Archbishop Condemns Schismatic "American Catholic Council"

Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The U.S. Catholic Church is in immediate peril! There is a significant threat of schism looming in Detroit. For some time now 'The Catholic Knight' blog has warned of a significant threat to Church unity in the United States. Those warnings can be read here, here, and here. Now the Archbishop of Detroit has also seen the threat and acted accordingly.

The threat comes from Progressive Modernists within the U.S. Catholic Church. These are "Catholics" who view the Second Vatican Council as some kind of watershed event, a rupture with historic Catholicism, and a license to go forward with various "reforms" and innovations all in the name of the "Spirit of Vatican II." These people, both clergy and laity, have ruled over various parishes and dioceses in the United States like dictators. They've suppressed those who clamored for a return to tradition and promoted those who abused the liturgy and twisted Church doctrine. Their height of power was in the decades immediately following the Second Vatican Council (1970s - 1990s). Now that their influence is beginning to wane under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, these liberal dissenters of the historic Church have seen the writing on the wall. They know their days are numbered, and so in a desperate attempt to preserve what they have worked so long for, and re-energize a new generation with their heretical zeal, these people are now attempting to create a rival council to the pope and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. It's called the American Catholic Council (or ACC), and it's first meeting is scheduled for June 10-12 of 2011 at the Detroit Convention Center and Detroit Marriott Renaissance Center.

In response, Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron has issued the following statement condemning the American Catholic Council. Here are the highlights...

(Archdiocese of Detroit) - ...Although their stated purpose is to "respond to the Spirit of Vatican II by summoning the Baptized together to demonstrate our re-commitment and the documents issued by the American Catholic Council offer some valid aspirations for the Church, in fact, the goals proposed are largely in opposition to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the Holy Spirit, which inspired the Council.

The archdiocese wishes to commend and embrace all true efforts at Church renewal - the American Church Council's agenda is not such an effort. Some of the advertised speakers and groups organizing the effort espouse positions which are clearly contrary to Catholic faith, leading to alienation and estrangement from the Church. The Archdiocese of Detroit cautions any Catholic against participating in the American Catholic Council local listening sessions and national gathering in June 2011. Catholic parishes, schools, and institutions are not to host any meetings, gatherings, or "listening sessions" associated with the planning of the June 2011 American Catholic Council. Priests, deacons, and ecclesial lay ministers will want to avoid lending support to such a misguided effort. On behalf of the archdiocese, Archbishop Vigneron has asked the organizers to cancel their plans for this national gathering that distorts the true Spirit of Vatican II. He asks us all to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit so that we may embrace authentic development of faith and morals, and shun efforts which threaten unity.

read full statement here

The Catholic Knight wishes to publicly thank the good archbishop for this strong stand against the American Catholic Council. Indeed, he had to respond this way, as the event is being hosted in his own backyard.  Anything less than what was mentioned above might have been viewed as cowardly acceptance of the "council's" mission.  The good archbishop rose to the occasion and courageously defended his diocese from this threat.  What is needed now is a nationwide response, from every Catholic bishop in the United States, to put down this schism before it has time to spread. 

These people are the final result of a three-decade long experiment in leniency and innovation.  The so-called "Spirit of Vatican II," which takes upon itself initiatives not called for by the Second Vatican Council,  has reached it's ultimate conclusion - SCHISM!  This schism however, does not come without a list of heresies to accompany it.  It is a list that I dare say nearly half of all baptized Catholics in the United States, who's consciences having been dulled by three decades of poor catechesis and liturgical innovation, will most certainly find appealing.  It is a list that I fear will soon hit mainstream, and reverberate throughout this nation, pealing one parish after another away from the magisterium of the Church.

What these people in the American Catholic Council want has already been invented.  The structures they advocate already exist.  It's called The Episcopal Church.  Likewise, once the ACC gets off the ground, it will simply be reinventing the wheel, and the results of this wheel will be identical to those found in The Episcopal Church (or TEC), namely female clergy, gay clergy, gay marriages, acceptance of abortion and birth control, as well as the embrace of Socialism in the form of "Liberation Theology."  Some form of unification between the ACC and the TEC will likewise be inevitable, especially after those adhering to the ACC have been excommunicated from the U.S. Catholic Church.

