How Can Eucharistic Miracles Take Place in the Novus Ordo?

In this world, so much attention is paid to pop culture icons dying and fads.  Why are the papers not covered with this story?  This is true NEWS.  This is a miracle!  Bread has turned into human flesh and blood and science has confirmed this.  This is true news.  We should publish news of this miracle far and wide to help win over souls and show non-Catholics (and fallen away Catholics) that the Catholic Church possesses the truth of salvation and God confirms this with miracles.

As a proponent of the Traditional Latin Mass who does not attend (or encourage others to attend) the Novus Ordo Mass, what are we to think of Eucharistic miracles taking place from consecrations in the Novus Ordo?  This week, the website for the Society of St. Pius X published a very relevant article in light of the miracle that has taken place in Poland.

From the aforementioned article:

Recent miracles, which are investigated by scientists and made public by the proper ecclesiastical authority: are they not in the plan of God? And today as in the past, a they not a reminder of His Real Presence, a powerful apologetical argument, and an invitation to increase our faith and devotion? 

On Christmas Day, 2013, a consecrated host accidentally fell to the floor during the distribution of Communion in the parish of St. Hyacinth, Legnica, Poland. The priest picked it up and placed the host in a container with water as the rubrics prescribe in such a case. Soon after, red stains appeared on the host. 

The then bishop of Legnica, Stefan Cichy, created a commission to investigate it. In February, 2014, a tiny red fragment of the host was separated and placed on a corporal. 

The Scientific Process 

Samples were taken in order to conduct thorough tests by the Department of Forensic Medicine in Szczecin. 

The final medical statement reported that “in the histopathological image, the fragments were found containing the fragmented parts of the cross striated muscle. It is most similar to the heart muscle.” DNA tests also determined the tissue to be of human origin, and found that it bore signs of distress. 

The Vatican Investigates 

In January 2016, Bishop Kiernikowski presented the matter to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. On April 10, Bishop Zbigniew Kiernikowski of Legnica made public in a Communiqué that a Eucharistic miracle had happened in 2013. In accordance with the Holy See’s recommendations, he ordered parish priest Andrzej Ziombrze “to prepare a suitable place for the Relic so that the faithful could give it the proper adoration.” 

I also ask for providing the visitors with information and conducting the regular teaching that could help the faithful to have the proper attitude to the Eucharistic cult. I also command to form a book to register all received benefits and other miraculous events.”
Bishop Kiernikowski concluded his announcement with these words: 

I hope that this will serve to deepen the cult of the Eucharist and will have deep impact on the lives of people facing the Relic. We see the mysterious sign as an extraordinary act of love and goodness of God, who comes to humans in ultimate humiliation.” 

In Sokolka, Poland in 2008, a similar miracle took place, and a separate investigation led by Prof. Maria Elizabeth Sobaniec-Łotowka  and Prof. Stanislaw Sulkowski, both from the University of Bialystok, concluded that the fragment analyzed was cardiac muscular tissue of a dying man. 

Historical Details 

Following their conquest of Russia, the Mongols (Tatar) commanded by Batu Khan invaded Poland and Hungary in 1241. As it happened so often in the history, Poland stood up courageously to defend Europe and stop the invaders. At the Battle of Liegnitz, or Legnica, on April 9, 1241, the Mongols defeated a Polish army under Henry II, prince of Lower Silesia. 

But this battle put an end to the Mongol invasion for some time. They turned away from Bohemia and Poland and headed south. The Soviets – who often used symbols - had a Red Army battalion in Legnica composed exclusively of soldiers from Central Asia.
The parish where these events happened is dedicated to St. Hyacinth, the first Polish Dominican and companion of St. Dominic. In 1240, during the Siege of Kiev by the Mongols, as the friars were fleeing, Hyacinth went to save the ciborium from the tabernacle in the monastery chapel. He heard the voice of Mary, asking him to take her with him. Hyacinth lifted the large stone statue of Mary and saved both the Blessed Sacrament and Our Lady. 

St. Hyacinth's church in Legnica was built in 1904/5 by order of Emperor Guillaume II when Silesia was under the Prussian dominion. It was then a Protestant temple built “in memory of Emperor Frederic III”. In 1945, the Red Army used it as a stable for horses. In 1972, when it was eventually converted to the Catholic Faith, it was the unique case of a Protestant church converted into a Catholic church in recent Polish history. 

Answer to a Common Objection 

Some may ask the question: how can God allow a miracle to happen in the context of the New Mass?

When we say the New rite is defective, we do not say all the Masses celebrated with this rite are invalid. We say that the rite in itself departs from the unequivocal expression of the Catholic doctrine about the priest, the Real Presence, and the propitiatory character of the sacrifice. 

During any valid Mass, the host is consecrated and therefore Our Lord is present under the species of wine and bread, no matter how the reverence of the priest and of the assistants treat Him. 

In fact, Church history shows us that Eucharistic miracles - which consist precisely in the appearance of other species - often happen because of doubt or irreverence. At Lanciano, the priest doubted the Real Presence. At Cascia, the priest was irreverent by putting the host in his breviary for a sick call. 

Whenever the mass is valid, Our Lord is present. God freely manifests His power by a miracle to rectify the attitude towards the reality of the Eucharist. May these miracles lead to the suppression of Communion in the hand and bring the definitive triumph of the traditional Mass!

Read more >>

March 25th: The Most Important Day in Human History (3 Times Over)

Note: This article is taken from Society of St. Vincent Ferrer.

(1) Creation - According to very ancient sources, March 25th is the day of creation. Contrary to the false science and errors of evolution, Scripture and Tradition teach that God created instantaneously (simply by speaking) and out of nothing. There are also traditions that relate March 25th was the day on which Adam and Eve were created and therefore also the day on which Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin.

(2) Incarnation - It was on this same calendar day that Jesus Christ assumed our human nature. March 25th is the day of the Mysteries of the Annunciation and Incarnation. On this day, God sent the archangel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary and she gave her fiat. As we well know, Christ was then born nine months later, on Dec 25th.

(3) Crucifixion - We read in the Roman Martyrology that March 25th is also the day on which St. Dismas, the good thief, died. This corroborates the ancient and venerable tradition that Our Lord was crucified on March 25th. In other words, the calendar date of the original Good Friday was March 25th. St. Irenaeus explains that it is eminently fitting that on the same day which the fallen angel seduced the virgin Eve, so on that day the archangel Gabriel spoke the words of salvation for all mankind to the Virgin Mary. He adds that on the same day that mankind was lost on account of the fruit of the forbidden tree, so on that day Christ hangs on the tree of the Cross and wins salvation for mankind. 

St. Irenaeus is the most prolific writer among the early Church Fathers. He was the spiritual son of St, Polycarp, who in turn was ordained and taught by St. John the Apostle. He emigrated from the East to Lyon (Gaul or France), advised several popes, was consecrated a bishop, fought against numerous heresies, and was ultimately martyred for the Faith. The popes of his day considered him a most reliable source for Apostolic Tradition and on that basis accepted his counsel on several important matters. Thus, in the writings of St. Irenaeus, we have a very important and trustworthy witness; and we are in direct contact with the traditions taught by the Apostles themselves. (In fact, St. Irenaeus writes that it is an apostolic tradition that Our Lord was conceived on March 25th) Those interested can read a bit more about this from Dom Guéranger's The Liturgical Year for March 25, linked here.

