Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts

Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts

Reintroducing Logic and Reason to the Age of Sentimentalism

Vatican 2

All of the posts under the "Vatican 2" category.

Fatima and the Third Secret

Our Lady of Fatima was instrumental in bringing me into the Catholic Church. I honestly don’t know if I’d be Catholic today if it weren’t for her. Of course, I certainly hope I would have eventually come into the Church, but it was after reading about Fatima and having a minor miracle happen that pushed me into diving head first into Catholic thought.

statue-of-our-lady-of-fatima

It’s intriguing to me that after having come into the Church via a rather traditional path I ended up down the road of Modernistic thinking. Over time, I became your typical neo-Catholic who thought that Vatican Two was the greatest thing to happen to the Church and how all the popes since then were de facto saints. After all, I was a convert, what did I know about Catholicism?

Having no Catholic foundation when I read about Fatima, I didn’t understand everything I was reading. What I did know was that the message of Fatima, praying for the conversion of the world to prevent souls from going to Hell was a vastly different message than what most Christians were teachings me. The Jesus of Fatima wasn’t the happy, happy, joy, joy Jesus, but a serious Jesus, who died for our sins and demanded that we follow Him and His teachings.

I never went back to review Fatima until relatively recently as a good friend asked me about what I thought about the Third Secret. I had thought it was a done deal. The consecration was “accepted by Heaven”. Russia stopped their communistic ways. The Third Secret was revealed by the Vatican headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. I figured it was a closed chapter.

However, in the last week, two important stories have broken from One Peter Five in regards to the Third Secret of Fatima.

The first story came Thursday where Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand revealed that she had been told by Cardinal Luigi Ciappi (1909-1996) of the true Third Secret, which revealed: “that a great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”

The second story broke Sunday and tells how Pope Benedict XVI confided in a close priest friend, Fr. Ingo Dollinger, about how “there is more than what we published.” Specifically, the part of the secret which was unpublished discusses “a bad council and a bad Mass” which was to happen shortly.

This secret was given by Our Lady of Fatima in 1917 to Sr. Lucia. It speaks volumes as to why Pope John XXIII did not reveal the 3rd Secret in 1960 like he was requested and passed it on to one of his successors stating that the Third Secret “does not concern my pontificate.” If the Third Secret reveals that apostasy would “begin at the top” and would allow for a “bad council and a bad Mass,” then it explains that the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo is not pleasing to God, despite being told the opposite these last 50 years.

Next year marks the 100th anniversary of Fatima. It is important that we take heed of her warnings. Go to confession, pray the Rosary daily, pray for the conversion of the world. Pray for the Pope that he consecrates Russia like he and his predecessors were asked to do. The world is in spiritual shambles around us, and Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother have given us a special role in rebuilding it.

Jeff May 17, 2016 3 Comments Permalink

Only The Last 50 Years of Catholicism Matters

For some time now, I have argued that the majority of Catholics view the Church as only being relevant since the Second Vatican Council. So much so, I wrote a parody article explaining how the Church was founded in 1963 when the Holy Spirit descended upon those present at Vatican 2.

We can see evidence of this when we analyze the footnotes of documents that mainstream Catholic authors, as well as the Vatican, has released over the last couple of decades. The number of citations we see to only post-conciliar popes and Vatican 2, in comparison with the number of citations before Vatican 2 demonstrates that many prelates are only looking for examples that go as far back as 1963. Yes, some of these citations do include references to Sacred Scripture, as well as to some saints such as St. Thomas Aquinas.

Lest we forget, St. Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225-1274 and is a Doctor of the Church. His masterpiece The Summa Theologica is considered to be the go-to book on all things theology and Catholic thought. St. Thomas Aquinas’ work has been so influential that his process for thinking out issues was named “Thomistic”, and many Popes declared that his work is the prime example of how Catholics should approach their education.

To better illustrate my point, Donald Cardinal Wuerl released a graphic the other day in which he discusses the number of citations Pope Francis uses in Amoris Laetitia that point back to the pontificates of previous popes.

