Rejecting the Filioque Is A Heresy

It is evident with the crisis in the Catholic Church concerning not only the sexual abuse crisis but also the crisis in the Liturgy after Vatican II that some Catholics have become disillusioned with the current Catholic hierarchy. From an outside perspective, some might ask why they should remain Catholic and not convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, which is known for reverent, ancient liturgies under the name of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (or St. Basil the Great at some times). But on a deeper analysis, there is no refuge in Orthodoxy. While we often think of the Orthodox as schismatics and not as heretics, the doctrinal crisis has also affected them. In fact, the Orthodox are also heretics from the true Christian Faith in more than half a dozen ways as enumerated in the article "Should A Catholic Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?"

"I am the Father are One" (John 10:30)

The Baltimore Catechism succinctly states, “In God there are three Divine persons, really distinct, and equal in all things – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” The Roman Catechism, the most authoritative catechism ever written, expresses the reality that Almighty God – the one and only God – is in fact a Trinity of Persons. The Catechism explains the role of the three Divine Persons in the Incarnation:

"It is a principle of Christian faith that whatever God does outside Himself in creation is common to the Three Persons, and that one neither does more than, nor acts without another. But that one emanates from another, this only cannot be common to all; for the Son is begotten of the Father only, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. Anything, however, which proceeds from them extrinsically is the work of the Three Persons without difference of any sort, and of this latter description is the Incarnation of the Son of God.

"Of those things, nevertheless, that are common to all, the Sacred Scriptures often attribute some to one Person, some to another. Thus, to the Father they attribute power over all things; to the Son, wisdom; to the Holy Ghost, love. Hence, as the mystery of the Incarnation manifests the singular and boundless love of God towards us, it is therefore in some sort peculiarly attributed to the Holy Ghost."

We do not believe in three gods but in one God. The Athanasian Creed, one of the earliest professions of faith, confessed since at least the fifth century, declares:

“Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. But there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. There are not three lords, but one Lord. For according to Christian truth, we must profess that each of the Persons individually is God; and according to Christian religion, we are forbidden to say that there are three gods or three lords.”

How is it, then, that there is a God the Father, a God the Son, and a God the Holy Ghost, but only one God? There is one divine substance, and three divine Persons. You and I are each only one substance and one person, but God is one substance and three Persons. Each of the Persons is fully divine and wholly possesses the divine substance. As Jesus Himself said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

The Trinity is One. We do not confess three gods, but one God in three Persons, the “consubstantial Trinity.” The divine Persons do not share the one divinity among Themselves but each of Them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Ghost is, i.e., by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

What is the Filioque Controversy?

The Great Schism, also known as the East-West Schism, refers to the split between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, which culminated in 1054 AD. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, and the legates of Pope Leo IX excommunicated each other. This formal declaration of excommunication marked the official schism between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. Papal authority, the Filioque controversy, and even the practice of Saturday fasting, among other differences, brought about this schism.

The Filioque controversy is the theological dispute that centers around the phrase "and the Son" (Latin: for Filioque) in the Nicene Creed, which originally stated that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. The controversy arose between the Western and Eastern Christian churches.

In the early centuries of Christianity, the Nicene Creed was widely accepted in both the Eastern (Greek-speaking) and Western (Latin-speaking) parts of the Christian world. The original version of the Nicene Creed, as established at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, declared that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. However, the Western Church later added the phrase "and the Son" (Filioque) to affirm the double procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.

The Roman Catholic Church had first introduced the phrase “and the Son” (Filioque in Latin) at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. The Lyons Council II stated the doctrine firmly:

We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.

The Filioque Defended at the Ecumenical Councils

The Second Council of Lyons began on May 7, 1274, in the Cathedral of St. John. The Pope gave a sermon outlining his threefold plan for the Council — to unite the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches, to send a Crusade to the Holy Land and to reform the morals of the clergy. On June 29th, the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the entire Council and the Greek ambassadors took part in a High Mass sung by the Pope. The Credo (Nicene Creed) was sung in Latin and then again in Greek with the phrase “Qui a Patre Filioque procedit” (who proceeds from the Father and the Son) sung three times. The Greek acceptance of this doctrine was an important step towards the reunion of the two Churches. 

Yet, debate continued for centuries as this was again a point of disagreement at the Council of Florence in 1438. The Emperor and Patriarch agreed that the debates should begin, and on October 8, 1438, the delegates discussed the addition of “From the Son” (Filioque) to the Nicene Creed by the Roman Catholic Church. This was discussed in fourteen public sessions until December 13, 1438. Mark Eugenicus, the Metropolitan of Ephesus, claimed that the addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed had been against the Council of Ephesus in 431. While Mark Eugenicus was the main speaker for the Greeks, the Western Church answered through several speakers. The sessions were lively but the Latin speakers were unable to change Mark’s position.

March 1439 saw eight sessions between the 2nd and 24th where the procession of the Holy Ghost was debated. The Western Church argued that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son while the Greek Church through Mark Eugenicus insisted that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only. Giovanni da Montenero, a Dominican provincial of Lombardy proved the Latin Church’s assertion through the use of Scripture, the writings of the Western and Eastern Fathers and the Councils. Da Montenero’s presentation convinced some of his hearers but not all. The Greeks were not used to metaphysical arguments or syllogisms in their theological discussions but they were very impressed by da Montenero’s quotes from the Eastern and Western Fathers.

Through this, a glimmer of light appeared. The Eastern Saints had stated that the Holy Ghost was produced “from both” and “through the Son” while the Western Saints wrote that the Holy Spirit came “from the Father and the Son.” Now it is axiomatic that Saints, whether East or West, cannot err in matters of faith for they are inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Therefore the words of both the Eastern and Western Saints must be true even though they expressed themselves differently. Bessarion, the Metropolitan of Nicaea and Greek delegate, phrased it this way: "The western and eastern Saints do not disagree, for the same Spirit spoke in all the Saints. Compare their works and they will be found harmonious."

The majority of the Greek delegates voted in favor of the Filioque doctrine. There were further debates about other points of contention. It was decided that both unleaven and leaven bread would be allowed for the Eucharist. Purgatory was defined and the primacy of the Pope was affirmed. None of these questions were answered without lengthy debate and it was not until July 5, 1439, that first the Greeks and then the Latin delegates signed the decree of union. (Parts of the decree are included in the Documents section beginning “Let the heavens rejoice…”) Mark Eugenicus refused to sign the decree even after discussions with the Pope. On Monday, July 6, there was a procession to the Cathedral in Florence followed by a Pontifical Mass. Cesarini read out the decree in Latin, asking the Pope and Latin prelates if they agreed. They all proclaimed Placet (it is agreed upon). Bessarion read out the decree in Greek then requested the Emperor and the Greek prelates to acknowledge the truth of the decree. They also stated their agreement. A Te Deum was sung and the delegates left the Cathedral praising God with psalms. The Council continued and reunited the Roman Church with other Eastern Churches — the Armenians (1439), the Copts (1442), the Syrians (1444), the Chaldeans (Nestorians) and the Maronites of Cyprus (1445). In 1443, the Council left Florence to continue at the Lateran Palace in Rome.

The Greeks left for home on October 19, 1439, and arrived in Constantinople in February 1440. Sad news awaited the Emperor — his wife had died. This may explain why he failed to act promptly when some of the Eastern prelates who had remained behind in Constantinople refused to have anything to do with those who had agreed to a union with the Roman Church in Florence. There were soon more overt acts against the union of the Churches. Anthony, Metropolitan of Heraclea, made a public repudiation of his signature to the document in Florence. Mark Eugenicus wrote and spoke against the union. Early in 1441, a group of prelates who had signed the decree in Florence disavowed the union.