We have writings from a number of other Fathers and Doctors of the Church who convey this tradition, including St. Augustine, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, and St. Maximus the Confessor, 

Once again, in this 2016th year of Our Lord, Good Friday will fall on March 25th. This is rather singular since it will only happen twice in this entire century. The other occurrence was in 2005, just a few weeks before Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI. This means in all likelihood, most of us will never again by alive on a Good Friday that falls on March 25. (It will take 141 years for it to happen again. Incidentally, this 141 year gap will be the longest such gap in several centuries. For example, Good Friday fell on March 25th three times during the 20th century, but all prior to 1933.)

(4) Other Events. Traditions that come to us from antiquity also claim that many other key events in salvation history occurred on March 25th. For example: Cain slaying Abel, Melchisedech offering bread and wine in the presence of Abraham, Abraham's offering of Isaac, and the Crossing of the Red Sea. If this subject interests you, The Lepanto Institute has an article that goes into more detail and it can be read HERE.

Let us consider the providence of God behind these remarkable events and respond by cooperating as much as we possibly can with His grace.

Read more >>

Annulments: The "Get Out of Marriage Card" for Catholics

In recent days Pope Francis has made headlines by championing a new process of streamlining annulments in the Church under the intention of promoting mercy and reconciliation to the lost sheep of Christ's flock.

Unfortunately, this latest scandal to the indissolubility of marriage has undone decades of work by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II to prevent annulments being nothing other than the "Catholic Divorce."  If divorce is not possible for a Catholic and with the number of annulments measuring in the tens of thousands each year, how is it that so many invalid marriages are allowed to be contracted to begin with?

Along with the grave error of homosexual marriage which I recently wrote on, the issue of annulments are a very pressing and grave concern.  If we fail to act, we shall certainly incur the judgment of God upon this very unholy and pagan world.

To start, let's examine the basics.

Q: What is an annulment? What is a divorce?  How are they different?

A: Fr. Peter Carota from the Diocese of Phoenix summarizes:

Up till lately, the Catholic Church has always upheld the Holy Bond of Marriage between a man and a woman.  That means that the marriage bond was indissoluble which means “till death do us part”.  But since the annulment process has been so liberalized and made easy since Vatican II, the marriage bond has been terribly weakened.

Many people refer to the annulment process as the “Catholic divorce”.  Annulment means that a couple go through a long process written questions, witnesses, canon lawyers and interviews to prove that there never was a marriage bond.   I am not saying that there is not sometimes true grounds for annulments, but I think the whole thing has to be seriously looked at and be sure that we are not going against Jesus’ admonition: “What God has united, let no one separate”.

Grounds for an annulment of the wedding vows can be:

1) Not wanting children, because the purpose of marriage is to have children.

2) Hidden drug and alcohol abuse (and probably other addictions) at time of marriage .
3) Infidelity before, during and after the marriage.

4) Immaturity to be able to make a life long commitment, like marrying at 17 and the marriage only last a very short time.

5) Forced to marry by spouse, parents or circumstances like pregnancy.

6) Physical or verbal abuse before, during and after the marriage.

Then there is also what is called the “Pauline Privilege” that deals with the conversion of an unbaptized spouse to the Catholic faith and the other unbaptized spouse does not support it.

Another whole very important area is the “Lack of Form”.  This is where a baptized Catholic gets married without a Catholic marriage.  This is for sure not a Catholic marriage and can be nulled.  A Catholic only is validly married when they have filled out all the papers, have permission from the pastor, have the marriage witnessed by a priest or deacon and two witnesses.   This only applies to baptized Catholics.

All other marriages between non Christians or non Catholics are valid and can not be nullified with out an annulment process.  This means that the non catholic spouse has to be willing to go through giving information for the catholic annulment process.  Most find this very annoying.  All marriages that take place outside the Catholic Church are valid because they are not Catholics and are not required to go by Catholic canon law.

Q: How have annulments changed since before Vatican II in the 1960s?

A: This picture illustrates how serious the situation has become.

From 1952 to 1955 there were a total of 392 annulments issued for the entire world.  This is seemingly in line with what an annulment is - it is a statement that a marriage was never validly contracted.  You would logically expect that few of the people who claim to live a married life are actually not really married.

But in 1997 there were 73,000 annulments issued worldwide!  It is simply ludicrous to believe that so many invalid marriages take place.  If they do take place, shouldn't one of the greatest concerns in the Church and society be limiting the number of these invalid unions?

Sources: What We Have Lost: And the Road to Restoration

Q: How have annulments changed under Pope Francis?  How do these changes attack the indissolubility of marriage and undermine the Sacraments? 

A:  Father Glen Tattersall of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter recently published a response to the actions taken just last week by Pope Francis to change the annulment process.  His response concretely summarizes the grave concerns of modern annulments.

Dear Brothers & Sisters in Christ,

Recent days have witnessed what I regard as a grievous blow to the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, under the guise of mercy and the salvation of souls. Pope Francis has issued, motu proprio, new legal provisions for declarations of nullity of marriage. In the Latin rite, these provisions are contained in the Apostolic Letter Mitis Iudex Dominus Jesus.

I cannot deny the Pope’s power to promulgate these new provisions, but with all the respect that is due to his office, I find myself bound to question their appropriateness. It will be necessary to go into greater length in coming weeks or months, so today I will confine myself to the broad scope of the changes and my general concerns. 

Because marriage is instituted by God, and according to God’s law and man’s nature is indissoluble (an indissolubility that is absolute in the case of sacramental marriage), marriages must be regarded as valid until proved otherwise. The Church cannot annul a true marital bond, merely declare – after a careful and precise canonical process – that a given putative marriage, after all, is not real because the conditions for validity have not been met. This means that the truth about the validity of the marriage bond is the fundamental consideration proper to the juridical process of a tribunal. In discovering this truth, the Church through the tribunal provides a true pastoral service to souls.

The result of the new dispositions imposed by Pope Francis is to subvert this, and to establish as a priority instead the subjective interests of the parties. The most important novelties by which this is achieved are the general abolition of double judgment (by which cases are submitted to a second tribunal for a confirmatory judgment), the granting of wide powers to Diocesan Bishops to make their own determinations of cases, and the provision of a fast track process where both parties consent, and certain factors are present – a number of these factors, such as brevity of married life, having no actual bearing on any question of validity!

This is indeed a revolutionary decree, hurriedly draped up in a vague semblance of conservative legal form. Aside from anything else, it seems to me that declarations of nullity under these new provisions, potentially, will be so lacking in juridical integrity, and therefore in any corresponding moral certitude, that it may become impossible to distinguish a legitimate case of nullity from one without any real basis. The implications are obvious, and terrible. This, on the eve of a Synod that was supposed to dealing with such matters…. So much for collegiality!

Sincerely in Christ,
Fr Glen Tattersall, PP

Q: What is the Negative Effect of Annulments?