Pontifical Continuity

Based on Cardinal Wuerl’s graphic, we see that there is a total of 107 citations. Of those 107 citations, only 14 or 13% of them are to St. Thomas Aquinas. 87% of the citations are from the last 50 years of a 2,000-year-old religion. If we are to believe Cardinal Wuerl, then 87% of Pope Francis’ citations are from the last 2.5% of Catholicism’s life-span. Surely there weren’t a few more points that couldn’t have been taken from the vast majority of our faith? You would be hard-pressed to find any document written in the last 50 years that would have even a 50:50 ratio of pre-Vatican 2 to post-Vatican 2 citations (excluding the documents of the Second Vatican Council, of course).

Even more alarming is how the majority of the quotes which are obtained from Pope St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio are taken severely out of context. The same can be said about the quotations taken from St. Thomas Aquinas. Both LMSChairman and the Remnant published articles detailing how Pope Francis misrepresented both of these saints in Amoris Laetitia.

When prelates use only a subset of the Magisterium of the Church while formulating documents, it certainly lends credit to the common misconception that the Church’s teachings were changed (Spoiler: some of them were) during the Second Vatican Council. For the Hermeneutic of Continuity to be true, you would expect that all of the unchanging teachings of the Church be used, not just those that further the agenda of the enemies who have put themselves into prominent positions.

Jeff May 1, 2016 2 Comments Permalink

The Year of Mercy as Foretold by Dogma

The Year of Mercy has been in full force for well over three months. I’ve seen various articles across numerous social-media platforms, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. I’m not sure if I wasn’t paying attention during 2015 or just didn’t care, but I didn’t realize that one could gain a plenary indulgence by walking through the doors of a Cathedral during this Year of Mercy. In fact, it wasn’t until I heard someone refer to these holy doors as “Mercy Doors” that I had thought how familiar this sounded. Then it hit me. It’s part of the plot from the blasphemous movie Dogma!

For those of you who have never seen Dogma, or don’t remember, it is a comedy in which Ben Affleck and Matt Damon play two fallen angels who disobeyed God and were banished and sent to Wisconsin. But, it gets better. Because the Catholic Church is considered “old and stale” the fictitious Cardinal Glick, reveals a new image of Jesus, called “the Buddy Christ,” in which we see an updated Jesus who is smiling, winking and pointing at you. During this campaign to update the Church’s image along with his Cathedral’s rededication, Cardinal Glick announces that anyone who goes through the Cathedral’s doors during this time will gain a plenary indulgence and will receive pardon from all sin, allowing for direct entry into Heaven. Seeing this as an opportunity to prove God wrong, Affleck and Damon drive across America to New Jersey so that they can pass through this “Door of Mercy” so that they can go to Heaven and cause all life as we know it to cease to exist.

Yes, I know how awful this movie is, but before my conversion to Catholicism ten years ago, I really enjoyed this movie. It was my favorite movie, but no longer is.

Needless to say, has no one else thought of this comparison? Not only is the plot line similar, but the logo looks an awful lot like Buddy Christ.

buddy-christ-looks-like-year-of-mercy

My knee-jerk reaction was to wonder if anybody in the Vatican’s PR department didn’t stop to see if something was a bit off with the Year of Mercy. After all, Dogma came out in 1999 and drew the attention of a lot of Catholics as being quite anti-Catholic. And while the Vatican can’t keep track of every movie released, you would think that one of the American Cardinals would have at least thought “hey, this sounds familiar?” I mean, it isn’t like Pope Francis just dropped this into their laps with only a couple of months to prepare, right?

Many Popes have granted indulgences throughout the history of the Church as a sign of God’s love and mercy. Indulgences are a beautiful gift which remits the temporal punishment due to sin which already has been forgiven in full or in part. It is up to the reigning Pontiff to determine if he should impart a plenary indulgence to the Church for a particular event, but he should use this power responsibly, as one of the biggest complaints during the Protestant Reformation was the abuse of such indulgences.

