founded is the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty." The USCCB simply turned retribution into a form of vengeance instead of a just punishment pertaining to the restoration of the moral order. This is simply a dishonest redefining of what retributive punishment really is. It is not done for vengeance, and the Pope Pius XII made that very clear in 1954, “It should be noted that to vindicate the moral order means not the taking of vengeance upon the criminal, but imposing upon the criminal some act or loss or suffering as a form of compensation to right the balance of justice.” Justice however has no place in the minds of most bishops today. Bernardin continued on to summarize his position after citing the above passage from the USCCB's erroneous assessment of retributive punishment, “Basing their judgment on this and similar lines of reasoning, many religious leaders conclude that, under our present circumstances, the death penalty as punishment for reasons of deterrence, retribution, reform or protection of society cannot be justified.” Simply put, the USCCB had wholly rejected the accepted norms of defining the moral act, and in doing so rejected every principle used to determine just punishment. In short, Thomism had been substituted with a smorgasbord of modernist philosophies which has resulted in a rejection of sound moral theology. 
One may ask, what can be the harm in equating the prisoner on death row with an innocent life in a mother’s womb? A life is a life correct? The problem with this position is that it undermines objective truth. It is a vehicle that spreads a false philosophy under a cloak of something that appears to be a very noble position indeed. After all, what kindhearted Christian could be opposed to saving a life? It also forces Catholics to either embrace the false system of the “Seamless Garment” or else be ostracized by the mainstream powers that be, like the media, political bodies, or even councils like the USCCB, because of a delusional theory they invented of there being some perceived inconsistency among the views of trying to preserve human life. The lie has now been so widely accepted in society that it appears that one cannot be against the killing of an innocent human baby via abortion, and yet allow a guilty person to undergo the just punishment of the death penalty. In other words, this delusion of the “Seamless Garment” is a tool used to spread the heresy of modernity among the Church faithful. Objective truth is undermined under a veil of a perceived good, that of saving a life. 
This falsehood also has another corruption factor built in that is very useful in promoting political agendas. It allows the horrors of abortion to be downplayed as just another life issue among many. This results in entire bodies of bishops, like the USCCB again for example, to spend enormous amounts of time, resources, and money, to stop the executions of guilty criminals, rather than focusing on real immoral actions such as the mass slaughter of innocent babies. Whenever objective truth is sacrificed there are consequences that will follow. So far the bishops of the Church have paid little more than lip service to stop the atrocity of abortion. Instead they write letters promoting campaigns to completely abolish a fundamental right that every State has been given by divine authority, that of just retributive punishment. Why don’t the bishops write a letter every time an abortion happens? It is much easier to write a few letters a few times a year when a mass murderer gets executed in their diocese or state than it is to write thousands of letters for every murder that takes place in abortion mill isn’t it? As we see mentioned by Cardinal Bernardin above, these conclusions have strong political ties and consequences. This fallacious reasoning has unfortunately given the impression that issues like capital punishment, immigration and just war are just as important as issues like abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. As a result, we see Catholics often voting for politicians who support atrocities like abortion, ignorantly claiming that they are against an unjust war, capital punishment or some other lesser moral issue of the day. These ideas have prevailed largely because the bishops promote them!
The “Seamless Garment” also implicitly gives a false notion that all taking of human life is somehow a moral evil. This however is not the truth at all. The Fifth Commandment has always pertained to the taking of innocent human life. In other words, the negative precept is not the taking of “any” life by anyone or any public entity, it is the taking of an “innocent” life by anyone or any public entity. The taking of a life can be justified when the object of a moral act is ordered towards self defense for example, or the State can rightfully take the life of a guilty person for the sake of keeping or restoring the moral order through proportionate retributive punishment. These are fundamental principles that have always been held by the Church, but have now just recently been swept under the carpet by the bishops of our age. It is almost impossible to find anything written on capital punishment before the Vatican II age by any of the bishops. Instead, they only pay passing lip service to these most serious distinctions long held in Catholic moral theology, while treating them in their actions as if they are equal in moral stature. To put the distinction between the moral acts of abortion and capital punishment in simple terms, the act of abortion falls under a negative precept and can never be done under any circumstance, it is murder. Capital punishment on the other hand, if carried out by the State in a proper manner on a guilty party is no way an immoral act, but a just act carried out to restore the moral order of society. To make any connection between the two acts in regards to morality demonstrates either a complete failure in understanding of basic moral principles or a complete rejection of them. Judging by the USCCB’s statement in 1980 I will let you determine which is true.
It is my fear that we are in danger of completely overturning the divine natural order by allowing the bishops of the Church to promote such rash positions such as the complete abolishment of the death penalty or the emphasizing of moral issues like immigration over the atrocity of abortion. Of course I do not believe that these are “either or” issues, or that they be looked at in a complete vacuum in complete isolation from how they sometimes effect one another, but we must have our priorities straight, and it is clear that the bishops as whole do not because they have adopted faulty principles. The bishops are trying to usurp a divine right and duty that every State has, not only to defend human life, but more importantly, to retain a strong moral order among society by use of just retributive punishment. There is absolutely no theological principle that can justify or support the complete abolishment of capital punishment. One may argue for a more prudent use of its application based on how it fits in with restoring or keeping the moral order in a society, but to lobby for the complete abolishment of the punishment is in my opinion clearly against the natural law. It denies the State’s the right to properly determine what just means it will use to restore and retain the moral order, and that is not a right that can be taken away by anyone, including misguided bishops who have divorced themselves from right reason and instead have substituted it with the double-dealing concept of the “Seamless Garment.” The bishops do not have the right to determine whether or not a State should use a certain form of just punishment. It is the State’s right and duty to prudently decide what are the most effective just means it will use to retain and preserve the moral order. This notion that the bishops have a right to dictate what type of just punishments the State can use is a delusional one.