A: Lyle J. Arnold, Jr. in his article "Snookering the Indissolubility of Marriage" explains:

In a book dealing with the problem of divorce published one year before Vatican II, this paradox is pointed out: “Just when the post-Christian world has entered into an unparalleled period of hedonistic ideals, and of contempt for such unprofitable notions as a world to come, self-control, and penance, Catholics have emerged from their own private enclave to become more a part of the world around them than they had been for centuries." (Whom God Hath Not Joined by Claire McAuley (c) 1962 pp 5-6)

It was with this world of "hedonistic ideals" that Vatican II merged, not to remedy the problem, but to insure its success. Its objective was to promote and accelerate the engine driving this hedonism by adding the dynamism of the Church to it. One field where its effects were clearly felt is Catholic marriage. To destroy the indissolubility off marriage is to destroy the august benefits of the family. In the annulment process, practically any pretext has been accepted to end marriages and the result is that some 60,000 annulments a year have taken place.

An annulment made under the authority of Church is now a form of divorce in every way but name. The "Catholic divorce" is extremely harmful to the family and society. It hurts children as well as spouses, often induces applicants to misrepresent the past, and drives many away from the Church. It is a disaster.

In His Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:31-32), Our Lord expressly forbade divorce, but the Jews rejected this precept forthwith. Passing through the district of Peraea, we see Him assailed by His bitter enemies, the Pharisees, who nowhere leave Him in peace. Having decided to hasten His death, they were always on the watch for some “error” on His part so they could condemn Him.

They thought they had found one on the subject of marriage. With hearts of malice, the Jews posed this question to Our Lord: “The great lawgiver Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Do You deny the validity of the Law of this man of God?"

Our Lord pointed out that Moses made this temporary concession because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts. He allowed divorce in some instances in the Old Law, but this temporary permission came to an end in the New Covenant. Thus, He reestablished the indissolubility of marriage in all its chaste beauty.

Indissolubility of marriage was the rule of law in the Catholic Church from the time of Our Lord until Vatican II, when the agents of Progressivism devised a method to snooker Our Lord's command, that is, to place the indissolubility of marriage in an almost impossible situation.

Q: What can we do?

A: Pray for the family.  Pray for the intercession of the Holy Family to intervene and help us in this a time of great necessity.

Read more >>

May a Catholic Use the Waldensian Bible?

Q: May a Catholic Use the Waldensian Bible?

A: No.  The Waldensian Bible is heretical and its use is explicitly prohibited by the Catholic Church.

They...[Princes of the Church]...condemn the detestable insolence and improbity of those who, consumed with the unbridled lust for freedom, are entirely devoted to impairing and destroying all rights of dominion while bringing servitude to the people under the slogan of liberty. Here surely belong the infamous and wild plans of the Waldensians, the Beghards, the Wycliffites, and other such sons of Belial, who were the sores and disgrace of the human race; they often received a richly deserved anathema from the Holy See. For no other reason do experienced deceivers devote their efforts, except so that they, along with Luther, might joyfully deem themselves "free of all." To attain this end more easily and quickly, they undertake with audacity any infamous plan whatever.

Miriam Vos - Encyclical of His Holiness POPE GREGORY XVI AUGUST 15, 1832

Read more >>

What Does "Son of God" Mean? How is Jesus the "Son of God"?

There is a pernicious error present in our world amongst those outside of the Church, who claim that Jesus Christ is the "Son of God" and that means He is not God Himself.  This blasphemous error attacks the very core of what we profess: belief in the Holy Trinity. 

Is Jesus Christ truly and really God?  Yes, He is.  But is He also the "Son of God"?  Yes, He is.  Then what do we mean when we say He is the Son of God if He is God?  Let's explore this now so as to refute those who are in error.

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on "Son of God" serves as a good basis:

The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship...The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 89:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

The title "the Son of God" is frequently applied to Jesus Christ in the Gospels and Epistles. In the latter it is everywhere employed as a short formula for expressing His Divinity (Sanday); and this usage throws light on the meaning to be attached to it in many passages of the Gospels. The angel announced: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High... the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:32, 35). Nathaniel, at his first meeting, called Him the Son of God (John 1:49). The devils called Him by the same name, the Jews ironically, and the Apostles after He quelled the storm. In all these cases its meaning was equivalent to the Messias, at least. But much more is implied in the confession of St. Peter, the testimony of the Father, and the words of Jesus Christ.

And so we see the title "Son of God" is not meant to refer to filiation in that Jesus is the Son of a Father and not equal to the Father in the way that I might be called the son of my earthly father.  Rather, His title of "Son of God" is rather meant to express His Divinity and show His inseparable connection with His Heavenly Father, the 1st Person of the Blessed Trinity.

So the next time you hear someone erroneous claim that Jesus Christ is not God since He is the "Son of God," all you need to do is refute the errors using Scripture as your guide.  Remember, the errors of Arianism which claim that Jesus is not God are still very much around yet to this day.  For good measure, be sure you understand the basic Theology of the Holy Trinity.

Read more >>

Can Catholics Have Tattoos?

"You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh, for the dead, neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:28).

The above section of Scripture is taken from the Douay Rheims Scriptures.  Some Scripture translations explictly refer to tattoos.  Let's take the RSV-CE for instance for the same line from Leviticus: "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD."

While it is true that the above prohibition against tattoos was written in the context of the Old Testament Law (the Mosaic Law). While this Law is no longer in force by reason of Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross, we do have to keep in mind the words of the Redeemer Himself: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets.  I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). 

While the Old Testament laws on farming and which crops to keep in your field are no longer in place and while the Laws prohibiting the consumption of pork are no longer in place, all of these Old laws had their fulfillment in the Law of Christ.  Christ came to perfect the Law.  He abolished divorce that was allowed under the Law of Moses in order to perfect the Laws of Matrimony (cf. Matthew 19:8).  Christ also showed us in driving the swine off the cliff that the prohibition on pork was symbolic on the prohibition against sin.  And ultimately these Laws were all done to make the People of God, the Israelites, a holy people set apart from the other nations.  If these were God’s holy people and a special race set aside, then they had to act differently than the other pagan races that were in the ancient world.  Therein lies one of the chief reasons why there were Laws and why we have Laws – to keep us as a special people united to God and separate from those who are not of God.

As a result, while the Leviticus prohibition on tattoos is no longer explicitly prohibited by virtue of the Mosaic Law, tattoos still remain offensive and Catholics should refrain from them?  Why?  Just as the Old Law set aside the People of God for holy things, so too we must set ourselves aside and refrain from certain actions. What makes tattoos wrong? 

In the New Testament we have the revelation of the Son of God and have received the fruits of His redemptive and efficacious Sacrifice on the Cross.  The Church was founded on Pentecost at the Descent of the Holy Ghost, who Christ sent as His Advocate; and we who have been baptized and Confirmed have received within us the gifts of the Holy Ghost.  In this way, we are truly Temples of the Holy Ghost (i.e. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20).  As such, we must treat our bodies worthily.  We are not to dress immodestly or give in to sensual pleasures of the flesh, as do the pagans and those who are not of God.  And we too must refrain from tattooing our bodies by virtue of the fact that they are Temples of the Holy Ghost and created in the image of God.  

“Know you not, that your (bodily) members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own (property)?  For you are bought with a great price.  Glorify and bear God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

In an online article Fr. Stephen Somerville addressed much of the above points in his own words.  His conclusion is worth repeating here:

“Is, then, the mark of tattooing lawful for the Catholic?  Not wishing to exaggerate what may be a small matter, I judge that I speak with the mind of the Church when I say that tattooing is at least unseemly for a Catholic. It surely could weaken Faith in Christ for one to place a non-Christ permanent mark on his body.  Our body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, says St. Paul.  Let that temple be preserved from unworthy marks”

Image Source: Pinterest

Read more >>

Who Are the "Sheep Not of This Fold"?