The new Patriarch of Constantinople, Metrophanes, (Patriarch Joseph had died at the end of the Council of Florence) declared in favor of the union and wrote an encyclical proclaiming it. However, his voice was not enough to overpower the flair and common touch of Mark Eugenicus’ writings. In 1444 the Papal fleet and army joined with Venice and Hungary to fight the Ottoman Turks. The Turkish army of about 60,000 men attacked the Christian armies of about 20,000 to 30,000 men at Varna on November 10, 1444. A brave effort to capture Murad II, the leader of the Ottomans, by the young King of Hungary and his 500 horsemen failed and the Christians were defeated. Many Christians were killed and the way to Constantinople was open to the Turks who did indeed capture the city in 1453. In the years 1450 to 1451, the Eastern Orthodox Church convened a Council in Constantinople and rejected the decree from the Council of Florence. The pro-union Patriarch was dismissed and the Orthodox Athanasius was appointed to take his place.

So what was the point of those years of arguments, of careful research, of endless discussions? Even though the union did not last, several points of doctrine were discussed and defined. Giovanni da Montenero’s masterful examination of the procession of the Holy Spirit through Scripture, the writings of the ancient Fathers and the Councils is just one example of the intricate and intense work that went into these definitions. For those years in Ferrara, Florence, and Rome, hundreds of men gathered to understand difficult theological concepts with the sincere wish to reunite. Perhaps in some hearts, this wish was joined with the hope for help in defeating the Turks or other less than purely selfless motives. Still, they continued — the illness of the elderly Patriarch and the Emperor, the monetary difficulties of the Pope, the homesickness and worry over their homeland, the frustrations between two different cultures — and all of these pressures delivered arguments that give us a deeper understanding of our faith. For more on the Councils, see the book "Nicea to Now."

The Church Fathers Defended the Filioque

Church Fathers in the West, such as St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430), supported the Filioque clause. St. Augustine emphasized the unity of the Trinity and argued that the Holy Ghost's procession from both the Father and the Son was consistent with the shared divine essence of the Trinity.

The Orthodox churches - and there are several that are not in communion even with one another - deny that the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, proceeds from the Father and the Son. Those interested in the Church's treatment of this should look into Father Henry Chadwick's "The Early Church" or "Fr. John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology," which address this well. The Church Fathers all believed in the Filioque as well as shown in a powerful video debunking the errors of the Orthodox churches. All those who want to learn the truth should be compelled to watch that video.

Read more >>

Saturday Fasting & the Binding Force of Custom

Saturday Fasting in the East

By the end of the 600s AD, a controversy arose at the Council of Trullo regarding whether it was appropriate to fast on Saturdays – a practice that was observed in Rome but not elsewhere. Canon 55 of the Council states: 

“Since we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical observance which is traditional, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the Church of the Romans the canon shall immovably stand fast which says: ‘If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on one occasion only) he is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be cut off.’”

Importantly, the Council of Trullo was never accepted in the West as a valid Ecumenical Council as Rome was not represented at the Council and two canons of the council (e.g., Canons 13 and 55) condemned certain Roman practices. But by 711 AD, Pope Constantine, in a compromise, accepted the canons in the East as valid but allowed differing practices in the Western Church to continue. A subsequent letter by Pope Hardrian I in 785 quoted Tarasios of Constantinople as approving the canons, and the letter was thereby taken as Pope Hadrian’s own approval. The letter was read at the Second Council of Nicaea and in the aftermath, by the 12th century, some of the canons of the Council were incorporated in Gratian’s Decretum Gratiani, known more commonly as the Decretum, which was the main source of law of the Roman Catholic Church until the Decretals, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX in 1234, obtained legal force. 

Regarding Saturday fasting in particular, St. Augustine had previously written:

“God did not lay down a rule concerning fasting or eating on the seventh-day of the week, either at the time of His hallowing that day because in it He rested from His works, or afterwards when He gave precepts to the Hebrew nation concerning the observance of that day.” 

Hence there were differences from East to West when Saturday fasting was observed, but St. Augustine affirms that these differences were not matters of doctrine. There was no prohibition against Saturday fasting in divine law and no universal obligation in the Church to fast year-round on Saturdays either.

St. Augustine further writes on this disagreement while noting the binding force of custom: 

“As to the question on which you wish my opinion, whether it is lawful to fast on the seventh day of the week, I answer, that if it were wholly unlawful, neither Moses nor Elijah, nor our Lord himself, would have fasted for forty successive days. But by the same argument it is proved that even on the Lord’s day fasting is not unlawful. And yet, if any one were to think that the Lord’s day should be appointed a day of fasting, in the same way as the seventh day is observed by some, such a man would be regarded, and not unjustly, as bringing a great cause of offence into the Church. For in those things concerning which the divine Scriptures have laid down no definitive rule, the custom of the people of God, or the practices instituted by their fathers, are to be held as the law of the Church. If we choose to fall into a debate about these things, and to denounce one party merely because their custom differs from that of others, the consequence must be an endless contention, in which the utmost care is necessary lest the storm of conflict overcast with clouds the calmness of brotherly love, while the strength is spent in mere controversy which cannot adduce on either side any decisive testimonies of truth” 

In the East, the issue long preceded the Council of Trullo and was based on the sabbath having been a day for rest and prayer similar, though distinct, from Sunday. This tradition is seen in the Apostolic Constitutions:

“But assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord’s house: in the morning saying the sixty second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And of the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise, what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning resurrection?” 

Yet the same Council of Trullo in Canon 56 shows the universality of the form of abstinence in both East and West at that time:

“We have likewise learned that in the regions of Armenia and in other places certain people eat eggs and cheese on the Sabbaths and Lord’s days of the holy Lent. It seems good therefore that the whole Church of God which is in all the world should follow one rule and keep the fast perfectly, and as they abstain from everything which is killed, so also should they from eggs and cheese, which are the fruit and produce of those animals from which we abstain. But if any shall not observe this law, if they be clerics, let them be deposed; but if laymen, let them be cut off.”

The controversy would continue when in 867, the patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, wrote an encyclical to the other patriarchs of the Eastern churches, accusing the Roman Catholic Church of several errors alleging, among them Saturday fasting and “giving permission to the people to eat flesh food and animal products (cheese, milk, eggs) during the first week of Easter.” 

Photius audaciously issued an attempted ex-communication of the Pope, for which he was condemned and disposed of as Francis Dvornik notes:

“By daring to pass judgment on a Pope, Photius committed a deed till then unheard of in history, one that endangered the unity of Christendom, for which there could be neither excuse nor justification. Rightly or wrongly, his action set a precedent invoked or imitated by all those who later were to break the unity of the Church.” 

The Binding Force of Custom

The tension regarding fasting and abstinence would continue to intensify and would, unfortunately, be one of several factors that would lead to the Great Schism of 1054 between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. However, the tensions of this time highlight the misunderstanding of the binding force of custom.

St. Augustine further addressed this point directly when he wrote: “The customs of God’s people and the institutions of our ancestors are to be considered as laws. And those who throw contempt on the customs of the Church ought to be punished as those who disobey the law of God.”  St. Thomas likewise asserts: “Custom has the force of law, abrogates law, and interprets law.” 

The force of custom concerning fasting is also seen in the churches in Gaul in modern-day France, who adopted the Roman practice of fasting on Saturday. Dom Guéranger mentions this while also noting how changes were likewise occurring in terms of where and how the fast of Septuagesima, the period before Lent, began:

“The first Council of Orleans, held in the early part of the 6th century, enjoins the Faithful [of Gaul] to observe, before Easter, Quadragesima, (as the Latins call Lent,) and not Quinquagesima, in order, says the Council, that unity of custom may be maintained. Towards the close of the same century, the fourth Council held in the same City, repeals the same prohibition, and explains the intentions of making such an enactment, by ordering that the Saturdays during Lent should be observed as days of fasting. Previously to this, that is, in the years 511 and 541, the first and second Councils of Orange had combated the same abuse, by also forbidding the imposing on the Faithful the obligation of commencing the Fast at Quinquagesima. The introduction of the Roman Liturgy into France; which was brought about by the zeal of Pepin and Charlemagne, finally established, in that country, the custom of keeping the Saturday as a day of penance; and, as we have just seen, the beginning Lent on Quinquagesima was not observed excepting by the Clergy. In the 13th century, the only Church in the Patriarchate of the West, which began Lent earlier than the Church of Rome, was that of Poland its Lent opened on the Monday of Septuagesima, which was owing to the rites of the Greek Church being much used in Poland. The custom was abolished, even in that country, by Pope Innocent the fourth, in the year 1248.” 