This may be taken as being a bit harsh, but I think that it must be noted that even bishops that are considered to be “orthodox” are falling into these fallacious positions as well, many of them possibly by pure ignorance. The well respected bishop of Denver, Colorado, archbishop Charles Chaput, who I admit is normally a very sound bishop, was quoted in the Denver Catholic Register as saying the following in October of 2005 "In modern industrialized states, killing convicted murderers adds nothing to anyone’s safety. It is an excess." Chaput here appears to be missing some important pieces to the puzzle. He fails to recognize a need for retributive punishment. Its all about protecting innocents in society from future aggression that may be committed by the criminal if he were allowed to go free. This is an error of the gravest kind. We can see what the outcome is when you reject core moral principles like the USCCB did in 1980. It leads the archbishop into drawing an erroneous conclusion, which he makes clear when he states, "We need to end the death penalty, and we need to do it soon." Based on what theological grounds or moral principles does his conclusion rest on? It rests on a perceived excess of the use of an act which he views as being only ordered towards the protecting of innocents from possible future crimes that the criminal may commit. He gives an acknowledgement to rehabilitation and the possibility of repentance and restitution, but never mentions the foundational principle of retribution in the restoration of the moral order. Rehabilitation and the like are quite desirable, but are not always possible, and are only secondary reasons for punishment. Yet these secondary principles have now been put forth as being the primary principles for just punishment. We will soon demonstrate how this inversion technique is quite a common ploy used to further modernist agendas. A true moral theologian must ask Archbishop Chaput what happened to the retributive punishment that must accompany the crime for the expiation of the criminal’s guilt? This foundational principle squares solidly with Pope Pius XII’s statement in 1952, “Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.” Retribution and expiation are part of the equation in this puzzle, and they are an integral component to how crime and punishment falls within the natural law. Only by using proper principles can we determine the nature of moral acts with any accuracy. Archbishop Chaput however just throws that crucial part of the equation to the four winds. I must say that I admire the Archbishop in many ways, for the good that he has done in the Church, but I must oppose him on this particular issue. I would kindly ask him to reconsider his stance on this issue, or at least carefully scrutinize his position using the principles of Thomism. The “Consistent Life Ethic” that he endorses is based on a flawed premise. 
We must address yet another clever Trojan horse used to undermine the moral order of objective truth, that of ambiguity. If there is no sound theological or philosophical argument for such wily ideas, then you have to invent clever vehicles to carry your contraband. How are these ideas able to be so easily embedded in the modern Catholic mind? The answer lies largely in the ambiguity of documents released by the Church over the past 40 years or so, and the ability to promote these views via the media. In order to oppose a certain truth most effectively, you either make the truth obscure by not mentioning it often or  in an inexplicit manner, or secondly, you take a less important truth or principle and emphasize that over the foundational principle. A perfect example to use is how the celebration of Mass has been corrupted over the last 40 years. The foundational principles of the Mass put in very simple terms is that of sacrifice, the representation of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary, in which Our Lord makes Himself present in the Holy Eucharist via the consecration of the priest. From these general foundational principles all others like those of the communal element flow from, and the lesser elements or principles cannot be sustained or properly understood without the understanding and acceptance of the foundational ones. The “New Theologians” of the day however have taken a lesser principle or element, like that of the communal aspect of the Mass, and have made that the foundational principle. As a result we have the entire foundation undermined and turned on its head by substituting a lesser principle for a foundational one. Then we wonder why Father acts the way he does in the sanctuary and why the tabernacle is hidden or de-emphasized, why we have absurd dancing, why Our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist is ignored, and the list goes on ad nauseum. The same has happened in the social justice arena. Intrinsic evils like abortion and homosexuality have been de-emphasized while social issues that are not as important to the social order, like capital punishment, and immigration are now emphasized. The priorities regarding the moral social order have been turned upside down. Suddenly the attention gets drawn away from such abominable offenses to God like abortion, and the focus instead gets put upon a convicted criminal who is getting a just punishment for his crime. The common battle cry the modernists have made in the social justice arena is that those who do not make capital punishment their “social justice” priority are somehow not charitable, or have no compassion for people whatsoever. This however is a lie. I have dealt with such arguments before in other essays I have written that directly pertain to the morality of capital punishment. (See "Keeping the Death Penalty Alive", 2010)
Now that we have identified the problem, what can be done to correct it? The answer quite simply resides in Thomistic philosophy and theology. We must get back to the roots of Thomism so that we may understand and make the proper distinctions in regards to moral theology. The corrupt theology of the “Seamless Garment” is only able to fly because of the noxious modernism that fuels it. Removing the Thomistic principles that allow for the proper examination of the moral act, which allows for distinctions to be drawn and thus proper conclusions to be made to determine what are licit moral acts and what are not, has been a complete disaster. Few theologians before the acceptance of these modernist philosophies would have never come up with a rancorous movement to completely abolish capital punishment. They knew better than to try and pass off such a theological blunder, because Thomism exposes it as such. It is only with the adoption of modern, corrupt philosophical principles that this nonsense could have prevailed to the extent that it has. Today we see ignorant bishops in the Church who are directly opposing a God given right and duty of the State, as well as emphasizing lesser moral evils over greater ones because they adopted a corrupt ideology. Most are not familiar with Thomism as it has been traditionally understood, or the natural law theory that has been so widely praised by the Church over the centuries, and this has been detrimental to Catholics worldwide. Thomism is the key to bringing back a solid theological and philosophical foundation to the Church at large. Since social justice issues are such a hot arena for the Church today, there is no better place to start the resurrection of Thomism.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