In the Gospels, Jesus spoke of "sheep not of this fold."  In our times there has been a pernicious error arise that Jesus was speaking of the Mormons with this line.  As a result of this error, it's essential that we understand what Jesus was saying when He spoke of "sheep not of this fold."

As the Scriptures state:

I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (John 10:14-18)

Before we can understand any passage of Scripture we have to put it in context.  To start, who was Jesus speaking to?  He certainly was speaking to the Jews.  In particular, He was speaking to the Pharisees when He spoke of Himself as the Good Shepherd.  And at this time the Jews did not understand or even fathom that salvation was possible for non-Jews. These non-Jews, the Gentiles, would be saved by Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross.  And in this way, the Good Shepherd would draw all men to Himself - the Jews (those of the fold) and the Gentiles (the sheep not of this fold).  And together they would form one sheepfold with Christ as the One Shepherd.

Unfortunately, the Mormons have twisted Scripture around and sought to apply words spoken by Jesus thousands of years before their founding to them.  The Mormons emphasize that Jesus was calling them to be of a different sheepfold.  But this is also wrong.  The emphasis of Jesus in the passage is not that there are different groups of followers of His; rather, the Lord was making clear that He would bring all peoples together into one sheepfold.  It is only in that one sheepfold (the Church) that we can all come together and truly follow the Lord.

The Staff of Catholic Answers explains:

Most Catholic biblical scholars, following the teaching of the early Church Fathers, agree that the "other sheep" are the Gentiles, to whom the gospel was sent after the Jews rejected Christ (Rom 11:11-12). 

During his public ministry Jesus confined his proclamation of the gospel to the Jews (Mt 10:5-6, 15:24), and initially this remained the focus of the apostles' preaching, although Jesus had foretold that the gospel would eventually be carried to "all nations" (Mt 28:19, Acts 1:8). This opening up of God's blessing even to Gentiles was foretold in the Old Testament (Ps 2:7; Is 2:2-6). 

Paul explained this to Gentile Christians: 

"Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ." (Eph 2:11-13; cf. Rom 3:22; Gal 3:27-28)

Another member of Catholic Answers further states:

In reality, the "other sheep" Jesus mentions are the righteous Gentiles, who did not belong to the "fold" of God’s chosen people, Israel, but who would respond to the gospel when preached to them. While Christ’s earthly ministry served the Jewish people almost exclusively, his great commission to the apostles before his ascension sent them into all the world to preach, baptize and thus unite his believers in one fold (Mt 27:19). Because "he that heareth you heareth me" (Lk 10:16), to hear the gospel from the lips of his disciples is to hear Jesus himself 

The understanding of the "other sheep" as the Gentiles who would come to believe in Christ is the natural understanding of the passage. Mormons sometimes ask Christians, "If the ‘other sheep’ weren’t in the New World then who were they?" 

A Christian often will be perplexed at the fact the question was asked at all and respond, "Well, they’re the Gentile Christians, of course. How could anyone think the text suggests otherwise?" The New Testament has a running theme of how salvation comes from the Jews to the Gentiles. It appears across multiple books, in all of the gospels and most of the epistles. Jesus’ statement about gathering other sheep in the future is simply one more instance of the gospels dealing with this theme. 

The fact that Mormons often do not spot the obvious, face-value interpretation of the text reveals how little Mormons have been exposed to the historic understanding of the passage and how little they have been encouraged to think through its rationale. They have not tried to understand the New Testament as a whole, integrating and understanding its individual passages with other passages and with the general historical backdrop. Instead, they have had the interpretations of certain alleged proof texts force-fed to them in a way that keeps them from knowing of the existence of other, more plausible interpretations.

Above all, the sheep "not of this fold" are the Gentiles.  Together with the original Jews who accepted Christ, the Church was to include all men.  This false teaching of the Mormons has distorted the understanding of Christ's beautiful role as the Good Shepherd.  Like other cults (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists), the writings of the Mormons are to be burned and condemned.  And like these groups, the Mormons do not accept the Trinity and therefore are not Christians at all; rather, they are a pernicious form of paganism.

Those looking for an honest understanding of Mormonism, please see the articles of Patrick Madrid.

Read more >>

When Must a Catholic Obey the Pope?

In today's world, we are faced with a dire situation that is virtually unprecedented in the history of the Church.  We need only look to Pope Francis' comments of late on how Catholics should not "breed like rabbits," his support for adulterers, his abuse of the Holy Thursday Liturgy during the Washing of the Feet, the grave controversies arising from last year's Synod on the Family regarding contraception and divorce, and much more.

The point of this post is not to discuss any of these issues.  But, in light of the above, if a Pope were to command us to do something contrary to the Deposit of the Faith, if he were to teach an error, if he were to abuse the Sacred Liturgy, or anything of the like, must we support him or even obey him?

In light of Cardinal Burke's recent comments, it is especially important for us to consider this at a time when many bishops are teaching things contrary to the Faith and causing scandal.

Let's start with some important sources on the topic. Even though these sources may be old, they are nonetheless relevant to this discussion and hold weight because they encapsulate the authentic teaching of the Church's Magisterium.

"...that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal custom of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed" -Pope Innocent III

"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations." Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent

"We affirm without hesitation that all the striving of men will be vain if they leave out the Church." Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum #16

And let us not forget St. Robert Bellarmine:

“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.”

The Church is not without some history on this matter.  Pope Vigilius for instance was a heretic who was excommunicated by the Second Council of Constantinople.  The Faithful were not only discouraged from following him; on the contrary, to follow him would have been a grave sin.

I am not alleging the current Pope to be a heretic.  It seems all to common that when anyone so much as questions the directives of the modern popes after Vatican II, that those with the questions are accused of such.  On the contrary, I am not.  However, the issue of the possibility of a heretic as Pope is relevant.  After all, if a Pope were to be a heretic, would he have to be followed?  Could a Pope even be a heretic?  Would he lose his right to rule or would it declare null and void all of his actions as if he were never a Pope?

The Remant published an article by Robert J. Siscoe in November 2014 on this very subject.  I quote:

“Indeed the Church has the right to separate herself from an heretical pope according to divine law. Consequently it has the right, by the same divine law, to use all means of themselves necessary for such separation…”

- John of St. Thomas

“The Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office. Private judgment of the laity in this matter does not suffice.”

- Robert J. Siscoe

A recent article by Fr. James V. Schall S.J., which was re-posted as “the article of the week” on the popular Traditional Catholic website Rorate Caeli, has caused quite stir in some quarters. In the short article, which is titled On Heretical Popes, Fr. Schall briefly discusses the claims of heresy leveled against the post-Conciliar Popes, especially Pope Francis, and raises the question of whether a pope can fall into heresy, and, if so, how the Church would go about deposing him. The article was written in a very moderate tone, but the issues addressed were evidently too much for the extreme Left and their newly discovered Ultramontanism.

