Theological Concepts

Q&A: Can we represent God the Father as an “old man”?

March 13, 2019 By FrM

How does the commandment “YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . .” apply to images used in Christian art?

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,81,3 ad 3.

An excellent reflection by an artist on this subject can be found here:

Should We Paint God the Father?

Another article explaining the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching by the Seventh Day Adventists can be found here:

Graven Images: Altering the Commandments?

In Exodus 20:3-6 God forbids making graven images to worship in idolatry but does not forbid the making of all religious images. This is easily provable since He COMMANDS that they be created.

Read the following:
Num 21:4-9;
Wis 16:5-14;
Ex 25:10-22;
1 Kings 6:23-28;
1 Kings 7:23-26;
and Jn 3:14-15.

Other sources or references for further study are:

St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18,45: PG 32,149C
Council of Nicaea II: DS 601
Council of Trent: DS 1821-1825

CCT: Catechism of Council of Trent, Section: First Commandment

CCC: John Paul II’s Catechism of Catholic Church nn. 2129-2132 – though parts of this catechism contain error we refer to those parts that reflect normative Catholic teaching since this resource is more readily accessible to many of our readers.

Reflection on the Body after death (remains) and Relics

March 3, 2019 By FrM

“Venerating the remains of saints is seen by many as a bizarre throwback, impossible to justify to modern people. For while the tradition spans millennia, times and beliefs have shifted. In a world where science, we’re told, has explained everything, bodies hold neither mystery nor importance. They are modified and commodified, changeable and interchangeable, something to be transcended and replaced.”

Liturgical Catastrophe in 1969

June 28, 2017 By FrM

For nineteen centuries the things connected with the Church’s Liturgy were held more sacred than any other human possession. The Mass was the renewal of the one Sacrifice of the Cross, accomplished by His ordained priest acting “in the Person of Christ.” From that Mass might be communicated or reserved in a golden vessel the true Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus Christ; given to those fasting, and in the state of grace, and wearing their “Sunday best.” The Psalms chanted or recited for several hours a week; said without fail by cloistered religious in monasteries and convents, by busy priests in their churches or even on subway trains, were the “work of God.” There was a sense of the sacred about Catholic churches and establishments — perhaps a sense, and a smell, and a taste, and a touch, and a sight — all unmistakably pointing to something holy. Today, that pointer is missing, and perhaps the something holy is gone as well.

At the time of Vatican II there was a well developed “liturgical movement” comprised of people wanting to return to a greater degree of participation by the congregation in the Mass. The Vatican II declaration on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum concilium, appeared to be a reasonable step in that direction. Attention was paid to participation in the Mass, the Office, and the Gregorian Chant. The less frequently heard parts of the Mass could be read in the vernacular. Even such ideas as adapting the liturgy to the cultures of mission countries did not seem particularly dangerous at that time since no one could even conceive of a priest offering Mass in anything but a holy way. Laymen were enlisted to read the epistle, but that was actually less significant than using laymen as Mass servers, which had been done for centuries. Offertory processions were a novelty to most, as well as some altars that faced the congregation, but not all that traumatic. The abominable translations of the Epistles and Gospels caused some stir, but everyone assumed that they would be corrected. In 1965 various parts of the Mass were removed, and the “bidding prayers” inserted.¹

To my recollection, the first undeniable damage was done to the Mass around 1967, when the Canon of the Mass was translated into English and other vernacular languages. In sacred Scripture and in every Catholic (and non-Catholic) rite, the words of consecration indicate that the Precious Blood of Christ is “shed for [you and for] many unto the forgiveness of sins.”²
In every language that I know anything about, except Greek, the words of consecration were mis-translated with the identical, heretical phrase! Instead of saying “for many,” the phrase was rendered “for all men,” “por todos,” “fur alle,” “per tutti,” etc. The Catechism of the Council of Trent,³
some 400 years ago, specifically stated that we do not use such words in the Consecration, for while Christ did shed His Blood to redeem all mankind, not everyone’s sins are forgiven, and it is to forgiveness that our Lord referred at the Last Supper. The idea that all men are forgiven of their sins, or are otherwise saved is the heresy of “Universalism.”⁴
It is reasonable to suppose that someone who knowingly falsifies the meaning of our Lord’s words does not do what He does, and thus at least fails to consecrate the wine and perhaps does not celebrate Mass at all.