Sadly, there is virtually a 0% chance that the ACC meeting in June will be canceled.  Though the good archbishop's stand against the organization was strong, there was not much he could do outside of banning his own people from being a part of it, and prohibiting diocesan property from being used for it.  However, the ACC never intended to use diocesan property, and the good archbishop cannot restrict people outside his archdiocese from attending.  That's another reason why we need a nationwide condemnation from all the U.S. Catholic Bishops before it's too late.  Mark my words, these people will meet, and they will promote heresy.  Likewise they will grow to lead others away from the magisterium of the Church.  The only variable that exists is "how big" will their movement become.  Strong nationwide action against it now will pull a lot of wind out of their sails.  Failure to act now will only result in larger repercussions later.  For the sake of unity and orthodoxy within the U.S. Catholic Church, let us pray our bishops act quickly.

The Chapel Veil Campaign

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Starting in Advent 2011, the U.S. Catholic Church is to begin its long awaited, and much anticipated, liturgical reforms of the English mass. The new translation, demanded by the Vatican, will reflect a much more accurate rendering of the official Latin version of the Novus Ordo liturgy issued by Rome nearly 40 years ago. (You can download a PDF of the new English mass HERE.) This marks a major shift in the American Church toward a more traditional and orthodox approach to the liturgy. You can read more about the coming changes here.

Some women have expressed to 'The Catholic Knight' a desire to return to the time honored custom of wearing the chapel veil during mass, and see the coming liturgical changes as a perfect opportunity to do this. Returning to this tradition will serve to further reinforce the message that the Catholic Church is the same today as it was yesterday, and the time honored customs of the Church have not died out, but on the contrary, live and breath through a new generation of Catholic women.

Sacred Scripture presents several reasons for wearing the chapel veil. St. Paul tells us in his first letter to the Corinthians (11:1-16) that Christian women must cover their heads because it is a Sacred Tradition commanded by our Lord Himself and entrusted to Paul: "The things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments" (1 Cor. 14:37). "That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels" wrote St. Paul (1 Cor. 11:10). The invisible hierarchy should be respected because the angels are present at all Christian assemblies during worship, offering the Holy Sacrifice with us according to the honor due to God. St. John the Apostle wrote: "And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense that he might offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne." (Rev. 8:3, see also Matt. 18:10). They are offended by a lack of reverence at mass. The women of Corinth, beset by modern sensibilities, started coming to church without their heads covered. When St. Paul heard of their neglect, he wrote and urged them to keep the veil. According to St. Jerome's commentary Bible, he finally settled the matter by saying the head covering was a custom of the primitive communities of Judea, "the Churches of God" (1 Thess. 2-14, 2 Thess. 1-4) which had received this Tradition from early times (2 Thess., 2:15, 3:6). The “veil” represented modesty in many religions and cultures, especially in Judaism which was the cradle of the early Christian Church. A veil or head covering, is both a symbol and a mystical sacrifice that invites the woman wearing it to ascend the ladder of sanctity. When a woman covers her head in the Catholic Church it symbolizes her dignity and humility before God. It should not surprise us why so many modern women have so easily abandoned the tradition of the chapel veil (head covering) when the greatest meaning of the veil is modesty. It is purely an anti-Catholic culture that frowns on modesty. Do not be deceived, it was Secular feminism (a militantly anti-Catholic movement), that shunned Catholic women for wearing the chapel veil, telling them that a male dominated Church seeks to repress them. Such lunacy was nothing more than a lie straight from hell. If it were true, women would have been instructed to veil in the presence of men, but that is not the case at all. Both Sacred Scripture and previous canon law instructed women to veil in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (not men), and particularly during the public prayer of the holy mass. The veil is a sign of modesty before our Eucharistic Lord. It is NOT a sign of male dominance. You can learn more about the custom of the chapel veil and what it means here.

'The Chapel Veil Campaign' is accompanied by a survey poll which can be viewed at the top of this blog. 'The Catholic Knight' requests that all you Catholic ladies out there review this material and prayerfully consider it. Then cast your vote in the accompanying poll to express your support for The Chapel Veil Campaign. Your vote of support will help other Catholic women muster the courage to do the same. The idea is to encourage young Catholic women all over the English-speaking world to put away the rebellion of the 1970s "hippy" generation, and start wearing the chapel veil again.

In the United States, the new English translation of the liturgy is currently scheduled to go into effect in Advent of 2011. That's because the US Catholic bishops no longer have permission from the Vatican to celebrate the "defective" English translation of the Novus Ordo mass we've been using since the 1970s. Since permission to celebrate it has been revoked, the US Catholic bishops will be unable to delay the transition anymore.