A writer at the ultra-liberal National Catholic Reporter reacted with outrage that Fr. Schall would dare mention such issues during the current Pontificate. He declared Fr. Schall’s article to be “irresponsible and inflammatory”, and suggested the only response to this “danger” is “to seek even harder to embrace Pope Francis and his effort to renew the Church.”

In light of recent events, even mainstream Catholics are beginning to openly ask if it is possible for a pope to be a heretic, and, if so, what means would the Church possess to remedy such a dangerous situation. For if Providence could permit a man to be raised to the Pontificate whose words and actions risked leading countless souls into sin and heresy, surely the Good God has likewise provided the Church with the means necessary to protect herself, and to remedy the dire situation. During the First Vatican Council, Bishop Zinelli, a Relator for the Deputation of the Faith (the body charged with explaining the meaning of the schemas to the Council Fathers), said the following about the hypothesis of an heretical Pope: “God does not fail in the things that are necessary; therefore, if He permits so great an evil, the means to remedy such a situation will not be lacking”. (1)

In this article, we will delve deep into the issues that were only touched upon by Fr. Schall. We will not only consider the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy, but, more importantly, the way in which an heretical Pope can be deposed. We will consider this complex and difficult question on both the speculative and practical level by consulting the theologians and canonists who have written on the subject over the centuries. We will employ the distinctions necessary to navigate through the minefield of possible errors that touch upon the issue of deposition, while carefully avoiding the heresy of Conciliarism.

I highly encourage you to read all of Mr. Siscoe's article by clicking here.

 

For those unfamiliar, the SSPX website has provided a translation for the words of Cardinal Burke that were referenced at the beginning of this article

Cardinal Burke: I cannot accept that Communion can be given to a person in an irregular union because it is adultery. On the question of people of the same sex, this has nothing to do with marriage. This is an affliction suffered by some people whereby they are attracted against nature sexually to people of the same sex.

Question: If perchance the pope will persist in this direction, what will you do?
Cardinal Burke: I shall resist, I can do nothing else. There is no doubt that it is a difficult time; this is clear, this is clear.

 

And so, we could summarize this question (When Must a Catholic Obey the Pope) by saying again the wisdom of Pope Innocent III, namely "...that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal custom of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed."  And furthermore, should a Pope teach anything contrary to the Deposit of Faith as our forefathers and their forefathers held to it, we should resist such a Pope and hold true to the same Faith that we have received (St. Paul: "Tradidi quod et accepi —I have transmitted to you what I have received").

Read more >>

Christopher Columbus: Catholic Explorer

Christopher Columbus, the great Catholic explorer, has been unjustly marred by historians and liberals. The true Christopher Columbus was a saintly man who sought to serve the Holy Catholic Faith and His Sovereign King.  Despite unprecedented challenges, Columbus ultimately ushered in the colonization and Christianization of the Western Hemisphere.  As a deeply religious man, we can learn from his Faith and devotion.  Join me in crying out: Sancto Subito! (May he be declared a saint soon!)

The following is excerpted from an excellent article on Nobility.org. Please read the whole article in honor of Columbus Day.

Before leaving [on his legendary voyage], Columbus received the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist, at the hands (it is stated) of Father Juan Perez, the officers and crews of the little squadron following his example. On 3 August, 1492, the people of Palos with heavy hearts saw them depart on an expedition regarded by many as foolhardy. 

... 

Columbus was unquestionably a man of genius. He was a bold, skilful navigator, better acquainted with the principles of cosmography and astronomy than the average skipper of his time, a man of original ideas, fertile in his plans, and persistent in carrying them into execution. The impression he made on those with whom he came in contact even in the days of his poverty, such as Fray Juan Perez, the treasurer Luis de Santangel, the Duke of Medina Sidonia, and Queen Isabella herself, shows that he had great powers of persuasion and was possessed of personal magnetism. His success in overcoming the obstacles to his expeditions and surmounting the difficulties of his voyages exhibit him as a man of unusual resources and of unflinching determination. 

Columbus was also of a deeply religious nature. Whatever influence scientific theories and the ambition for fame and wealth may have had over him, in advocating his enterprise he never failed to insist on the conversion of the pagan peoples that he would discover as one of the primary objects of his undertaking. Even when clouds had settled over his career, after his return as a prisoner from the lands he had discovered, he was ready to devote all his possessions and the remaining years of his life to set sail again for the purpose of rescuing Christ’s Sepulchre from the hands of the infidel.

The following author highlights the Franciscan nature of Columbus.  Columbus was a third order Franciscan and daily prayed the Divine Office:

As early as 1493, Columbus wrote a letter to the Royal Treasurer of Spain in which he speaks of the discovery of the New World as a great victory. Yet, it was not a victory by force of arms but a victory of bringing the truth to people who were sitting in the darkness of unbelief. He wrote, "Since our Redeemer gave this victory to our most illustrious King and Queen and to their famous realms, in so great a manner, it is fitting for all Christendom to rejoice and to make celebrations and give solemn thanks to the Holy Trinity with many solemn prayers for the great exultation which it will have and the turning of so many peoples to our holy Faith." 

All that we know about Columbus testifies to his having lived up to his Franciscan Rule. We know that he would wear the Franciscan habit, especially when he appeared before the Royalty or nobility. Except for the Franciscans with whom he stayed before leaving on his historic voyage, he would never had received the entree to Ferdinand and Isabella which opened the door to the New World. He went to confession to Franciscan priests. He would spend long periods of time in worshiping before the Blessed Sacrament in Franciscan chapels. When he left Palos, Spain on August 3, 1492 to cross the Atlantic, he left his son in the care of the Franciscans at their monastery. 

 Tomb of Christopher Columbus in Seville, Spain's Cathedral. Photo taken January 4, 2019 (c) A Catholic Life Blog.

Read more >>

Is There a Mediator with the "One Mediator Between God and Man"?

This spiritual gem is taken from "True Devotion" by St. Louis De Montfort:

83. It is more perfect, because it is more humble, not to approach God of ourselves without taking a mediator. Our nature, as I have just shown, is so corrupted that if we rely on our own works, efforts and preparations in order to reach God and please Him, it is certain that our good works will be defiled or be of little weight before God in inducing Him to unite Himself to us and to hear us. It is not without reason that God has given us mediators with His Majesty. He has seen our unworthiness and our incapacity; He has had pity on us; and in order to give us access to His mercies, He has provided us with powerful intercessors with His Grandeur, so that to neglect these mediators, and to draw near to His Holiness directly, and without any recommendation, is to fail in humility. It is to fail in respect toward God, so high and so holy. It is to make less account of that King of Kings than we should make of a king or prince of this earth, whom we would not willingly approach without some friend to speak for us.

84. Our Lord is our advocate and Mediator of redemption with God the Father. It is through Him that we ought to pray, in union with the whole Church, Triumphant and Militant. It is through Him that we have access to the Majesty of the Father, before whom we ought never to appear except sustained and clothed with the merits of His Son, just as the young Jacob came before his father Isaac in the skins of the kids to receive his blessing.

85. But have we not need of a mediator with the Mediator Himself? Is our purity great enough to unite us directly to Him, and by ourselves? Is He not God, in all things equal to His Father, and consequently the Holy of Holies, as worthy of respect as His Father? If through His infinite charity He has made Himself our bail and our Mediator with God His Father, in order to appease Him and to pay Him what we owed Him, are we, on that account, to have less respect and less fear for His Majesty and His Sanctity?