These are important principles to keep in mind the next time someone who is Orthodox falsely condemns the Roman Catholic Church for advocating and even obligating Saturday fasting.

Want to learn more about the history of fasting and abstinence? Check out the Definitive Guide to Catholic Fasting and Abstinence.

Read more >>

Should A Catholic Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?

The Divine Liturgy celebrated at St. Mary's Byzantine Catholic Church in Whitting, IN shows that it is possible to have the beauty of Eastern Liturgies in Communion with Rome.

Is Orthodoxy the True Faith?

It is evident with the crisis in the Catholic Church concerning not only the sexual abuse crisis but the crisis in the Liturgy after Vatican II that some Catholics have become disillusioned with the current Catholic hierarchy. From an outside perspective, some might ask why they should remain Catholic and not convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, which is known for reverent, ancient liturgies under the name of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (or St. Basil the Great at some times).

But on a more deep analysis, there is no refuge in Orthodoxy. While we often think of the Orthodox as schismatics and not as heretics, the doctrinal crisis has also affected them. Some definitions to start from the Catholic Modern Dictionary of Father John Hardon:

Heresy: In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Schismatic: According to Church law, a schismatic is a person who, after receiving baptism and while keeping the name of Christian, pertinaciously refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to associate with those who are subject to him. The two factors, submission to the Pope and association with persons subject to him, are to be taken disjunctively. Either resisting papal authority or refusing to participate in Catholic life and worship induces schism, even without further affiliation with another religious body. Like heresy, schism is formal and culpable only when the obligations are fully realized.

How is the Orthodox Church Falling Into Heresy?

The Orthodox generally reject the following dogmatically defined truths which a Christian must accept:

1. The Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Those interested in the Church's treatment of this should look into Father Henry Chadwick's "The Early Church" or "Fr. John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology," which address this well. The Church Fathers all believed in the Filioque.
2. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (i.e., that She was conceived without the stain of original sin) despite significant proof from the Early Church Fathers. It is well known that a number of Orthodox prelates believed this.
3. Papal Supremacy. This is well defended by Fr. Francis Dvornik in "Byzantium and the Roman Primacy."
4. The indissolubility of Marriage since the Orthodox allow a second and even a third marriage for divorced persons. On the contrary, the Magisterium has always maintained the prohibition of divorce and remarriage, even for Eastern Rite Catholics (Council of Lyon II [1274], Benedict XIV [1743] due to our Lord's own words (Matthew 19:6).
5. The state of the soul needed to approach the Blessed Sacrament.
6. The use of artificial contraception as being opposed to the will of God.
7. The fact that Baptism may validly be received only once.

There is No Unified Body of Doctrine in the Orthodox Church

The Orthodox Church is actually not a unified Church but a collection of different groups with different beliefs, which attacks two fundamental marks of the Church. The four marks of the Church can only be present in the Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ. And Orthodoxy attacks two of them significantly:

Oneness: St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians asserted that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). The Church is one because she was founded by Jesus, the one and only Son of God, Who taught one unified body of doctrine. Granted, there is great diversity in the Church regarding cultures, gifts, ways of life, and offices, yet there is unity in government (under the visible head, the Pope), faith, and sacraments. The Roman Catechism explains, “The first mark of the true Church is described in the Nicene Creed, and consists in unity….”  Likewise, the Baltimore Catechism teaches, “The Church is one because all its members agree in one faith, are all in one communion, and are all under one Head.” 

Catholicity (i.e., Universality): The word "Catholic" literally means “universal.” The Church is the universal body of believers established by Christ and meant for all people of all corners of the world for all times (cf. Matt. 28:18-20; Apoc. 5:9-10). The etymology of the word “catholic” is the Greek adjective katholikos, which is related to the adverb katholou, meaning “in general” or “according to the whole.” This definition helps communicate the fact that the Catholic Faith is for people of every place, culture, and class. There is no one who is not called to a member of the true Faith. As St. John relates in the Book of the Apocalypse: “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in Thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Apoc. 5:9).

How exactly does Orthodoxy violate this? A revert from Orthodoxy explains: 

In hindsight, I came to realise that what Greek Orthodoxy lacked was the universality of the Creed; “I believe in ONE, holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church…”. I experienced holiness and Apostolic succession, but didn’t feel the oneness in the increasingly splintering Orthodox churches nor any sense of universality. I felt cut off from my family and peers, because the Greeks showed no interest in my desire to evangelize the Australian people. I was told sternly, “That’s not our way, not our spirit. No one will listen to you because you are not Greek. Besides, you joined a Greek church, why do you want to change us? We are Greek, that’s who we are.” I couldn’t reconcile this attitude with Christ’s solemn command to baptise the nations, nor the actions of the Apostles in the Book of Acts.

As long as the Orthodox attack fundamental dogmas of the Christian Religion, they can never be an option. On the contrary, the Catholic Church comprises many Eastern Rite Catholics who left Orthodoxy to be reunited with Rome and the oneness of doctrine but retain their beautiful and reverent liturgies. 

In fact, some groups like the Society of St. Josaphat are aligned with the SSPX in the fight for Tradition and for the preservation of the Eastern Rites.

Resources for Anyone Tempted to Leave Traditional Catholicism for Orthodoxy

Books:

• Rome and the Eastern Churches by Fr. Aidan Nichols
• Russia and the Universal Church by Vladmir Soloviev

Articles:

• From Catholicism to Orthodoxy and Back Again
• I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for the Church Led by Pope Francis, and I Don’t Regret It.
• My Trip Through Eastern Orthodoxy
• What About Eastern Orthodoxy?

Videos:

• Chalcedon and the Three Petrine Sees Argument

Read more >>

Holy Communion Under One or Both Species?

What is Holy Communion?

The Eucharist - Holy Communion - simply is Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine. It is not a symbol of Christ, but rather, it is truly and really Jesus Christ! At the point in the Mass known as the consecration the priest, acting in persona Christi, will say "This is my Body, which will be given up for you" and "This is my Blood...". These were the words of Our Savior when He turned the bread and wine at the Last Supper into His Body and Blood, and, by the divine power of God in the priesthood, the bread and wine become Jesus Christ.

The Council of Trent condemned as heretical anyone who claimed that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity of Christ: “If anyone denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.”

What is Transubstantiation?

The Baltimore Catechism Q. 246 asks, “What is this change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord called? This change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord is called Transubstantiation.”

Only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have a valid Eucharist. The protestants, who do not have valid Holy Orders, do not have valid priests and therefore can not confect the Holy Eucharist. They can not by their words cause transubstantiation to occur. A Lutheran or Anglican priest is not a valid priest.

What is Consubstantiation? 

That being said, the Lutherans, although, they do not have a valid Eucharist, believe the Communion in their services is both the Lord’s Body and Blood alongside the substance of bread and wine. This is called consubstantiation. The theological view of consubstantiation, which has no basis in the teachings of the Early Church at all, was explicitly condemned as heretical by the Council of Trent:

“If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.”

The writings of the Early Church Fathers abound in teaching the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, long before the term was coined by the Church. To illustrate the clear Catholic view that existed centuries, even a millennium before Martin Luther, we can turn to a few examples. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313 – 386 AD) wrote, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ.” And St. Augustine (354 – 430 AD) similarly and succinctly wrote, “Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: 'This is My Body.' No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored It.”

What is a Eucharistic Species?