The plenary indulgence for a pilgrim who walks through the Holy Doors of a Basilica or Cathedral has occurred throughout the majority of the history of the Catholic Church. This practice is nothing novel. What is novel about this particular devotion with the Year of Mercy is that originally a pilgrim was required to go to Rome and walk through the doors of one of the major basilicas or St. Peter’s to receive the indulgence. It was work to gain the indulgence. It was an indulgence given as a reward for making the long pilgrimage.

With the Year of Mercy, the indulgence has been extended to all Cathedrals or Basilicas across the world.

Perhaps instead of looking at Dogma as a movie that was predicting the future, maybe we should view it as a movie parodying the Church for some of the silly things it was already doing? The movie clearly mocks the Catholic practice of receiving a plenary indulgence from walking through the Holy Doors.

This misunderstanding derives from the fact that the average Catholic would not have known about this practice because your average Catholic before the Second Vatican Council would likely not travel to Rome to participate in these Jubilee years. But the Popes had begun loosening the tradition of pilgrims being required to travel to Rome to receive the plenary indulgence, thus this practice would seem novel to your average Catholic, who had not known about it.

Dogma was controversial for it’s heretical theology and jokes profaning much of what the Catholic Church considers holy. It was absurd to think that the Church would remove the crucifixes because they were too negative and replaced them with sappy images of Jesus Christ trying to portray Himself as “hip” and “cool” to appeal to the modern man. Fast-forward seventeen years and what do we see?

We see the Catholic Church trying to whimsy it’s way into relevance by asserting herself to be “hip” and “cool.” Gone are the days in which your average Catholic in the pew submitted himself to God. Today, the average Catholic forces God to submit to him. We no longer see the crucifix as being the primary image of Our Lord to remind us of our redemption, but because the crucifixion isn’t happy, we see the images of Our Lord replaced with happy hippy versions who “don’t judge” and are cool with whatever you do, man.

If anything, the Year of Mercy demonstrates how far the Catholic Church has fallen into a parody of herself. We can see the Year of Mercy, if anything, as a parallel to Dogma. We now witness the “Oprahfication” of indulgences, in which everybody gets an indulgence, every church gets a Holy Door, everyone gets mercy, whether they like it or not.

Oprah You Get an Indulgence

Don’t get me wrong, mercy is beautiful, but it is something that can only be given by God if the individual requests it. Throughout this Year of Mercy, everyone has been suffocated by the term that it no longer means what is intended. It leads numerous people to believe that they do not need to amend their lives but instead leads them to think they can continue to live the lives they lead and that mercy will forgive them regardless. This attitude does no favor to these people, but only reaffirms them in their sin.

The “Church” as we see from her visible witness is no longer acting as if she is in the business of saving souls, but rather, is attempting to be in the business of entertainment. But the Church fails because her job isn’t to entertain, but to bring souls into the graces provided by Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection.

Those who adhere to Christ and His Church’s rules know that the Church’s mission hasn’t changed one iota, but the clergy who are running the show have. And while these men pervert the image of the Church as well as her message, Christ’s sending message still rings true even to this day.

“Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” Matthew 28:19-20

Jeff March 6, 2016 5 Comments Permalink

A New Year, A Solemnity of Mary, and a Forgotten Feast

Today marks the beginning of a New Year. Many people are using this day to turn over a new leaf, by losing some of that extra weight that they have gained over the last couple of months, quitting a filthy habit, or a slew of other ways to improve their quality of life. It is admirable for people to begin anew and try to get rid of the things in their life that do not help them to grow into better people. People are always looking for a fresh start.

"Armadio degli argenti, criconcizione di Cristo" by see filename or category - John Pope-Hennessy, Beato Angelico, Scala, Firenze 1981.. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armadio_degli_argenti,_criconcizione_di_Cristo.jpg#/media/File:Armadio_degli_argenti,_criconcizione_di_Cristo.jpg

“Armadio degli argenti, criconcizione di Cristo” by see filename or category – John Pope-Hennessy, Beato Angelico, Scala, Firenze 1981.. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armadio_degli_argenti,_criconcizione_di_Cristo.jpg#/media/File:Armadio_degli_argenti,_criconcizione_di_Cristo.jpg

As Catholics, we begin this year as we have for the last 46 years, by celebrating the Solemnity Feast of Mary, the Mother of God, but it wasn’t always so. Before this current feast, we would celebrate the Feast of the Circumcision of Jesus. But, I have to wonder why we no longer celebrate Jesus’ circumcision.