The return of the chapel veil, along with the liturgical renewal in the English translation of the mass, will send a clear and definite signal to the world that English-speaking Catholics have not lost the time-honored traditions of our sacred Catholic faith.

Please pass this message on by sending a Chapel Veil Campaign link to friends and family...
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/12/chapel-veil-campaign.html

'The Catholic Knight' welcomes your comments...

Related Stories...

• Are You Shy About Wearing The Chapel Veil?
  
• Christian Dignity of Women
• The Chapel Veil Campaign
• Overwhelming Support for the Chapel Veil!
• Feminist Bullies In The Catholic Church
  
• The Chapel Veil - Veiling or Head Covering - Fully Explained
• Wearing The Chapel Veil
• Wear Your Mantilla with Pride!
• Younger Nuns Are Getting Back Into The Habit
  
• Prayer Shawls - A Sign of Class, Beauty and Courage
• Does Veiling Bring Respect?
  
• Chapel Veil Retailers

An Interview With Fr. Jeffery Fasching

Bishop James V. Johnston assists Father Jeffery Fasching during
the Traditional Latin Mass at St. Agnes Cathedral in Springfield Missouri.
Sunday, May 9th 2010

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The following is an exclusive interview of Father Jeffery Fasching by The Catholic Knight (TCK). It is a followup to his article entitled Young Priest Discovers Renewal In Old Rite. Father Jeff Fasching serves as pastor for the Latin Mass Community at St. Agnes Cathedral in Springfield Missouri.

--------------------
TCK: Father Fasching, first I want to thank you for your service to the Church and for granting this interview. It is a pleasure and an honor to share this time with you.

Fasching: You're very welcome for the interview. It is my pleasure to have the opportunity to address some questions regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I am truly humbled that you have taken an interest in the ministry God has bestowed upon me.

TCK: In your article you indicated a general renewal in your approach to the liturgy and the eucharist by learning the traditional Latin mass, also known as the "Tridentine," Extraordinary Form and Usus Antiquior (or "ancient use") mass. Would you like to elaborate on this?

Fasching: I indicated in my previous article that I have experienced somewhat of a "spiritual renewal" in my approach to the Liturgy and the Eucharist through becoming familiar with the Traditional Latin Mass. Up until less than a year ago, all I had known for the thirteen years I have been ordained was the Novus Ordo mass. When a brother priest and some mutual friends introduced me to Summorum Pontificum in the fall of 2009, an excitement came over me I had not felt in quite some time. Part of this excitement was due to my first-hand experience of many priests taking unnecessary liberties with the liturgy. For example, I was once asked in an RCIA class by a priest to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass while simultaneously pausing to explain the various parts of the Mass to the class! This is common practice for many priests. I don't believe it is necessary here for me to explain why this is inappropriate. The point is that Summorum Pontificum made it clear to me that our Holy Father's desire is to restore a sense of the sacred to the Liturgy that has been sadly lost over the past few decades: "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too...It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

I was also thrilled because it occurred to me that so many saintly priests throughout the ages offered the Holy Sacrifice with the Traditional Latin Mass using exactly the same gestures and words that I would soon come to know myself. As soon as I began to learn the Traditional Latin Mass, I immediately experienced a growing bond toward my favorite saint, John Marie Vianney. Not only was our Holy Father encouraging priests to learn the Traditional Latin Mass, but he was also proclaiming John Vianney patron of all priests! God chose to manifest the dignity and essence of the priesthood of Jesus Christ in this humble priest. Saint John Marie Vianney exemplifies what every priest, whether diocesan or religious, should strive and aspire to be. Since I so often fall short of this ideal, I thought at least I could do one thing exactly the same way my favorite saint used to!

I knew that other modern-day saints, such as Padre Pio and JoseMaria Escriva said the ancient Mass as well. There was obviously a reason for this. Despite what some see as a disfigured image of the priesthood today, the priesthood of Jesus Christ remains timeless and magnificent in its essence. In this age the priesthood is in dire need of reform and renewal. Summorum Pontificum is a large part of the answer to this renewal because it helps to restore unity to our Lex orandi (Law of prayer.)

Learning the Traditional Latin Mass has also enriched my personal prayer life. For example, each day for me begins with at least one hour of Eucharistic adoration (praying before the Blessed Sacrament exposed.) When I anticipate offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form as I pray before our Lord, I experience an almost indescribable bond with the Tradition of Holy Mother the Church. I believe this bond comes from realizing that I will confect the Eucharist following the exact same rubrics that so many other saints much holier than myself have done before me. I feel an unmistakable unity with the Church Triumphant through the Liturgy and the Eucharist.