In Theology we use the terms species in reference to the Eucharist. What does species mean? The Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. defines “species” as the following: “Appearances, especially those of bread and wine, after the Eucharistic consecration. The term "species" is used by the Council of Trent to identify the accidents, i.e., the size, weight, color, resistance, taste, and odor of bread, which remain exactly the same after transubstantiation. They are not mere appearances as though these physical properties were unreal. But they are appearances because after the consecration they lack any substance that underlies them or in which they inhere.”

This is an important definition because by it we see a few things. First, the Catholic view is transubstantiation. Second, in transubstantiation the bread and wine, at the moment of consecration, cease being bread and wine and are now the substance of the Lord’s Body, His Blood, His Soul, and His Divinity.  The only thing remaining of bread and wine are the accidents (the color, taste, smell, appearance, et cetera) of bread and wine. They are however not bread and wine any more.

Is Christ’s Body Only in the Consecrated Host? Is the Consecrated Wine Only His Blood?

In the Catechism of St. Pius X we find the clear and universal teaching of the Church: “Both under the species of the bread and under the species of the wine the living Jesus Christ is all present, with His Body, His Blood, His Soul and His Divinity. Both in the host and in the chalice Jesus Christ is whole and entire, because He is living and immortal in the Eucharist as He is in heaven; hence where His Body is, there also are His Blood, His Soul, and His Divinity; and where His Blood is, there also are His Body, His Soul and His Divinity, all these being inseparable in Jesus Christ.”

The smallest fragment of the Eucharistic Host is the fullness of Christ: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. And the smallest drop of the Consecrated wine is likewise the fullness of Our Lord: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. We may in conversation refer to the Consecrated Host as “Christ’s Body” and the Consecrated Wine as “Christ’s Blood,” but in reality under each of the species of bread and wine there is no substance of bread or wine and there is the fullness of Christ.

The great confusion on this necessary teaching for salvation comes from the modernism that has infected the Church in the past few decades. In fact, many Catholics fail to understand this because Catholic parishes have introduced Communion in the hand, which was introduced as a liturgical abuse, and they now also distribute Holy Communion from the chalice. The sacrilege of Communion in the hand and the distribution of both Eucharistic species has led to a growing trend in Catholics failing to believe in the Real Presence (i.e. in transubstantiation) and, even for those who do believe, there is a trend in Catholics who believe the Consecrated Host is only Christ’s Body and the Consecrated Wine is only Christ’s Blood.

Should We Receive Holy Communion from the Chalice? 

In the Traditional Latin Mass, Holy Communion is given to those who are kneeling (with the elderly and ill able to stand), on the tongue, and only under one species. Why? The Baltimore Catechism in Q. 900 advised, "The Church does not give Holy Communion to the people as it does to the priest under the appearance of wine also, to avoid the danger of spilling the Precious Blood; to prevent the irreverence some might show if compelled to drink out of a chalice used by all, and lastly, to refute those who denied that Our Lord's blood is present under the appearance of bread also."

The trend following Vatican II to distribute both Eucharistic species incorporates a protestant practice that the Church had repeatedly prohibited in order to both safeguard our Lord’s Body and Blood and to teach the authentic Theology of the Real Presence under one species more fully. The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the Church’s history of this topic for those looking for more thorough information. While the Eastern Rites of the Church have continued to offer the Holy Eucharist through intinction (where the Consecrated Bread is dipped in the Consecrated Wine), this practice has long ago vanished from the Western Rites of the Church. The protestants introduction of this was done due to their heretical view of the Consecrated Bread containing the fullness of Christ.

We should not receive Holy Communion from the chalice as traditionally this was for the priest alone. We should also attend the Traditional Latin Mass and not the Novus Ordo. And we should of course never receive Holy Communion in the hand.  As Fr. John Hardon remarked: “Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Read more >>

St. John Damascene

Double (1954 Calendar): March 27th

Today is the Feast of St. John Damascene.  Also known as St. John of Damascus, St. John Damascene was a Syrian monk and priest who died in Mar Saba, near Jerusalem. On feastdays in Lent, more usually the Mass of the Lenten feria is said with only a commemoration of the feast - unlike the other seasons in the Church's liturgical year.

St. John Damascene - also known as St. John of Damascus - was born in 645 AD and lived until 749 AD.  The Roman Martyrology on this date proclaims: "St. John Damascene, priest, confessor, and doctor of the Church, whose birthday is commemorated on the 6th of May."

Butler's Lives of the Saints fittingly summarizes his life and example:

ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS, the last of the Greek fathers and the first of the long line of Christian Aristotelians, was also one of the two greatest poets of the Eastern church, the other being St Romanus the Melodist. The whole of the life of St John was spent under the government of a Mohammedan khalif, and it exhibits the strange spectacle of a Christian father of the Church protected from a Christian emperor, whose heresy he was able to attack with impunity because he lived under Moslem rule. He and St Theodore Studites were the principal and the ablest defenders of the cultus of sacred images in the bitterest period of the Iconoclastic controversy. As a theological and philosophical writer he made no attempt at originality, for his work was rather to compile and arrange what his predecessors had written. Still, in theological questions he remains the ultimate court of appeal among the Greeks, and his treatise Of the Orthodox Faith is still to the Eastern schools what the Summa of St Thomas Aquinas became to the West. 

The Moslem rulers of Damascus, where St John was born, were not unjust to their Christian subjects, although they required them to pay a poll tax and to submit to other humiliating conditions. They allowed both Christians and Jews to occupy important posts, and in many cases to acquire great fortunes. The khalif J s doctor was nearly always a Jew, whilst Christians were employed as scribes, administrators and architects. Amongst the officials at his court in 675 was a Christian called John, who held the post of chief of the revenue department — an office which seems to have become hereditary in his family. He was the father of our saint, and the surname of al-Mansur which the Arabs gave him was afterwards transferred to the son. The younger John was born about the year 690 and was baptized in infancy. 

With regard to his early education, if we may credit his biographer, " His father took care to teach him, not how to ride a horse, not how to wield a spear, not to hunt wild beasts and change his natural kindness into brutal cruelty, as happens to many. John, his father, a second Chiron, did not teach him all this, but he sought a tutor learned in all science, skilful in every form of knowledge, who would produce good words from his heart ; and he handed over his son to him to be nourished with this kind of food ". 

Afterwards he was able to provide another teacher, a monk called Cosmas, " beautiful in appearance and still more beautiful in soul ", whom the Arabs had brought back from Sicily amongst other captives. John the elder had to pay a great price for him, and well he might for, if we are to believe our chronicler, " he knew grammar and logic, as much arithmetic as Pythagoras and as much geometry as Euclid ". He taught all the sciences, but especially theology, to the younger John and also to a boy whom the elder John seems to have adopted, who also was called Cosmas, and who became a poet and a singer, sub- sequently accompanying his adopted brother to the monastery in which they both became monks. 

In spite of his theological training St John does not seem at first to have con- templated any career except that of his father, to whose office he succeeded. Even at court he was able freely to live a Christian life, and he became remarkable there for his virtues and especially for his humility. Nevertheless, after filling his responsible post for some years, St John resigned office, and went to be a monk in the laura of St Sabas (Mar Saba) near Jerusalem. It is still a moot point whether his earlier works against the iconoclasts were written while he was still at Damascus, but the best authorities since the days of the Dominican Le Quien, who edited his works in 17 12, incline to the opinion that he had become a monk before the outbreak of the persecution, and that all three treatises were composed at St Sabas. In any case John and Cosmas settled down amongst the brethren and occupied their spare time in writing books and composing hymns. 