I know, people don’t want to think of Jesus that way, it’s gross. But instead of putting ourselves in a position in which we are not open to Church teaching and thank God that we are no longer celebrating this older feast, I think it’s important that we look into why we celebrated it in the first place.

In Jewish law, baby boys were circumcised on the 8th day of their birth. Notice it is the 8th day of their birth, not eight days later. Jesus, being born on Christmas, would count as day one. January 1, even though it is only seven days later, qualifies as the 8th day. It is similar to how the 1st day of Christmas is Christmas itself; we are currently on the 8th day of Christmas. Mary would eventually have also presented herself to the temple regardless of the sex of her child because, in Judaism, women are considered “unclean” after they gave birth.

Mary, being a faithful and devout Jewish girl, along with her husband Joseph, would have brought Jesus to the temple to have him circumcised. In fact, we read this in the Gospel of Luke:

And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child. And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God, for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb. And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord: As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. Luke 2:16-24

I have a suspicion as to why the feast of Jesus’ Circumcision was removed from the calendar and replaced with the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. As has been evidenced in other books and blog posts, many enemies within the Church took advantage of the Second Vatican Council, as well as Pope St. John XXIII, and abused the opportunity to damage the faith. These Modernists removed and replaced many feasts from the calendar.

As Catholics, we learn a lot about our faith through the Liturgy, at least, that is how Catholics learned for many years. The removal of the Feast of the Circumcision of Jesus, I believe, was done intentionally to undermine Jesus’ obeying of the valid Jewish law that God enacted before He walked this Earth. By removing this feast, it allowed for the question as to whether or not Jesus was circumcised, regardless to what the Gospel of Luke says. The removal of this feast set the stage for all enemies of the faith to begin to question everything Jesus and the Church have done.

If Jesus wasn’t circumcised, then that means that Jesus didn’t follow the laws of Judaism. If Jesus didn’t follow the laws of Judaism, then that means that laws can be ignored. If laws can be ignored, then the laws of Jesus and the Catholic Church can be ignored.

The logic above sets the stage for those who dislike the Church to brandish those who love the laws of the Church and Jesus Christ, as “Pharisees“. After all, Jesus did not like the Pharisees and rebuked them throughout the Gospels. Though, the Pharisees were not those who obeyed the Jewish law to the tee, but rather, those who would enact new laws not rooted in Judaic law, and instead prevented the people from reaching God, all while not observing these laws themselves.

While I love and adore Mary, as I have written throughout this blog, I firmly believe that this replacement feast to honor Mary was established to snuff out the authority of Jesus Christ. After all, what better cover to hinder Jesus’ authority than by praising Mary? No one would dare question a feast of Mary, as Catholics love her so much. While we can still venerate Mary on this feast day, I suggest we also venerate Our Lord Jesus Christ, as this day marks the anniversary of the first time in which He shed His blood.

Jeff January 1, 2016 4 Comments Permalink

The Traditional Latin Mass is Superior To the Novus Ordo

There exist stark differences between the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass. Both Masses are valid in the Church. The Concise Catholic Dictionary defines valid as:

“founded on the truth or fact; in Church law, that which conforms to conditions essential to the efficacy of a sacrament; that is, the proper rite in administration, the intention and jurisdiction of the minister, and the moral fitness and intention of the recipient.”