TCK: Some readers of TCK blog have requested clarification on your views of the Novus Ordo (new order) or Ordinary Form mass. They wish to know if you view the Ordinary Form, when properly celebrated, as somehow deficient or incapable of transmitting the same graces as the Extraordinary Form. How would you answer this?

Fasching: I appreciate the concern of many of your readers regarding the notion that the Novus Ordo Mass is in some way deficient when it comes to transmitting graces when compared to the Traditional Latin Mass. I don't believe this at all! We are speaking of two forms of the very same rite. Let's review the Church's teaching on this subject that dates way back to the fourth century.

When a sacrament is celebrated according to the norms of the Church and in faith, the Church believes that it confers the grace it signifies. While a human being is the minister of the sacrament, Christ Himself is the one who is at work: Christ baptizes, Christ confirms, Christ absolves, Christ changes the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, etc. Acting in His sacraments, Christ communicates the grace-that sharing in the divine life and love of God-offered through each sacrament. (Catechism no. 1127-28.)

Therefore, the Church has taught that the sacraments act ex opere operato that is "by the very fact of the action’s being performed." The efficacy of the sacrament does not depend upon the human minister- whether a bishop, priest, deacon or layperson. Nevertheless, priests must strive always to be worthy ministers of the sacraments they celebrate, acting in a state of grace and reflecting the Christ in whose person they act.

The faithful need to pray for their priests that they will have the grace to lead holy lives and persevere in their sacred vocation. We must not forget the thousands upon thousands of priests and religious who have devoted their lives to the Lord and the Church, but never have received media attention for their good work.

In many places, the image of the Catholic priesthood is in disarray. Many priests are discouraged by the failings of a few of their brother priests. Some are even afraid or ashamed to wear the clerical collar out of fear of what people will think or say. We live in the midst of troubled times. Our Holy Father is being persecuted and so are many of us. However, the Church will be purged and purified. As a result, we will have a stronger, holier Church in the end. Graces will flow from both forms of the same rite, but priests who put on the mind of our Holy Father and strive to lead holy lives will more quickly help the Church reach her destiny.

TCK: I know this may seem like a silly question, but as a "Traditional priest" do you accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as they were written?

Fasching: As a Traditional priest, I absolutely accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as they are written. I would like to take this opportunity to focus on one particular statement resulting from the Second Vatican Council:

"And so I (Pope John Paul, II) desire that all of you should, with me, find in Mary the Mother of the priesthood which we have received from Christ...among the people of God which look to Mary with immense love and hope, you must look to her with exceptional love and hope. Indeed it is your task to proclaim Christ, her Son. And who can better communicate to you the truth about Him than His Mother? It is your task to nourish men's hearts with Christ. And who can make you more aware of what you are doing than she who nourished Him? Hail, true Body, born of the Virgin Mary. There is a wonderful dimension to our ministerial priesthood: it places us near the Mother of Christ." (Vol. 2, p. 360)

Mary is the Mother and the Queen of Priests. It has been God's divine plan to will to become incarnate and to become a priest with and only with the previous consent and cooperation of His Blessed Mother. I, in turn, would not have become her child and a priest of God unless she willed it and chose to adopt me as her son. I am so happy and grateful to belong to the Blessed Virgin Mary by her personal choice and by an immutable and eternal decree of our Heavenly Father. Christ loves His Mother more than all other creatures together. I believe He wishes me, His other self, to love her even as He has loved her. This I strive to do.

Although Christ is God, He willed while on earth to receive everything through His Blessed Mother. He made known all His needs to her and addressed to her all His requests. I try to do the same. God is infinitely good and powerful and Christ is ready to give me everything as His priest, but He will not do so without receiving a sign from His Immaculate Mother.

Mary is the distributor and the Mediatrix of all graces. Since Christ willed to be entirely dependent upon His Mother as a tiny infant, I believe in order to please Christ I must also have that same humble and loving subjection. I try not to undertake anything without her or her council and I strive to always ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to enlighten me.

Since Christ also willed to have her consent not only to receive human life, but also to lay it down on the Cross, I also try to pay her the homage of my entire priestly life, all my activity, my joys, and my suffering. The Blessed Virgin Mary gave Christ His human existence and offered Him to God as a holocaust at the foot of the Cross. She is invisibly present at every Mass I offer and she continues with me, her priestly son, to offer Christ as a Victim to God.