It might have been thought that the other monks would appreciate the presence amongst them of so doughty a champion of the faith as John, but this was far from being the case. They said the new-comers were introducing disturbing elements. It was bad enough to write books, but it was even worse to compose and sing hymns, and the brethren were scandalized. The climax came when, at the request of a monk whose brother had died, John wrote a hymn on death and sang it to a sweet tune of his own composition. His master, an old monk whose cell he shared, rounded upon him in fury and ejected him from the cell. " Is this the way you forget your vows ? " he exclaimed. "In- stead of mourning and weeping, you sit in joy and delight yourself by singing." He would only permit him to return at the end of several days, on condition that he should go round the laura and clear up all the filth with his own hands. St John obeyed unquestioningly, but in the visions of the night our Lady appeared to the old monk and told him to allow his disciple to write as many books and as much poetry as he liked. From that time onwards St John was able to devote his time to study and to his literary work. 

The legend adds that he was sometimes sent, perhaps for the good of his soul, to sell baskets in the streets of Damascus where he had once occupied so high a post. It must, however, be confessed that these details, written by his biographer more than a century after the saint's death, are of very questionable authority. 

If the monks at St Sabas did not value the two friends, there were others outside who did. The patriarch of Jerusalem, John V, knew them well by reputation and wished to have them amongst his clergy. First he took Cosmas and made him bishop of Majuma, and afterwards he ordained John priest and brought him to Jerusalem. St Cosmas, we are told, ruled his flock admirably until his death, but St John soon returned to his monastery. He revised his writings carefully, " and wherever they flourished with blossoms of rhetoric, or seemed superfluous in style, he prudently reduced them to a sterner gravity, lest they should have any display of levity or want of dignity ". His works in defence of eikons had become known and read everywhere, and had earned him the hatred of the persecuting emperors.

Collect:

Almighty and Eternal God, You endowed blessed John with divine learning and wondrous fortitude of soul in order that he might defend the veneration of sacred images. May the example and prayers of blessed John help us to imitate the virtues and enjoy the protection of the saints whose images we venerate. Through our Lord . . .

Read more >>

Octave of Christian Unity Prayers

We are currently in the midst of the Octave of Christian Unity.  It is never too late to join in these prayers.

Known as the “Octave of Christian Unity” as well as the “Chair of the Octave of Christian Unity” this period of time which lasts from January 18th through January 25th has been virtually forgotten even while it is kept as a more informal “Week of Christian Unity” in the modern Church. Sadly, the aftermath of Vatican II has obscured the primary purpose of this Octave: to pray and work for the conversion of those outside of the True Faith (i.e., the Catholic Faith).

In 1898, Lewis Thomas Wattson would establish the Society of the Atonement, an Episcopalian religious community whose purpose would be to bring the Franciscan life to the Anglican Church. Working with Luraran Mary White, they would eventually in 1909 convert to the Catholic Faith, after having preached the primacy of the Roman pontiff for several years. In fact, the Vatican took at that time an unprecedented step to accept the members of their society as a corporate body, allowing the friars and sisters to remain in their way of life.

Father Paul Wattson, as he was then known, would continue to labor for the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement and for Christian Unity until his death on February 8, 1940. The same is true of Mother Lurana who would labor for this purpose until her death on April 15, 1935 at age 65. A lasting legacy of their work is the establishment of the Octave of Christian Unity observed each January since first established by Father Wattson in 1908.

A reason why this Octave has become forgotten in practice among Catholics stems from the changes to the Feast of St. Peter’s Chair. Traditionally January 18th is the Feast of St. Peter’s Chair at Rome and Feb 22 is St. Peter’s Chair at Antioch. Pope Paul IV in 1558 instituted this Feast on January 18th to confound the errors of the Protestants who sought to discredit that St. Peter actually lived and died in Rome. The two feasts were included in the Tridentine Calendar with the rank of Double, which Pope Clement VIII raised in 1604 to the newly invented rank of Greater Double.

In 1960 John XXIII removed from the General Roman Calendar the January 18th feast of the Chair of Peter, along with seven other feast days that were second feasts of a single saint or mystery. The February 22 celebration became a Second-Class Feast. This calendar was incorporated in the 1962 Roman Missal. For those Catholics who follow the pre-1955 Missal and Office, they will keep January 18th as the Feast of St. Peter’s Chair at Rome. And the spirituality associated with this day naturally lent well to the Octave of Christian Unity. It was a fitting beginning to the Octave while the Conversion of St. Paul, celebrated on January 25th, served as a poignant and appropriate ending to a week of prayer for those separated from the Ark of Salvation.

Hence rediscovering these customs is essential to countering the false ecumenism of our era. Make it a point to pray the prayers of Christian Unity between January 18 and January 25th, in addition to offering other prayers for groups separated from the Faith. We would do well to request priests to offer Masses for this intention and to offer Rosaries for those separated from Catholic Unity, including those who have fallen away from regular Sacramental life. In fact, the Church has attached indulgences in the Raccolta to pious practices for the propagation of the Faith. We should make it a point to do so throughout the year.

For more lost customs, see the book "Restoring Lost Customs of Christendom."

Daily Chair of Unity Octave Prayer:

Ant. That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that Thou has sent me.

℣. I say to thee, that thou art Peter,
℟. And upon this rock I will build my Church.

Let us pray

Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst say to Thine Apostles: peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, look not upon my sins, but upon the faith of Thy Church; and vouchsafe unto Her that peace and unity which is agreeable to Thy will: Who livest and reignest God forever and ever. Amen.

Daily Octave Intentions:

• 18 January, The Feast of Saint Peter's Chair at Rome: The union of all Christians in the one true faith and in the Church
• 19 January: The return of separated Eastern Christians to communion with the Holy See
• 20 January: The reconciliation of Anglicans with the Holy See
• 21 January: The reconciliation of European Protestants with the Holy See
• 22 January: That American Christians become one in union with the Chair of Peter
• 23 January: The restoration of lapsed Catholics to the sacramental life of the Church
• 24 January: That the Jewish people come into their inheritance in Jesus Christ
• 25 January, The Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul: The missionary extension of Christ's kingdom throughout the world

It is never too late to pray these prayers:

• Prayer for Pagans
• Prayer for Jews
• Prayer for Muslims
• Prayer for Schismatic Orthodox Christians
• Prayer for Protestant Sects
• Prayer for Freemasons
• Prayer for Lapsed Catholics
• Prayer for Anglicans
• Prayer for the True Faith

A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions at the end of the octave of prayers for the unity of the Church from the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome (Jan. 18) to the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul (Jan. 25). (Apostolic Brief, Feb. 25, 1916; S. P. Ap., Nov. 15, 1927 and Dec. 10, 1946).

Read more >>

Dormition Fast for Catholics

Yesterday, the Eastern Rites of the Church began the observance of the Dormition Fast.  What is the Dormition Fast?  What is a Latin Rite Catholic to think of this custom?  

Referred to as either the Dormition Fast – since the Assumption of Our Lady is known as the Dormition by Eastern Catholics – or as the Assumption Fast, this is a two-week-long fasting period lasting from August 1st until Assumption Day. Father R. Janin writes that this fast is “a difficult Lent permitting only olives and vegetables cooked in water; oil is tolerated on Saturdays and Sundays.” Like the Apostles’ Fast, the Assumption Fast stretches back to the time of St. Leo the Great.

While the Assumption Fast would also fade from practice in the West, the Vigil of the Assumption on August 14th would remain a mandatory day of fasting and abstinence until 1957. Its observance as a fast day is ancient as the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "Pope Nicholas I (d. 867), in his answer to the Bulgarians, speaks of the fast on the eves of Christmas and of the Assumption...The Synod of Seligenstadt in 1022 AD mentions vigils on the eves of Christmas, Epiphany, the feast of the Apostles, the Assumption of Mary, St. Laurence, and All Saints, besides the fast of two weeks before the Nativity of St. John." 

One further interesting remnant of the Assumption Fast in the West is found in Sicily where the faithful would abstain from fruit for two weeks prior to the Assumption. Assumption Day is known for its blessing of herbs and fruits so the faithful, after two weeks of such abstinence, would joyfully bring their herbs and fruits to the parish for the blessing on August 15th and then, after the blessing, give each other fruit baskets.