More Ecumenical Nonsense: Cardinal O'Malley and the "Rev. Robertson"

“It was completely unexpected,” the Rev. Robertson said Tuesday, in her first media interview about the encounter. “I’m still blown away by it.”

“What moved me was not so much that I was anointing him,” she said. “It was him being willing to accept that from my hand – to ask me, as a woman in ministry, to do that.”

Sunday, January 12, 2014

The Heresy of False Ecumenism Viewed Through The Lens of 'Mortalium Animos'

One of the plagues in the Church today is the predominant modern notion of "ecumenism." It is a false ideology that concerns itself with "making nice" with those outside the Church. Discussion is often focused on finding commonalities between the Catholic Church and groups who are outside the Church so as to appeal to them on a superficial level. Generally the discussion usually ends on supposed common beliefs, and an agreement to work for the improvement of our society, with those common beliefs in mind. Although these false ecumenists espouse that there is a difference between "ecumenism" and "inter-religious dialog" the result of the two is often the same. There is usually no urgent desire by Catholics for the conversion of those outside the Church, rather it is the idea that both the Catholic Church and those outside the Church need to converge together to find the real "Catholic faith." So the idea is twofold. By acknowledging commonalities all "Christian" groups are working together in dialog in order to converge together in a one true "catholicity."

This type of mentality is readily observed by the former head of ecumenism Cardinal Walter Kasper, appointed by John Paul II, who said on several occasions, “The goal of ecumenism cannot be conceived as a simple return of others to the bosom of the Catholic Church.” This pernicious error is now running rampant through the Catholic Church. What else is the goal of ecumenism, if not for the return of others to the Catholic Church? It is convergence, as we shall soon see. Kasper and those like him espouse noxious nonsense such as, “it is not a question of a simple return of the others to the sheepfold of the Catholic Church, but a mutual convergence This is a heretical statement that was clearly condemned by several popes, yet this mentality seems to be common now among the Catholic hierarchy. Even Pope Benedict XVI said, "On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!...I would also like in this context to remember the great pioneer of unity, Bro. Roger Schutz...I think that we must listen to him, from within we must listen to his spiritually-lived ecumenism and allow ourselves to be led by his witness towards an interiorized and spiritualized ecumenism." As a result of this mentality Pope Benedict gave Schutz communion knowing full well that he formally denied the Catholic faith since he remained a Reformed pastor until his death. If you think that I am reaching in addressing Pope Benedict's bad ideas on ecumenism, in 2010 he specifically upheld Kaspers false "ecumenical" ideas. "and I am especially pleased to thank Cardinal Walter Kasper, who led the dicastery, with competence and passion, over the last 11 years."