TCK: In your article you highlighted the connection between holy mass and Eucharistic adoration. In the Western Church today, it would seem there is not only a mental disconnect on this, but a casual approach toward the Eucharist in general. By this I mean communion in the hand while standing for example. The Holy Father has sought to restore the traditional custom of receiving the Eucharist while kneeling and on the tongue. This of course is standard practice in the traditional Latin mass, and has now become the standard practice in all papal liturgies as well. Do you believe this practice should be promoted in the modern vernacular mass too, and could you elaborate on this?

Fasching: I do believe that the practice of receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue should be promoted and practiced at all times because it better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful, and lends itself more easily to the sense of sacredness and mystery. The above are some of the ideas that have been lost over recent decades, particularly in the Novus Ordo Mass.

As a former athlete who played football and basketball in college and an avid runner, I am well aware of the strength needed in one’s knees to perform certain tasks. Knees are symbolic of both strength and humility. What we do with our knees gives evidence of what we believe in our hearts. When we genuflect before Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, we express what matters most in our lives. In the Acts of the Apostles we are told that Saint Peter "knelt down and prayed" (9:40), and that Saint Paul "knelt down and prayed with them all" (20:36). One of my favorite scripture passages that gives the strongest theological foundation for kneeling is found in Saint Paul's Letter to the Philippians, 2:6-11, where Saint Paul writes: "…at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father".

I believe that the most respectful manner of receiving the Eucharist is kneeling and on the tongue. When we enter a Eucharistic adoration chapel we kneel down to pray. Why would we not want to kneel when actually receiving the very flesh and blood of our Lord? We must recover the respect and reverence that the Eucharist deserves by our external actions because I believe our inward souls are at stake.

TCK: It seems there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the Church between contemporary and traditional Catholics. That misunderstanding sometimes leads to unnecessary hostility between them. Perhaps this comes from a misplaced fear of the unknown, or perhaps the false notion that all Traditional Catholics seek to "take the Church back in time." What do you think might eliminate some of this unnecessary hostility and misunderstanding?

Fasching: There does seem to be a prevailing notion that Traditional Catholics want to "take the Church back in time." This is based on a common lack of understanding of the mind of our Holy Father. Pope Benedict has reminded us that the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form are two forms of the same rite and are co-equal:

"The usus antiquior is not a museum piece but a living expression of Catholic worship...what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred for us too...It is a treasure that belongs to the whole Catholic Church and which should be widely available to all of Christ's faithful...It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer and to give them their proper place."

Some common misunderstandings with respect to Vatican II include the following:

The priest facing the people was not introduced by Vatican II. It became the unwritten practice in the Novus Ordo mass without any directives from Vatican II or by the Missal of 1969. Cardinal Ratzinger said in The Spirit of the Liturgy that the priest in facing the congregation is tempted “to be an actor.” The Mass is not a performance, therefore applause is inappropriate. The Mass is a sacrifice and must transcend the personality of the priest.

The official language of the Novus Ordo is Latin and the Mass may be celebrated either in Latin or in English. The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not called for by Vatican II. This sprang up as an abuse and was subsequently accepted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1977 by a slim majority. This indult can be withdrawn at any time.

The Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict making the Traditional Mass more available should be viewed as “reform of the reform,” a renewal of the Church began by liturgical renewal. The vast majority of the thousands of bishops at the Council neither wished for, nor mandated, a radical reform of the liturgy. It was never the intention to abandon the use of Latin or to require the celebrant to face the people. Nothing had been said about standing to receive Communion in the hand, or the use of altar girls. No mention had been made about the use of multiple Canons. In the Roman rite there had always been one Eucharistic prayer. The many changes in the liturgy were for the most part made after Vatican II. Interpretation of the Council’s intent was motivated by what became known as “the Spirit of Vatican II.”

The most grievous change following Vatican II was the loss of reverence. As a result, consciousness of the Real Presence has diminished. The Traditional Latin Mass helps restore this loss of reverence and sense of the real presence due to its contemplative nature. It is surrounded by silence. There is clear emphasis on the Mass as the same sacrifice Christ offered on Calvary, although in a bloodless manner. Every gesture by the priest, the signs of the cross, the genuflections, are strictly controlled by the rubrics. There is nothing spontaneous. In fact our Holy Father has said that the greatness of the liturgy depends on its lack of spontaneity. The Mass is designed to be an elaborate ritual of “time outside of time.”