During greater times of Latinization in the Eastern Rites in the past few centuries, the Apostles’ Fast and the Dormition Fast were minimized to such an extent that they were not emphasized and not considered obligatory. About 20 years ago, the Dormition Fast was officially recognized as an important part of the Byzantine Catholic tradition but not as a fast of obligation. It was recommended that Byzantine Catholics voluntarily add Wednesday, and even Monday, as days of abstinence in addition to Friday abstinence during this period.

This is taken from Aquinas and More's website:

The Eastern churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) traditionally observe a period of fasting prior to the Great Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos - one of the four great fasts that are part of the Church year in the East, the others being the Nativity Fast, the Great Lent Fast and the Apostles Fast. This fast is also called "Our Lady's Fast" or the "Assumption Fast.” For those on the new calendar (Gregorian), this fast begins just before the Vespers of the Feast of the Procession of the Holy Cross (1 August) on 31 July evening. This fast ends just before Vespers for the Great Feast of the Dormition of The Theotokos (15 August) on 14 August evening. For those on the old calendar (Julian) , this fast begins on August 14 and ends on August 28. 

The Dormition Fast is short, but is stricter than all the other fasting periods except Great Lent. One should fast on all days from the usual non-lenten foods, such as all animal products (meat, poultry, milk, cheese, etc.) and olive oil and wine. In addition, one also traditionally abstains from fish on all days of the fast, including weekends, except for the feast of the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord, when fasting may be eased by having fish, wine and olive oil. On the two weekends which fall during the fast (Saturday and Sunday), the fast is also relaxed a little bit, and one may have wine and olive oil, but no fish. Please check with your priest or with your eparchial (diocesan) offices for specific information, of course. Actually fasting practice can and does vary between the particular Eastern churches. 

The Scriptural foundation for the practice of Fasting is found in the Synoptic Gospels, when the Pharisees criticized the Apostles for not fasting, Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” Our Lord, in this passage, was referring to his being taken to be crucified; but in the larger sense these words of the Lord are understood in terms of his Ascension into heaven, and his command to preach the Gospel, which can only be accomplished with prayer and fasting. The New Testament mentions the practice of fasting many times. 

According to Eastern Christian teaching, by fasting we observe this time-honored Apostolic practice. We can also unite our lives more closely to the Mother of God through the Dormition Fast. By fasting, we can join in and show our appreciation for the sacrifices of the the Theotokos. The Theotokos sacrificed much to give birth to Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity - Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, to raise Him, and to be with Him during His ministry, His crucifixion, and His resurrection. 

The Dormition of the Theotokos is a Great Feast of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches which commemorates the "falling asleep" or death of the Theotokos (Mary, the mother of Jesus; literally translated as God-bearer). It is celebrated on August 15 (August 28 for those following the Julian Calendar) as the Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God. 

In the Eastern churches, as in the language of Sacred Scripture, death is often called a "sleeping" or "falling asleep.” A prominent example of this is the name of this feast; another is the Dormition of Anna, Mary's mother. According to the ancient tradition of the East, the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics believe that Mary, having spent her life after Pentecost supporting and serving the nascent Church, was living in the house of the Apostle John when the Archangel Gabriel revealed to her that her repose would occur three days later. The Holy Apostles, scattered throughout the world, are said to have been miraculously transported to be at her side when she died. The sole exception was the Apostle Thomas, who was characteristically late. He is said to have arrived three days after her death, grief-striken, and asked to see her grave so that he could bid her goodbye. Mary had already been laid to rest. When they arrived at the grave, her body was gone, leaving a sweet fragrance. An angel is said to have appeared and confirmed to the Apostles that Christ had taken her body to heaven after her soul.

As a result, the Dormition Fast is a period of preparation for the celebration of the Assumption of Our Blessed Lady into Heaven on August 15th.  It is wise for us - even Latin Rite Catholics - to adopt this time as a time of prayer and preparation.  While we are not canonically bound under the pain of sin to observe this period of fasting, it is certainly wise for us to fast willingly at this time in order to prepare for the Assumption better.  And moreover, offering our fasting and added sacrifices for the intentions of our Lady would be a most salutary effort indeed.

Want to learn more about the history of fasting and abstinence? Check out the Definitive Guide to Catholic Fasting and Abstinence.

Read more >>

The Third Secret Predicted a "Bad Council"

Guest Post by David Martin

On the Feast of Pentecost, 2016, Fr. Ingo Dollinger, a long-time friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict told Dr. Maike Hickson that Cardinal Ratzinger [now Benedict XVI] told him in late summer 2000 that the Third Secret of Fatima spoke of "a bad council and a bad Mass" that was to come in the future (after 1960).

Consider the writings of nineteenth century Freemason and excommunicated priest, Canon Roca (1830-1893), who predicted that "the liturgy of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council" in a move "to deprive the Church of its supernatural character, to amalgamate it with the world, to interweave the denominations ecumenically instead of letting them run side by side as separate confessions, and thus to pave the way for a standard world religion in the centralized world state."

Canon Roca speaks of a New World Order to come (Novus Ordo Seclorum) which would countermand the order of Apostolic Tradition. Yea, he speaks of "a bad council and a bad Mass" that would materialize after 1960, through which a wide body of the church would be misled.

We can understand the significance of 1960 as the appointed year for disclosing the Third Secret, since it was only two years later that they would convene the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), setting into motion the so-called reform of the Mass that would advance the Church's unity with the world.

Bear in mind that Benedict XVI has read the Fatima Third Secret, and being of serious import, he does not speak idly on weighty topics of this nature. Therefore, this latest scoop on the Third Secret should encourage Catholics concerning the documented accounts of what actually took place at Vatican Council II.

COUNCIL INFILTRATED 

In a word, Vatican II was hijacked and controlled by the Church's enemies, though this hijacking was done under the guise of a renewal so that unsuspecting Catholics would think that the ensuing change was the work of the Holy Spirit.

There is no disputing the disaster wrought by Vatican II and how it set into motion an insidious departure from tradition that has left the Holy City "half in ruins." Even as we recall the conciliar tempest that first convened in 1962, its gale force continues to uproot the Faith, blow apart revered Catholic practices, topple the Church’s edifice, and spread doctrinal debris throughout the Church.

Does this mean that Pope John XXIII was guilty of convoking a conspiratorial council? Nay. His design in convening the Council was not to change the Church, but to restate sacred tradition, evidenced in his opening speech at Vatican II on October 11, 1962: "The major interest of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred heritage of Christian truth be safeguarded and expounded with greater efficacy."

Without diluting the Faith, the pope was simply trying to adopt a more effective means of projecting the orthodox Faith to the modern world. His update did not include the watering down of doctrine or the alteration of liturgy, but consisted in utilizing state-of-the-art technology to better project the light of tradition to a spiritually darkened world.

For there were dangers threatening the Faith at that time. Apostasy was forthcoming and man was already on the eve of forgetting his Maker, so the pope was making a special effort to dispel the ensuing darkness and uphold the orthodox Faith "with greater efficacy."

To this end he and his best men worked arduously for almost three years to draft the outline for the Second Vatican Council, known as the 72 schemas. According to the most conservative thinkers of Rome, the preparatory schemata were orthodox and worthy of use, but modernists were enraged that the Holy Father had put together the outline without conferring with them beforehand. Hence a decision was made before the Council to block Pope John’s plan for Vatican II.

According to Michael Davies and many others, a number of "suspect theologians" hijacked the opening session of the Council by seizing control of its drafting commissions, thus enabling them to scrap Pope John’s plan and to draft a new plan of their own. A key instigator of the pack was Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx of the Netherlands, a known heretic who denied the historicity of the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Eucharist (Transubstantiation), and who had drafted and disseminated a 480-page critique aimed at rallying the radical "Rhine bishops" to reject the original plan for Vatican II. The design of these progressivists was to revive Luther’s "Reformation" under the guise of a renewal, something that Schillebeeckx had openly confessed to.