Let us say boldly with St. Bernard (2) that we have need of a mediator with the Mediator Himself, and that it is the divine Mary who is the most capable of filling that charitable office. It was through her that Jesus Christ came to us, and it is through her that we must go to Him. If we fear to go directly to Jesus Christ, our God, whether because of His infinite greatness or because of our vileness or because of our sins, let us boldly implore the aid and intercession of Mary, our Mother. She is good, she is tender, she has nothing in her austere and forbidding, nothing too sublime and too brilliant. In seeing her, we see our pure nature. She is not the sun, which by the brightness of its rays blinds us because of our weakness; but she is fair and gentle as the moon (Cant. 6:9), which receives the light of the sun, and tempers it to make it more suitable to our capacity. She is so charitable that she repels none of those who ask her intercession, no matter how great sinners they have been; for, as the saints say, never has it been heard since the world was the world that anyone has confidently and perseveringly had recourse to our Blessed Lady and yet has been repelled. (3)

She is so powerful that none of her petitions has ever been refused. She has but to show herself before her Son to pray to Him, and straightaway He grants her desires, straightaway He receives her prayers. He is always lovingly vanquished by the prayers of His dearest Mother, who bore Him and nourished Him. (4)

86. All this is taken from St. Bernard and St. Bonaventure, so that according to them, we have three steps to mount to go to God: the first, which is nearest to us and the most suited to our capacity, is Mary; the second is Jesus Christ; and the third is God the Father. To go to Jesus, we must go to Mary; she is our mediatrix of intercession. To go to God the Father, we must go to Jesus; for He is our Mediator of redemption. Now the devotion that I am about to bring forward observes this order perfectly.

Read more >>

Can Divorced and Remarried Catholics Receive Communion?

What does the Church actually teach on the topic of Holy Communion and remarried-divorcees?

Fr. Knittel gives some clear answers.  The following is directly quoted from him and presented here for the benefit of my readers.  The original source can be found by clicking here.

Communion for Remarried Divorcees? 

The doctrinal crisis the Church is currently experiencing can be observed and measured on two levels. It is manifest first in the new general directions of the Second Vatican Council (religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality) as well as in the liturgical reform of 1969. But it is also manifest on a concrete level in daily life when issues such the ordination of women, the lawfulness of contraception, the burial of suicides or the cremated, the personal character of the sacrament of Penance, etc., are called back into question.

Communion for remarried divorcees enters into the second category, as witnessed by the numerous interventions by Rome on this theme during the last 30 years.

After listing several arguments of activists in favor of Communion for the remarried and divorced, we will examine the crux of the question, before ending by responding to these arguments.

Objections

Arguments in favour of allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Communion refer 1) to the example of Christ, 2) to the teachings of St. Paul and 3) to the discipline of the Church.

1. The Evangelists tell us that during Christ’s life on earth, He accepted to eat with sinners (Matthew 9:11), allowed Himself to be approached by a sinner during a meal (Luke 7:37) and spoke with the Samaritan woman who lived with a man who was not her husband (John 4:9; 18-27). It is surely contradictory that the Church should push remarried divorcees away from Christ by refusing them Communion.
2. St. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for the divisions appearing in their brotherly agapes, “and one indeed is hungry and another is drunk” (I Cor. 11:20). Is it not contradictory to have invited people to a meal (here, the Eucharist) and not to let them take part (here, to receive Communion)?
3. The Church discipline that deprived publicly recognized sinners of ecclesiastical burial (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1240, paragraph 1, 6) was changed by decree of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith on September 20, 1973, stipulating, ”Funerals will not be forbidden for public sinners if they have given any signs of repentance before death and if there is no public scandal for the rest of the faithful.” 

Is it not then possible to change the discipline of Eucharistic communion in the same way, in favour of remarried divorcees?

The Teaching of the Church

Baptism and Penance are called sacraments of the dead, because they establish or re-establish the life of grace in the recipient. The other sacraments are called sacraments of the living, because they increase grace in someone already in a state of grace.

The end of the sacraments is to give or increase grace in the recipient. The sacrament of the Eucharist allows the communicant not only to receive grace, but also the Author of all grace. The Eucharist is therefore a sacrament of the living that requires the one who receives it to be in a state of grace that he may also receive Christ. Such is the first condition for receiving this sacrament worthily and fruitfully.

The warning of St. Paul to the Corinthians emphasizes this condition:

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (I Cor. 11:27–29).

Do remarried divorcees satisfy these conditions for worthiness?

The Gospel records Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage:

For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (…) And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.  And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:6–9; 11–12)

In his Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul compares the union of spouses in marriage with the union of Christ and His Church:

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband. (Ephesians 5:31–32)

Just there is only one Savior, Jesus Christ, and only one Church, the Catholic Church, and their union is indissoluble, so it is with marriage which is one (union of one man and one woman) and indissoluble (union forever).

Remarried divorcees are therefore living in a state opposite to that willed by Christ and explained by St. Paul. This permanent and public state of grave sin makes them unworthy to receive Communion and incapable of receiving its fruits ([Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas], III, q. 80, a. 4). If this state is known, the priest is bound to refuse them Communion publicly (III, q. 80, a. 6). If they succeed in receiving Communion nonetheless, they commit a mortal sin of sacrilege (III, q. 80, a. 4).

Solutions

In conclusion, let us respond briefly to the arguments set forth at the beginning.

1. The contact with sinners that Christ authorizes in the Gospels have a very clear purpose: the cure of sinners and a call to conversion (Matthew 9:12–13), the forgiveness of sins (Luke 7:47–48), and the establishment of worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:23). Certainly, Jesus did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but He instructed her to sin no more (John 8:11), for “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers… shall possess the kingdom of God.” (I Cor. 6:9)
2. Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist and taught the precept of fraternal charity during a meal. The Early Church had maintained the habit of uniting the celebration of the holy mysteries and the fraternal agape. In his reproaches to the Corinthians, St. Paul distinguishes between two kinds of abuse: lack of charity to one’s neighbor during the agapes (I Cor. 11:18–22) and receiving Communion unworthily during Mass (I Cor. 11:27–29).
3. By denying ecclesiastical burial to remarried divorcees, the Church intended to emphasize their public state of mortal sin—a state that is in no way modified, improved, or corrected by the prayer of the Church—and contrast it with the sanctity of Christian marriage. The recent change of this disciplinary measure in no way changes the minimum requirements for a fruitful Communion, but it illustrates the relationship between relaxing discipline and questioning doctrine.

Read more >>

What are Relics and Why do Catholics Honor them?

The veneration of relics is a practice that precedes Christianity and has its origin in Judaism. In the 2nd Book of Kings (cf. 13:21) we read the account of a corpse being thrown "into the grave of Elisha". Upon contact with the prophet Elisha's remains, the corpse resuscitated to life. Holy objects (such as Aaron's staff, the Ten Commandments, and manna from the desert) were both revered, and preserved in the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:10).

The Church has adopted the veneration of sacred objects from Judaism. Many miracles have been worked in the Church's history through these sacred objects. Tradition tells us that Saint Helena, Constantine's mother, discerned which of the three crosses found on the hill of Calvary was the True Cross, upon which our Savior died for us, by placing a sick child on them and then he was restored to health when he made contact with the True one.