1969 brought the complete revision of the Mass known as the Novus Ordo Missae, or New Order of Mass. Composed with the help of six Protestant ministers, the Novus Ordo, and particularly its vernacular versions, minimizes the concept of sin and forgiveness, or that Mass is a sacrifice, or that there is a difference between the priest and the people. There is a great body of literature about its shortcomings, the best, in my opinion, being The Great Sacrilege by Father Wathen.⁵
A more “official” critique of the Novus Ordo was issued by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the former head of the Holy Office (today known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).⁶

The Ottaviani Intervention points out that the New Mass may be invalidly celebrated for another reason, beyond the mis-translations of the essential parts. The new missal refers to the “Narrative of the Institution” instead of the Consecration. Together with St. Thomas, Ottaviani holds that the intention to narrate is not the intention to consecrate.⁷
The term “narrative” appears to be intentional as the error is reiterated in the New Catechism.⁸

Gradual developments further reduced belief in the sacrificial nature of the Mass and in the Real Presence. Communion in the hand, lay distributors, altar girls, liturgical dancing, and so forth have combined to strip Catholics of their belief in the Sacred Mysteries. There are few vocations to the Sacred Priesthood because there is nothing Sacred anymore. Man now worships existentialist man, and not the Father of Heaven. Please note that I have cited only those abuses actually sanctioned by the Pope — there are a myriad of yet crazier practices that go on with at least the tacit approval of those in authority. And there are many more to come.

I have merely “scratched the surface” with my brief analysis of what has gone wrong in the New Mass and in the New Church. You may have noticed that the word “Latin” appears nowhere in these pages apart from this single occurrence. While much could be said about the loss of the traditional and universal language of the Church, I will refrain from doing so in order to put the lie to the Modernist contention that Traditionalists are upset about nothing more significant than the nostalgia associated with the use of an ancient tongue.

1. Instruction, Sacred Congregation of Rites, 26 September 1964.

2. Matthew 26, Mark 14. Luke 22 says only “for you.” John gives no account. 1 Corinthians 11 does not say.

3. Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests (1563) Part II, Chapter IV, Section 24.

4. Hans Urs von Balthasar, a proponent of Universalism was named Cardinal by Pope John Paul II but was struck dead the night before receiving the Red Hat. There are overtones of it in the CCC, #1058 for example; and in CTTOH, 186-7, where it is suggested that Hell is real but maybe Purgatory is adequate and nobody actually goes to Hell.

5.. James F. Wathen, OSJ, The Great Sacrilege (Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, 1971).

6. Alfredo Card. Ottaviani, Antonio Card. Bacci, and a Group of Roman Theologians, The Ottaviani Intervention (Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, 1971).

7. Ottaviani, ibid., page 44 and note 29 in the TAN edition; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 78, A. 5.

8. CCC #1353.

[Fr Brusca]

Religious Indifferentism

June 28, 2017 By FrM

Closely connected to the error of Religious Liberty is the error of Religious Indifferentism, the idea that all religions are of equal value or that it is permissible to just ignore the differences between them. Traditionally, the Church insisted that “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” Grant for the moment that there might have been some minor discussion about just who was “outside the Church,” and how much ignorance of the Church might excuse one from membership — but the adage was taken pretty literally. For example, the Council of Florence (1438-45) declared:

The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that “no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41) unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church.¹

An enormous body of Catholic literature exists, mirroring the pronouncement cited above; so large that the Modernists couldn’t just ignore it. But Vatican II adopted a truly ingenious way of changing this doctrine — it simply (!) redefined the Church:

This Church constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. (emphasis added)²

The difference between “subsists in the Catholic Church” and “is the Catholic Church” is considerable. “Subsistence” is an accidental relationship, possibly temporary; as if the Church of Christ might subsist somewhere else in the future or the past. Indeed, the terminology would allow the Church to “subsist” in various places, even simultaneously.

It gets better. I won’t bother with the obvious stuff about how we share so much in common with the Orthodox and the Protestants:

To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”; “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.³

I spoke of the Jews as our _elder brothers in the faith._ These words were an expression both of the Council’s teaching, and a profound conviction on the part of the Church.⁴

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.⁵

Thus in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry…. Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.⁶

Why should anyone be a Catholic? Wouldn’t it make more sense to find the religion one finds easiest or otherwise most appealing? Indeed, doesn’t being a Catholic constitute a liability to salvation, requiring the observance of all sorts of difficult rules not required of our separated brethren?