Benedict XVI himself pointed out in 2013 how a "virtual council" had risen up to usurp the "real Council" at Vatican II, and lamented how "it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy." (Benedict XVI, addressing the parish churches of Rome, February 14, 2013) This echoes the words of Pope Paul VI who stated that the good efforts at Vatican II were hampered by "the devil" who came along "to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council." (June 29, 1972) Hence it is worth recounting the opening session, that we have a clearer perspective of what really took place at the Second Vatican Council.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE COUNCIL 

At the center of this coup to overthrow Vatican II were Cardinals Alfrink, Frings, and Liénart of the Rhine Alliance. A crucial vote was to be taken to determine the members of the drafting commissions when Cardinal Liénart, a 30th degree Freemason, seized the microphone during a speech and demanded that the slate of 168 candidates be discarded and that a new slate of candidates be drawn up. His uncanny gesture was heeded by the Council and the election was postponed. Leinart’s action deflected the course of the Council and made history, and was hailed a victory in the press. The date was October 13, 1962, the 45th Anniversary of Our Lady’s last apparition at Fatima.    (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, the Rhine Flows into the Tiber)

In his February 14, 2013, address to the clergy of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI brilliantly recounts this coup d’etat at Vatican II: "On the programme for this first day were the elections of the Commissions, and lists of names had been prepared, in what was intended to be an impartial manner, and these lists were put to the vote. But right away the Fathers said: 'No, we do not simply want to vote for pre-prepared lists. We are the subject.' Then, it was necessary to postpone the elections, because the Fathers themselves…wanted to prepare the lists themselves. And so it was. Cardinal Liénart of Lille and Cardinal Frings of Cologne had said publicly: no, not this way. We want to make our own lists and elect our own candidates."

The above statement is of no small significance. Herein Benedict confesses that Liénart and his clique rejected the list of candidates that John XXIII had approved in an "impartial manner," so that they could create their own list and elect their own candidates in a partial manner.

The preeminent Romano Amerio who had contributed significantly to the drafting of the original Vatican II outline cites the illegality of this move, saying, "This departure from the original plan" came about "by an act breaking the Council's legal framework" so that "the Council was self-created, atypical, and unforeseen." (Professor Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, 1985)

When the "election" resumed, a number of radical theologians were then appointed to chair the commissions, including Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, de Lubac, Schillebeeckx and others whose writings had been blacklisted under Pius XII. The liberals now occupied nearly 60% of the seats, giving them the needed power to steer the Council in their direction. Thereupon they proceeded to trash the pope’s carefully prepared agenda that had taken nearly three years to formulate.

Through deceitful promises and skillful use of the media, the Council approved their plan for a new Mass on December 7, 1962, known as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This in turn became the hub of the liturgical reform that was to set the Church on a new revolutionary path of change.

The Constitution was principally the work of the infamous Annibale Bugnini whom the pope had earlier removed from two posts because of sinister activity. The Constitution in fact was the outgrowth of the one schema drafted by Bugnini, which Vatican liberals had spared because of its designs for a new Mass. It is important to note that Monsignor Bugnini, and not the pope, was the author of the New Mass.

What is mind boggling is the dictatorial force wherewith the conciliar elite took the law into their own hands and were able to junk Pope John’s outline for Vatican II without rebuttal. With the procedural rules laid down by the pope, a mere one-third vote was needed to get the schemata passed, which in fact did pass by a 40% vote. But the Rhine fathers stirred up a ruckus and insisted that this minority vote not be honored in favor of the 60% vote against the schemata, even telling the pope, "This is inadmissible!" They abhorred the orthodoxy of the preparatory outline with its strict formulations and resented the idea of having it imposed on them by a pope who "clung to the old absolute traditions."

The pope, fearing a tumult, backed down and consented to let the Rhine fathers have their way against game rules. Though he had planned things differently, his strength failed him at this point, thus allowing the pirates of innovation to wrest the Council from his hands.

Hence the most meticulous and painstaking preparation ever undertaken for any council of Church history was suddenly dumped to the glee of this Council confederacy. Only the liturgical schema remained.

We gather that Cardinal Tisserant, the key draftsman of the 1962 Moscow-Vatican Treaty who presided at the opening session, was at the center of this coup to usurp the Vatican Council. According to Jean Guitton, the famous French academic, Tisserant had showed him a painting of himself and six others, and told him, "This picture is historic, or rather, symbolic. It shows the meeting we had before the opening of the Council when we decided to block the first session by refusing to accept the tyrannical rules laid down by John XXIII." (Vatican II in the Dock, 2003)

This story of what happened at Vatican II is well documented and has been told in great depth by the most qualified witnesses, including Father Ralph Wiltgen, Monsignor Bandas, Michael Davies, Cardinal Heenan and many others. Archbishop Lefebvre himself who was on the Central Preparatory Committee for checking and overseeing all the Council documents had this to say:

"From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it…We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression was rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste- paper basket…The immense work that had been found accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty-handed, with nothing ready. What chairman of a board meeting, however small the company, would agree to carry on without an agenda and without documents? Yet that is how the Council commenced." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986)

This is how the modern "reform" was born. Pope John’s agenda for Vatican II would never resurrect from that point, but would remain buried to this day. The rebellious "virtual council" would now proceed to put together the Vatican II we all know, including its sixteen documents and its reform of the Mass. The documents would contain elements of orthodoxy here and there, but this would only be for cosmetic purposes. Under the pretext of a restoration, the documents would apologize for tradition and would attempt to unite the Catholic Church with other world religions.

That is to say, the documents themselves, and not any misinterpretation thereof, would generate the problems ahead, since they would be penned by the pope’s enemies and not his friends. For instance, it was the Freemason Msgr. Bugnini who oversaw the drafting of the 1964 Vatican II instruction Inter Oecumenici, which outlined the new ruling for the Mass and sanctuary. The following from Article 91 laid the foundation for the Novus Ordo Mass:

"The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people"

The Mass of Vatican II was historic in that it marked the first time in history that the priest offered the Holy Sacrifice facing the people with his back to the tabernacle. This point is affirmed by acclaimed liturgist Monsignor Klaus Gamber, whom Pope Benedict while a cardinal proclaimed as a prophet for our time: "We can say and convincingly demonstrate that neither in the Eastern nor the Western Church was there ever a celebration facing the people."

Yea, we can say that the profanation of the Mass at Vatican II effectively served to bring about a shift of focus in which the emphasis today is on the community and not on God. The church today is all but alienated from the Faith, thanks to "a bad council and a bad Mass" that altered the Faith.

Before his election to the papacy as Pius XII, Cardinal Pacelli in 1931 gave his response to the Third Secret of Fatima, saying that the Secret of Our Lady was "a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her liturgy." It goes to show just how closely the Faith is tied to the liturgy of Holy Mass.

We are grateful to Fr. Dollinger for truthfully relaying what Cardinal Ratzinger said about the Third Secret. His word is certainly credible when we consider that St. Padre Pio was his personal confessor for many years. This speaks volumes!

Fr. Dollinger relayed to Dr. Hickson yet another revelation from his in-depth conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000, namely, that there is still a part of the Third Secret that hasn't been released. "There is more than what we published," Ratzinger said. We pray that Fr. Dollinger might come forward with still more revelations of this kind.

But especially, we pray that Pope Emeritus Benedict will finally disclose the entire Third Secret of Fatima to the Church for its encouragement and edification. The good pope has no one to answer to but God Himself. If His Holiness feels remorse for having fled his post "for fear of the wolves," he can certainly make up for it by disclosing the truth to the Church, even if it has to be done in a private interview. The church today is bewitched by "the operation of error to believe lying" (2 Thess. 2:10), so the truth of the Fatima Secret is needed to liberate the church from this curse. "The truth will make you free." (John 8:32)

Read more >>

Octave of Christian Unity: Prayer for Schismatic Orthodox Churches

Let us Pray.