In Pope Pius XI's encyclical 'Mortalium Animos' the Holy Father saw this mentality creeping into the Church and society, and he clearly and emphatically declared it as an "evil." Pius XI addressed those in his day who were looking to find a common ground among all "Christians" with the idea that they may band together to fight a common cause in society, which was irreligion. "We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil" He also denied that there could be any idea of unity between Protestants and the Catholic Church. The ideas that Pius XI condemned were of the same mindset of the Cardinal Kaspers of our time. At that point in time it was being advanced by primarily by those outside the Church, yet the pope writes that he was concerned that many in the Church were being influenced by it. Now however, since few have followed Pius XI's teaching, these false ideas are now common in the Church in our time. This is what Pius XI said in the beginning of his encyclical, "These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed."

Indeed those like Kasper have not sought to bring others into the Church because they believe that those who are joined to Protestant heretical sects and schismatic churches have no need to convert. For example Kapser says concerning some of the Eastern Orthodox, "Despite a separation of 1500 years and all the differences, which are more cultural than dogmatic, these Churches have preserved the fundamental apostolic structure of the Church we have ourselves” Yet as we know, nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, they have apostolic succession, but more importantly they deny many core dogmatic teachings of the Church, which cannot be viewed as simple trivial side issues. Dogmas such as the papal infallibility, the Assumption of the Blessed Mother and the Immaculate Conception are very serious dogmas, and one who denies these truths separate themselves from the Church in a very serious manner.

The Protestants cannot be viewed in any sense as being part of the Church. They have no apostolic succession and they deny almost every major dogma of the Christian faith! Yet these modernist ecumenical theologians view the Protestants as a part of the Church, forming a type of federation of believers. For example in 2007 when Kasper was gloating of the great success of ecumenism in the Church, he said, "The most significant - and most gratifying - result of ecumenism over the past few decades is not the various documents, but the recovery of fraternity, the fact that we have rediscovered that we are brothers and sisters in Christ, that we have learned to appreciate one another and have begun together the journey toward full unity." However this implies that both sides are moving towards one another as if each were on a journey to reconcile themselves to one another. This idea is clearly erroneous. Kasper falsely claims for example, "from the Reformation of the 16th century; these have developed an ecclesiology of their own, on the basis of Sacred Scripture." Any Catholic of good faith knows that the Protesters do not have, nor have ever had, an ecclesiology based on Sacred Scripture! The papacy is based on Sacred Scripture, which they emphatically reject!

Now let us look at what Pius XI said of the this "federation" mentality. I think that this part of the document is worth quoting at length. "These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you."For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men."How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it."

Pius XI here makes it clear that those who deny core teachings of the Catholic faith are not of the same faith. This is why the Church has always forbid Catholics to worship with Protestants. Yet we see this happen all of the time in our age. Now we actually invite Protestants to come into our Churches and hold their own heretical "services" profaning God's temple! Likewise many Catholics today go to "ecumenical" gatherings and pray together. We even see Catholics working for Protestant organizations that promote Protestant heresies, thinking that they are working for a common "good." What did Pius XI say about these actions? He said the very opposite of what Kasper says, "So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?"

In meditating on Pius XI's encyclical we must conclude that the ideas we have today being conveyed in the Church which concerns "ecumenism," is erroneous. Those saying that we are not for the "ecumenism of the return" are in complete and total opposition to Pius XI, not to mention many other popes such as Pius IX, Pius X, Leo XIII, and Pius XII to name a few. We must as faithful Catholics make every effort to make the conversion of those outside the Church a priority, based on the truths of the Catholic faith. An idea that both the Catholic Church and those outside of it must move towards a common truth is an idea that must be emphatically rejected. The Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that truly exists as Christ established it, and alone uniquely proclaims the entire undiluted Gospel to the world, not as one voice among many seeking reconciliation with others, but as one voice that calls all others outside of her to her bosom! No other endgame concerning ecumenism is an acceptable one!

"Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"? Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind." Pius XI Mortalium Animos

I encourage you to read the entire encyclical by Pius XI and then really think about what we have going on in the Church today.