In addition to the theological problems caused by this Religious Indifference, there is a very practical one with regard to the Moslems. Western Civilization has been under siege by Islam for over a thousand years. Early on, they invaded Christian North Africa, whence they proceeded up the Iberian Peninsula as far as Tours and Poitiers in France before being beaten back in 711. They held Spain and Portugal for hundreds of years, not being completely expelled until 1492 after an eight-hundred year occupation. The Holy Lands were conquered, liberated and conquered again in the Middle Ages. By the 1500s Moslems had taken Turkey and represented a long term threat to Austria and Hungary. The fight continues in 1995 in the Balkans.

The Church celebrates Western triumphs over Islam in its feasts of Our Lady of the Rosary, Our Lady of Victories, and the Holy Name of Mary. But today we are told, “the believers in Allah are especially close to us,” and we are asked to follow the example of a fictional Poland, “a country of deeply rooted ecumenical traditions.”⁷ In reality, several hundred years ago, John Sobieski, the Polish general who liberated Vienna from the Moslems, said, “I came, I saw, and God conquered.”

1. Jesuit Fathers of St. Marys, The Church Teaches (Rockford: TAN, 1973), no. 165 (Council of Florence, decree for the Jacobites).

2. Lumen gentium #8.2.

3. The JPII Catechism of the Catholic Church, #839. Hereinafter referred to as CCC.

4. H.H. John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (NY: Knopf, 1994) p. 99. Hereinafter referred to as CTTOH.

5. Lumen gentium #16.

6. Nostra aetate #2.

7. CTTOH, pp. 91 & 145.

[Fr Brusca]

Religious Liberty

June 28, 2017 By FrM

Perhaps the primary error — because it comes so close to taking the heresy of Modernism and making it into a dogma of the new religion — is that of Religious Liberty. Traditionally, the Church holds that since It alone teaches the truth, all other religions represent a dangerous compromise with error. It forces no one to become a Catholic (you can’t control someone’s mind), but reserves the right to keep non-believers from spreading their errors and from publicly acting in accord with an incorrect moral code. (The discussion assumes that the Church is in a political position to say or do something about such matters.) To a modern American this sounds like a rerun of the Spanish Inquisition, but a little reflection will remind you that virtually all of the nations of the world functioned in this manner until very recently. Even here in these United States we had laws which regulated immoral acts like contraception, divorce, sodomy, abortion, and suicide — only in the past fifty years or so have they been eliminated or greatly liberalized.

Now you might, correctly, point out that even today the Church strongly disapproves of the immoral acts listed immediately above. In fact It does, but you will find a contradictory statement in Dignitatis humanae, the Vatican II declaration on Religious Liberty:

This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. (emphasis added) [6]

Now, the phrase “within due limits” and other statements that hold that the State may protect itself and its citizens from harm perpetrated in the name of religion might seem to make this statement harmless enough — but who defines the “due limits” in a society with religious liberty? certainly not the Catholic Church nor any other Christian body. At best the “due limits” might be determined by the Gallop Poll, but in practice such limits are usually determined by politicians, lobbyists, bankers, and lawyers. (e.g. Kennedy, Cuomo, Rockefeller, Earl Warren, etc.) And guess who decides which religions are or are not harmful to the public?

In Sacred Scripture the psalmist teaches that Christ is to be regarded as King in a literal manner:

The Lord said to Me: “Thou art My Son; this day I have begotten Thee. Ask of Me and I will give Thee the nations for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with an iron rod; Thou shalt shatter them like an earthen dish.” And now, O kings, give heed; take warning, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice before Him; with trembling pay homage to Him.[7]

Pope Pius XI in establishing the liturgical feast of Christ the King tells us that:

… it is of the Catholic Faith to believe that Jesus Christ has been given to men as Redeemer in whom we are to believe, and as a Lawgiver whom we are to obey…. Anyone would err gravely, on the other hand, who would take away from Christ as man the rule over civil affairs, since He has been given by the Father such complete power over created things that all are subject to His will.[8]

By the mid 1970s, the few remaining Catholic countries in the world amended their constitutions to conform to Vatican II and ceased being officially Catholic. Even the Vatican concordat with Italy was amended to reflect a change in the spiritual status previously enjoyed by the City of Rome.[9] This must have been particularly difficult in South American countries like Ecuador, previously a republic dedicated in its Constitution to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; or Argentina, where the Blessed Virgin Mary was legally Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. (Guess which formerly Catholic continent is rapidly becoming Protestant, and which Armed Force got “creamed” by Queen Elizabeth’s troops after losing their Commander in Chief.)