Listed in the pre-1962 Missal is an often unknown feast - that of The Sacred Relics for November 5th of each year. This Mass was a "Mass in Some Places" and was not universally celebrated.  The great liturgical Dom Prosper Guéranger recounts the spirituality for this feast.  The following is excerpted from Dom Prosper Guéranger's entry in The Liturgical Year in Volume XV of the 1983 Marian House edition of the English translation by the Benedictines of Stanbrook.

"Had we angels' eyes, we should see the earth as a vast field sown with seed for the resurrection. The death of Abel opened the first furrow, and, ever since, the sowing has gone on unceasingly the wide world over. This land of labour and of suffering, what treasures it already holds laid up in its bosom! And what a harvest for heaven, when the Sun of justice, suddenly darting forth His rays, shall cause to spring up as suddenly from the soil the elect ears ripe for glory! No wonder that the Church herself blesses and superintends the laying of the precious grain in the earth." 

"But the Church is not content to be always sowing. Sometimes, as though impatient of delay, she raises from the ground the chosen seed she had sown therein. Her infallible discernment preserves her from error; and, disengaging from the soil the immortal germ, she forestalls the glory of the future. She encloses the treasure in gold or precious stuffs, carries it in triumph, invites the multitudes to come and reverence it; or she raises new temples to the name of the blessed ones, and assigns him the highest honour of reposing under the altar, whereon she offers to God the tremendous Sacrifice." 

Yet this is not the only case of relics being celebrated by the Church.  Each year the Church traditionally celebrated on August 5th the Feast of the Finding of the Relics of St. Stephen the First Martyr.

The second festival in honor of the holy protomartyr St. Stephen was instituted by the Church on the occasion of the discovery of his precious remains. His body lay long concealed, under the ruins of an old tomb, in a place twenty miles from Jerusalem, called Caphargamala, where stood a church which was served by a venerable priest named Lucian. In the year 415, on Friday, the 3d of December, about nine o'clock at night, Lucian was sleeping in his bed in the baptistery, where he commonly lay in order to guard the sacred vessels of the church. Being half awake, he saw a tall, comely old man of a venerable aspect, who approached him, and, calling him thrice by his name, bid him go to Jerusalem and tell Bishop John to come and open the tombs in which his remains and those of certain other servants of Christ lay, that through their means God might open to many the gates of His clemency. 

This vision was repeated twice. After the second time, Lucian went to Jerusalem and laid the whole affair before Bishop John, who bade him go and search for the relics, which, the Bishop concluded, would be found under a heap of small stones which lay in a field near his church. In digging up the earth here, three coffins or chests were found. Lucian sent immediately to acquaint Bishop John with this. He was then at the Council of Diospolis, and, taking along with him Eutonius, Bishop of Sebaste, and Eleutherius, Bishop of Jericho, came to the place. Upon the opening of St. Stephen's coffin the earth shook, and there came out of the coffin such an agreeable odor that no one remembered to have ever smelled anything like it. 

Sometimes relics are transferred from one location to another with great solemnity when a saint is canonized.  In the United States, this recently occurred with the transfer of the relics of Mother Guerin.

Relics are important and the source of Pilgrimage.

The Holy Relics of Aachen Germany are exposed only for 10 days once every 7 years. Few places rank beside Aachen in the history of Christian Europe. Aachen’s Cathedral was built in 790-800 AD as the palace chapel of Charlemagne, King of the Francs and Holy Roman Emperor (born 742; died 814). Charlemagne was given his final resting place in this cathedral, which was the most distinguished sanctuary in his realm. For nearly 600 years, from 936 to 1531, kings were enthroned on Charlemagne’s throne, after having been anointed and crowned at the main altar.

During the Middle Ages, Aachen became one of Christendom’s most important places of pilgrimage, on a par with Jerusalem, Rome, and Santiago de Compostela. The Aachen pilgrimage, which has been taking place every seven years ever since 1349, is devoted to worshiping the four Holy Relics collected by Blessed Charlemagne:

• the cloak of Our Lady
• the swaddling clothes of the Infant Jesus
• the loin clothes worn by Our Lord during His Crucifixion
• and the cloth where the head of St. John the Baptist was placed after his beheading

As relics are important. The Church has systematized these sacred objects into classes. A First Class relic is any corporeal remains. A Second Class relic is any object that belonged to the Saint. And a third class relic is an object (e.g. Rosary, piece of cloth, holy card, etc.) that has touched a first or a second class relic.

An example of first and second class relics may be found at the Shrine of St. John Neumann in Philadelphia.  At this shrine is preserved the incorruptible body of St. John Neumann under the altar in a glass case.  It is truly a miracle that some saints' bodies do not decay even after hundreds of years and without embalming as a testament to God and to the authenticity of the Catholic Church. The saint's body is the first-class relic while the museum of artifacts of items used and owned by St. John are 2nd class relics. You may see a complete listing of photos by clicking here.

Read more >>

Is Medjugorje Catholic? Is Medjugorje Real?

Some of the Alleged “Messages” from Medjugorje:

“All religions are equal before God," says the Virgin. (Chronological Corpus of Medjugorje, p. 317)

"I do not dispose of all graces...Jesus prefers that you address your petitions directly to him, rather than through an intermediary." (Chronological Corpus of Medjugorje, p.181, 277-278)

"God directs all denominations as a king directs his subjects, through the medium of his ministers" ("The Apparitions at Medjugorje," by Fr. Svat Kraljevic, 1984, p.58)

"It is you who are divided on this earth. The Muslims and the Orthodox, like the Catholics, are equal before my Son and before me, for you are all my children." (Fr. Ljubic, p.71)

“The Madonna said that religious are separated in the earth, but the people of all religions are accepted by her Son.” Ivanka Ivankovic (The Apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje, Francisco Herald Press, 1984)

Question: “Is the Blessed Mother calling all people to be Catholic?” Answer: “No. The Blessed Mother says all religions are dear to her and her Son.” Vicka Ivankovic. (The Visions of the Blessed Mother at Medjugorje, St. Martin's Press, August 1992)

The Unending, unalterable teaching of the Holy Church of Jesus Christ:

Pope Innocent III: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

Pope Boniface VIII: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Pope Eugene IV: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Cantate Domino, 1441.)

All peoples are called to the Catholic Faith, outside of which no one can be saved.  This is a revealed fact from God.

Read more >>

Multiple Canons: A Serious Consequence of Vatican II

 

The Roman Canon had been untouched since the 7th Century

For those unfamiliar with the Traditionalist movement (and even those who think they know Traditional Catholics), the common accusation applied to the Traditionalist is being a man too attached to earthly traditions.  The Traditionalist is a modern day Pharisee.  He cares for beautiful vestments, golden chalices, and ritual but he cares little (or at least less) for his neighbor and for the poor.  He is viewed as an enemy of the authentic teachings of Christ and is personified in the story of the rich man (cf. Matthew 19:16-26 ) and in the parable of the two men who enter the temple to pray (cf.  Luke 18:9-14).

Yet, this straw man depiction of the Traditionalist is entirely off point.  The Traditionalist’s end goal is not found in ornate vestments or mysterious rituals.  The Traditionalist is concerned with giving to God the utmost glory and the first of all things (cf  Matthew 6:33).  And as such, our Lord is deserving of the most ornate of vestments and the most opulent of chalices.  It is not the Traditionalist – no! – it is the Lord to whom the honor is given.