O Lord, Who hast united all nations in the confession of Thy Name, we pray Thee for our formerly Catholic brethren of the East. Mindful of the eminent place they once held in Thy Church, we beg of Thee to inspire them with the desire to occupy it again, so as to form with us one single Fold, under the guidance of one and the same Shepherd. Grant that they, together with ourselves, may be penetrated with the teaching of those holy Doctors of the Eastern Church, who are also our Fathers in the Faith, and submit themselves in all humility to the voice of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, Who so dearly desires to feed the lost sheep and lambs who have wandered from the Fold. Grant that the spirit of peace and charity, which is the mark of Thy presence with the faithful, may hasten the day in which our prayers may be united with theirs, so that every people and every tongue may acknowledge and glorify Our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son. Amen. (300 days)

Let us Pray.

O Mary, Mother of mercy and Refuge of sinners, we beseech thee, be pleased to look with pitiful eyes upon miserable heretics and schismatics, especially those pitiful souls once united with us in our former community and congregation who have now separated themselves from the true Church. Thou who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds that are miserably enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly know that the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither holiness nor salvation can be found. Finish the work of their conversion by obtaining for them the grace to accept all the truths of our holy Faith and to submit themselves to the true Bishops of Thy Church, the successors of Thy Apostles; that so, being united with us in the sweet chains of Divine charity, there may soon be one only fold under the same one Shepherd; and may we all, O glorious Virgin, sing forever with exultation: Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world. Amen. Three Aves. (500 days.)

(Three Hail Mary's)

For more information and the Official Prayer for each day of the Octave, see the post on the Octave of Christian Unity

Read more >>

Chair of the Octave of Christian Unity

The Chair of Unity Octave Prayer

Ant. That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that Thou has sent me.

℣. I say to thee, that thou art Peter,
℟. And upon this rock I will build my Church.

Let us pray
Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst say to Thine Apostles: peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, look not upon my sins, but upon the faith of Thy Church; and vouchsafe unto Her that peace and unity which is agreeable to Thy will: Who livest and reignest God forever and ever. Amen.

Intentions of the Octave:

• 18 January, The Feast of Saint Peter's Chair at Rome: The union of all Christians in the one true faith and in the Church
• 19 January: The return of separated Eastern Christians to communion with the Holy See
• 20 January: The reconciliation of Anglicans with the Holy See
• 21 January: The reconciliation of European Protestants with the Holy See
• 22 January: That American Christians become one in union with the Chair of Peter
• 23 January: The restoration of lapsed Catholics to the sacramental life of the Church
• 24 January: That the Jewish people come into their inheritance in Jesus Christ
• 25 January, The Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul: The missionary extension of Christ's kingdom throughout the world

Prayers For Each Day of the Octave:

• Prayer for Pagans
• Prayer for Jews
• Prayer for Muslims
• Prayer for Schismatic Orthodox Christians
• Prayer for Protestant Sects
• Prayer for Freemasons
• Prayer for Lapsed Catholics
• Prayer for the True Faith

A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions at the end of the octave of prayers for the unity of the Church from the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome (Jan. 18) to the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul (Jan. 25). (Apostolic Brief, Feb. 25, 1916; S. P. Ap., Nov. 15, 1927 and Dec. 10, 1946).

Read more >>

Nativity Fast: 40 Days of Fasting for Christmas

November 15th in the Eastern Rite Churches begins the Nativity Fast. This 40-day-long period of fasting is a preparation for the holy celebration of Christmas. Like Lent, the Eastern Churches observe a period of 40 days of fasting in preparation for the Nativity of the Lord.

The Tradition of fasting in anticipation of the Nativity of the Lord is not unique to the Eastern Churches - the Latin Rite of the Church had observed this practice for centuries. Latin Rite Catholics today may certainly still observe fasting during this time to spiritually prepare themselves for Christmas. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church also used to keep a 40 day fast leading up to Christmas!

Beginning with Vespers on November 15th, the Nativity Fast continues until just before Vespers on Christmas Eve. As with all periods of fasting, Fasting is forbidden on Sundays. Due to many popular feast days occurring between now and December 9th, many places began to modify the fast to begin on December 10th.

Latin Rite Catholics traditionally fasted on the Vigil of the Immaculate Conception (December 7th) and on the Vigil of the Nativity (December 24th). Because of the Tradition of Fasting on Christmas Eve in the Roman Catholic Church, that evening is traditionally observed by the Feast of 7 Fishes. Those two days could (and arguably should) still be observed by Roman Catholics. In years when these days fall on a Sunday, fasting is suppressed (or prior to the 1917 Code, it would have been moved up to the Saturday).

The fast's purpose is to spiritually prepare the soul for drawing closer to God. Along with our fasting, we must increase our own prayer life, almsgiving, and good works. Fasting without increased prayer should never be done.

Guidelines for the Nativity Fast:

The Guidelines from ByzantineCatholic.org for the Nativity fast in most Eastern Catholic Rites are as follows: 

 All days except Sundays, from November 15 to December 12:  

• Abstinence from: All Meats, Dairy Products and Eggs – no animal products.
• No abstinence from: Shellfish, Grains, Vegetables & Vegetable Products, Olive Oil; Fruit, Wine On Sundays fish is allowed until the final week of the Nativity Fast. On Wednesdays and Fridays, the usual year-round restrictions apply.  

December 13 to 24:  

• Abstinence from: All Meat Products, Dairy Products, Eggs, Fish, Olive Oil, Wine
• No abstinence from: Vegetables & Vegetable Products, Fruits and Grains  

On Wednesdays and Fridays, food should not be eaten between meals, and meals themselves should be moderate in size. It is often customary to eat only one meal a day. During the Nativity Fast, from December 13 to December 24 inclusive, the Fast becomes stricter, and olive oil and wine are permitted only on Saturdays and Sundays. Fish is not permitted from the 13th to the 24th. 

The Guidelines for the Antiochian Orthodox Church in America:

The Nativity Fast is one of the four Canonical Fasting Seasons in the Church year. This is a joyous fast in anticipation of the Nativity of Christ. That is the reason it is less strict than other fasting periods. The fast is divided into two periods.

November 15th through December 19th: The traditional fasting discipline (no meat, dairy, fish, wine, and oil) is observed. There is a dispensation given for wine and oil on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Similarly, fish, wine, and oil are permitted on Saturdays and Sundays.

December 20th through the 24th: The traditional fasting discipline (no meat, dairy, fish, wine, and oil) is observed. There is dispensation given for wine and oil only on Saturday and Sunday during this period.  

The Guidelines for the Orthodox Church in America further state:

“It should be noted that in the Fast of the Holy Apostles and of the Nativity of Christ, on Tuesday and Thursday we do not eat fish, but only oil or wine. On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, we eat neither oil nor wine…. On Saturday and Sunday we eat fish. If there occur on Tuesday or Thursday a Saint who has a [Great] Doxology, we eat fish; if on Monday, the same; but if on Wednesday or Friday, we allow only oil and wine…. If it be a Saint who has a Vigil on Wednesday or Friday, or the Saint whose temple it is, we allow oil and wine and fish…. But from the 20th of December until the 25th, even if it be Saturday or Sunday, we do not allow fish.”

Conclusion:

Above all, this time of year, as we approach Advent, consider the End of Times and our own Judgment, and await the celebration of the Nativity of Christ, let us embrace some fasting. Fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays during this time is preferable to not fasting at all. Consult your spiritual director and consider undertaking more fasting, almsgiving, and prayer during this preparation time. And when Christmas comes, let us celebrate it joyfully and festively throughout January and until Candlemas on February 2nd. While the world celebrates too early and ceases celebrating on the 2nd day of Christmas, let us not make that same grave mistake.

Want to learn more about the history of fasting and abstinence? Check out the Definitive Guide to Catholic Fasting and Abstinence.

Read more >>