There is much discussion about what direction the Novus Ordo Mass needs to take in order to be more reverent and fitting for proper worship. I believe the Church should restore the sacred and ban the Novus Ordo, and only offer the Latin Mass. In order to illustrate my line of thinking, I would like to present the following analogy:

The Mass is absolutely necessary for the health of the soul. Likewise, water is absolutely necessary for the health of the body. The Traditional Latin Mass, or the Mass of All Ages, has been celebrated by the Church for the last 2000 years. The Latin Mass is like pure water, which is found at its original source. There are no additives, pollutants, toxins or anything that would ruin its purity. The Novus Ordo is like water from a river filled with dirty pollutants.

waterfall

I want to make it abundantly and absolutely clear that one can drink from either the pure water (the TLM) or the polluted river (the NO) and survive. It is not wise to drink from the polluted river for too long, lest you suffer unwanted side affects. Similarly, attending Novus Ordo Masses in which there is little to no reverence and that resembles a Protestant service has unwanted side affects in one’s spiritual formation.

One can filter the water to help remove the pollutants. With regards to the Novus Ordo this filter would be reverence. However, no matter how many times the water runs through a filter, there will still be some trace amounts of pollutants in the water. It is not pure. The less reverent the Novus Ordo Mass, the more pollutants there are in the water. Similarly, no matter how much reverence is added to the Novus Ordo, there will still be remnants of Modernism and Protestantism. Modernism is defined by Pope St. Pius X as the synthesis of all heresies and was rightly condemned in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. For a great summary of Modernism, please check out The Old Evangelization’s Modernism Series.

Now, using this analogy, if one were to see a vast group of people drinking water from a polluted river, knowing full well there is a pure source of water to drink, you would have them stop drinking from the polluted river and drink from the pure spring. If there were not pure spring available, it would suffice to drink the polluted water after it has been repeatedly filtered. However, we know that there exists a pure spring that has enough water to hydrate the entire world.

River pollution

While it is admirable to want to slowly move people over from an irreverent Novus Ordo to a reverent Novus Ordo, so they can appreciate the Traditional Latin Mass, it makes little sense when the above analogy is applied. Unfiltered polluted water is bad for the body. It will allow the individual to continue to survive, but it will cause other negative effects to the body. An irreverent Novus Ordo, assuming the words of consecration are said properly, will feed the soul the necessary food required for it, but will cause ill formed consciences and catechesis. What’s best for a person who is drinking polluted water is to give him the fresh, pure water, no matter how much he fights it. Filtered water is far better for an individual than unfiltered water, but pure water is far superior and will provide lasting positive effects. Likewise, a reverent Novus Ordo Mass better for Catholics than an irreverent Novus Ordo, but a Traditional Latin Mass is most superior and provides ever-lasting effects which assist Catholics in their sanctification.

The argument that an individual who is attending an irreverent Novus Ordo, or even a reverent Novus Ordo will leave the Church if the Traditional Latin Mass is forced upon him seems silly. If he was to leave the Church because of his Mass preferences, than he wasn’t a faithful Catholic to begin with. It is not our job to keep every single Catholic within the Church, but to give those members of the Church who want to become Saints the tools to do so.

Using the water analogy, if a group of people stop drinking water and die of dehydration because they do not want to drink the purified water, than that is the problem of those who are too prideful to admit they are wrong.

Some argue that if the Church immediately moved over from the Novus Ordo, either irreverent or reverent, to the Traditional Latin Mass, it would cause many Catholics to leave the Church. While it is admirable to bring over as many Catholics as possible to the Traditional Latin Mass, it is imperative to realize we are dealing with souls. We aren’t dealing with hydration and the physical body, but rather, with spiritual food and the soul.

It may be better to drink from the polluted river than to die of dehydration, but to keep people from drinking out of the pure stream because they might die of dehydration if we move them over to pure water too soon is a cop out. If people want to stay alive, they will drink the water that is put in front of them. If Catholics truly believe in the Church and her authority, they will attend the Traditional Latin Mass. It might even be time to realize Pope Benedict XVI was correct when he said “From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge—a Church that has lost much. It will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.” If the Eucharist is the source and summit of  the Christian Life, then perhaps the Novus Ordo Mass is the perfect place to start afresh.

Jeff April 9, 2015 2 Comments Permalink

get_footer() ?>