Even those familiar with the Traditional Movement, but those who are not traditionalists, will at least know of the Traditionalist’s arguments against the changes in the Liturgy.  They will have heard the Traditionalist lament the omission of kneeling in the Nicene Creed; the change of “pro multis” to “for all”; and the changes in the Rites of Confirmation, Ordination, and the Eucharist.

Yet few people realize – and few Traditionalists lament as loudly as they do the aforementioned issues – the grave consequences of introducing multiple canons into the Holy Liturgy.  

Since all time the Roman Canon had be recited by the priest silently.  The priest – in imitation of Moses – ascends to a place where the Faithful cannot venture. It is in this holy place – at the altar of God – where the priest confects the Holy Eucharist and offers to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of His Divine and Only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the 2^nd Person of the Blessed Trinity.  This is a task of the priest alone to accomplish – the people present can offer nothing other than marvel at the mystery.

Silence is not a foreign concept to Catholics.  Catholics should be familiar with the story of ­­Elijah who heard God in the small whisper:

And he said to him: Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord: and behold the Lord passeth, and a great and strong wind before the Lord over throwing the mountains, and breaking the rocks in pieces: the Lord is not in the wind, and after the wind an earthquake: the Lord is not in the earthquake.  And after the earthquake a fire: the Lord is not in the fire, and after the fire a whistling of a gentle air.And when Elias heard it, he covered his face with his mantle, and coming forth stood in the entering in of the cave, and behold a voice unto him, saying: What dost thou here, Elias? And he answered.  (1 Kings 19:11-13)

Yet the Novus Ordo brought about four Eucharistic Prayers recited in the vernacular and recited loudly.  Gone was the sense of mystery.  Gone was the priest entering the holy place to pray for the people.  The Novus Ordo Liturgy has succumbed to the vision of Martin Luther - the priest is no longer seen as an alter Christus.   

The Canon is an ancient prayer.  It is for Catholics the prayer of utmost importance in the Liturgy since it is by the prayers of the Canon that the greatest miracle in the world takes place on the altar. 

Since the seventh century [the Traditional] Canon has remained unchanged. It is to St. Gregory I (590-604) the great organiser of all the Roman Liturgy, that tradition ascribes its final revision and arrangement.  (Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

In the Ambrosian Rite, during the Canon the priest will stretch out his arms in the shape of a Cross

Yet, despite the sacredness of the Canon, the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council saw the elimination of one unified Canon and the creation of multiple canons.  In fact, even in our world today, priests freely use their own ad lib words during the Canon and potentially (if not always) invalidate the Sacrifice of the Mass upon the altar.  This is for the Traditionalist a grave and utmost serious situation.

In the 1970 and 1975 Latin editions of the Roman Missal, there are four Eucharistic Prayers (these may be augmented in the third editio typica which is due out this fall). In more recent American editions of the Roman Missal, in addition to the four already mentioned, there are five others included in the appendix: two for Reconciliation and three for Masses with children. Thus for the last twenty-five years, the Roman rite has had the experience of many Eucharistic Prayers. 

This was not always so, however. For some 1600 years previously, the Roman rite knew only one Eucharistic Prayer: the Roman canon. 

In the average parish today, Eucharistic Prayer II is the one most frequently used, even on Sunday. Eucharistic Prayer III is also used quite often, especially on Sundays and feast days. The fourth Eucharistic prayer is hardly ever used; in part because it is long, in part because in some places in the U.S. it has been unofficially banned because of its frequent use of the word "man". The first Eucharistic Prayer, the Roman canon, which had been used exclusively in the Roman rite for well over a millennium and a half, nowadays is used almost never. As an Italian liturgical scholar puts it: "its use today is so minimal as to be statistically irrelevant".

This is a radical change in the Roman liturgy. Why aren't more people aware of the enormity of this change? Perhaps since the canon used to be said silently, its contents and merits were known to priests, to be sure, but not to most of the laity. Hence when the Eucharistic Prayer began to be said aloud in the vernacular, with four to choose from -- and the Roman canon chosen rarely, if ever -- the average layman did not realize that 1600 years of tradition had suddenly vanished like a lost civilization, leaving few traces behind, and those of interest only to archaeologists and tourists. 

(Source: From One Eucharistic Prayer to Many: How it Happened and Why by Father Cassian Folsom, O.S.B) 

What serious theological implications does this have for a Catholic?

In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the repeated petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have also been suppressed; thus, there is no longer any clear distinction between Divine and human sacrifice.

…

In Eucharistic Prayer IV the Church--as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic--is abased by eliminating the Roman Canon's petition for all orthodox believers who keep the Catholic and Apostolic faith. These are now merely all who seek you with a sincere heart. The Memento of the Dead in the Canon, moreover, is offered not as before for those who are gone before us with the sign of faith, but merely for those who have died in the peace of Christ. To this group--with further detriment to the notion of the Church's unity and visibility--Eucharistic Prayer IV adds the great crowd of "all the dead whose faith is known to You alone." None of the three new Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, alludes to a suffering state for those who have died; none allows the priest to make special Mementos for the dead. All this necessarily undermines faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the sacrifice.

…

In the Preface for Eucharistic Prayer II--and this is unprecedented--the various angelic hierarchies have disappeared. Also suppressed, in the third prayer of the old Canon, is the memory of the holy Pontiffs and Martyrs on whom the Church in Rome was founded; without a doubt, these were the saints who handed down the apostolic tradition finally completed under Pope St. Gregory as the Roman Mass.

…

Chapter VII The Alienation of the Orthodox  

The Apostolic Constitution explicitly mentions the riches of piety and doctrine the Novus Ordo supposedly borrows from the Eastern Churches. But the result is so removed from, and indeed opposed to the spirit of the Eastern liturgies that it can only leave the faithful in those rites revolted and horrified. What do these ecumenical borrowings amount to? Basically, to introducing multiple texts for the Eucharistic Prayer (the anaphora)--none of which approaches their Eastern counterparts' complexity or beauty--and to permitting Communion Under Both Species and the use of deacons. Against this, the New Order of Mass appears to have been deliberately shorn of every element where the Roman liturgy came closest to the Eastern Rites. [53] At the same time, by abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own. In place of this are elements which bring the new rite closer to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to Catholicism. At the same time, these new elements degrade the Roman liturgy and further alienate it from the East, as did the reforms which preceded the Novus Ordo. In compensation, the new liturgy will delight all those groups hovering on the verge of apostasy who, during a spiritual crisis without precedent, now wreak havoc in the Church by poisoning Her organism and by undermining Her unity in doctrine, worship, morals and discipline.

Taken from The Ottaviani Intervention by Cardinal Ottaviani

And so the Traditional must fight on – not concerned at the slanders used against him.  Men may accuse him of “intolerance,” “lack of charity,” or “exaggerated concern with the externals,” but the Traditionalist will fight on so that in all the Masses of the world the Holy Eucharist may be lawfully confected and offered to the Eternal Father in the most fitting, righteous, and worthy manner possible.

In the bull Quo Primum Pope St. Pius V declared: "By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it." And he concluded: "No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Read more >>