Monday, April 28, 2008

Pope Pius XII, the Prophet

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

-- Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei

It seems even in the times of Pope Pius XII and even before with Pius X and Pius IX, people within the Church were desiring these things. After Vatcian II, it seems they were given their chance under the guise of the "Spirit of Vatican II". Lets have a run-down:

1. No latin
2. Moving feast days without permission
3. Editing the liturgy at will
4. Reducing the liturgy to what it was in the first century just because. (Neocatechumenal Way)
5. High altars reduced to tables
6. Black excluded as a liturgical color
7. Removal of sacred art
8. Crucifix has no trace of the sufferings of Christ
9. Rejection of sacred polyphony

All of this has come to pass. Where were we? What will we do about it now? If such things were wrong then, aren't they still wrong now?

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Conspiracy Fodder

D. G. D. Davidson made this comment over on Fr. Erik's blog:

"When you destroy books, generations later, people start to wonder what was in those books, and then they decide, with no evidence, that those books must have been very wise and full of great secrets. Then when an archaelogist uncovers copies of said books, they are found to be quite ordinary and to contain what level-headed people guessed they contained anyway, but the myth of the books is so strong that people go all swoony over them and claim that at last great, ancient secrets have been revealed.

It's much better to catalogue the objectionable books so you can take them out when necessary and say, "See? There's really nothing particularly great in here!""

How many times have you heard that someone could prove some half-baked theory if they just had the evidence that obviously those responsible are hiding? Kinda makes you wonder how they know it's true to begin with if they have seen no evidence, huh? Let's get started!

What people could prove if they just had the evidence:

1. That aliens really did crash-land in Roswell, New Mexico

2. The Kennedy assassination was really a CIA plot.

3. The masons really are descendants of the Templar knights.

4. The masons really do pre-exist the 18th century.

5. Leonard Nimoy is really a Vulcan.

6. The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon

7. The Illuminati really are in charge of the United States and want to make a New World Order

8. 9/11 really is just a Zionist plot to attack muslims

9. Democrats really aren't communists and traitors

10. Islam really is a religion of peace

11. The CIA listens in on your juicy phone conversations about what to make for dinner and saying hi to your mom.

12. Hillary really did duck from sniper fire.

13. The early christians really did beleive in sola scriptura.

14. The fruits of Vatican II

15. The Pope really is the richest man on earth

16. The Inquisition killed millions of people.

17. The middle east really does respect Jimmy Carter

18. The pope condemned the Iraq war

19. The crusades were a bad thing

20. Catholic democrats can still be Catholic

21. George Soros really isn't the son of the devil.

22. Darwinism is true

23. Bill really didn't inhale.

24. John Kerry is a war hero

25. Michelle Obama really is proud to be an American

26. Wind and solar power are effective and efficient

27. The legalization and regulation of abortion has kept it safe and rare.

28. The CEO of Exxon/Moblile is the anti-Christ for making 13M dollars by destroying the planet, but Oprah is a saint for making 270m dollars providing the world with a precious resource.

29. AIDS is an equal-opportunity killer

30. Homosexuality is normal

Ok, I'll stop here, I'm having way too much fun.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

No Rest for the Wicked

I was alerted to a story that the senate was drafting a resolution welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the United States. And of course, the communist, treasonous, traitors known as the democratic party had a problem with it:

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., crafted a resolution "Welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the United States and recognizing the unique insights his moral and spiritual reflections bring to the world stage."

But when the resolution was circulated for approval of all the members, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., an outspoken "pro-choice" advocate, put on the brakes.

The offending language: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life."

A Boxer aide pointed specifically to the last 10 words of that sentence, saying it points directly to "pro-life" language.

Of course she'd have a problem with it. She's pro-death and that language is obviously pro-life. She makes it sound like she's opposing the 'rhetoric' but there is none. There is no reason to have a problem with the language. Unless you're admitting you don't value each and every human life...

And, like always, the Republican is asked to submi--er, compromise with the democrat, so the statement now stops at "weak and vulnerable". Wait! there's more:

Boxer also objected to another line that has since been changed.

The original line said: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties."

It was changed to: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty."

So, lemme get this straight. The Constitution doesn't protect freedom of religion in public nor recognizes the source of our rights and liberties?

Well, at least not in the People's Republic of Amerika aka liberal-la-la-land.

That article then goes on showing Boxer's gratitude for Brownback's willingness to compromise. I only saw him acquiesce to a pro-murder atheist. There was no compromise, only "If you don't do what I want I'll make a stink."

Leave it to democrats to have a problem with protecting "all"human life and acknowledging there is a source of authority higher than them and their unending jihad against religion.

Is there any doubt these guys are communists? Everything that was cut-out, the pope himself has said. More evidence that you cannot be democrat and a Catholic in good conscience. Any opportunity to spread their tripe and censor anyone who opposes them. You'd think they could let it go for the occaision. But I guess it was just too tempting.

No rest for the wicked.