The Holy Father has emphasized that through the Motu Proprio he wishes to enrich the liturgy of the whole of the Church and not merely to protect the right of those who prefer the ancient form. Pope Benedict’s point in making the Traditional Latin Mass more widely available is neither nostalgic nor “taking us back.” Rather, by encouraging the more widespread celebration of this classic form of Roman rite, he intends to create a kind of liturgical magnet, drawing ‘the reform of the reform’ in the direction of greater solemnity and reverence in the Catholic Church’s worship.”

TCK: Once again I would like to thank you for the privilege of speaking with you, and for granting us this interview. May God bless you in the work you are doing for the Diocese of Springfield - Cape Girardeau.

Fasching: Thank you Catholic Knight for granting me this interview and for all you do in the battle against relativism in the Church. I hope to speak with you in the near future.

When Can A Priest Say The Traditional Latin Mass?

(Telegraph) - Good news from Rome: the Vatican has further underlined the freedom of priests to celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form whenever they choose. Two important points have been clarified by Ecclesia Dei, which will make it more difficult for the English, Welsh and above all Scottish bishops to stall the implementation of Summorum Pontificum:

1. A priest does NOT have to be approached by a “stable group” of the faithful in order to schedule a PUBLIC celebration of the Extraordinary Form – he may choose to do so, for example, in order to introduce his parishioners to this ancient form of the Roman Rite. Or because it’s his aunt’s birthday. Any reason, really.

2. A Mass in the Extraordinary Form may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the Ordinary Form.

You can find more details of the Ecclesia Dei ruling here, on the excellent New Liturgical Movement blog....

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Rome has spoken again. While rebel priests and bishops from all over the western world seek new ways to twist canon law and thwart the pope's will, the Vatican has now ruled the following. Any Roman Rite Catholic priest may celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass (Tridentine mass, Extraordinary Form or Usus Antiquior) or "Ancient Use" at any time, whenever he wants, for any reason, or no particular reason at all. It can be done privately (with or without guests), or publicly, and it may replace any ordinary mass at any time. The one and only requirement is that the priest be competent to celebrate it, and there are many means through which a priest may attain competency, either through training videos or short workshops.

Pope Benedict XVI has effectively given the Usus Antiquior ("Ancient Use") just as much freedom in the modern Church as the ordinary modern mass. This freedom will prove essential to younger priests, just coming out of the seminaries, who tend to be more traditional in their liturgical practices, and will immediately be confronted by retro-1970s priests serving as rectors, chancellors and bishops. The retro-1970s clergy tend to express an open hostility toward the Usus Antiquior and/or anything having to do with traditional liturgical practices. For years now, young priests have found themselves immediately immersed in a culture of intimidation if they should display any traditional tendencies in diocesan parishes. "When you're fresh out of the seminary, and trying to please your superiors, there is tremendous pressure to just go along with the flow and maintain the status quo" said one newly ordained priest to 'The Catholic Knight' under condition of anonymity.

That "pressure" may still be there, but the "power" of these retro-1970s throwbacks to do any harm has now been significantly diminished. Young priests, fresh out of the seminaries, can now offer the Usus Antiquior whenever they want, and while they may incur the frowns and glares of their superiors, there is nothing they can lawfully do to stop them anymore. This most recent act by the Vatican signifies that the retro-1970s post-conciliar neopriests are now finally being put out to pasture.

Married Christians Less Likely To Divorce If They Practice Catholicism

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Most statistics indicate that the overall divorce rate in the United States, among all people, religious or non-religious, is about 40% to 60%. The range is based on an average between first marriages, second marriages and third marriages. A first marriage has about a 50% chance at survival in the United States. Chances of survival go down with each consecutive marriage.

Now based on this information, and the statistical graph above, we can instantly see that the practice of any Christian religion does significantly help the survival chances for a marriage. Case in point; if the married Christian couple practices Catholic or Lutheran Christianity, the divorce rate is about 21%, which indicates the marriage has about a 79% chance at survival. If the married Christian couple practices Baptist Christianity, the divorce rate is about 29%, which indicates the marriage has about a 71% chance at survival. If the married Christian couple practices one of the new trendy "nondenominational" forms of Christianity, the divorce rate is about 34%, which indicates the marriage has about a 66% chance at survival.

What I find interesting about these statistics is that the more "ancient" and "traditional" the form of Christianity, the more likely a marriage is to survive. Granted, these are statistics, and based on an overall picture. We cannot apply them to each and every individual couple, and of course, there are always exceptions to every statistical rule. However, when we're looking at odds alone, we find that the best chance a marriage has at survival, in our incredibly decadent culture, is for the couple to practice some form of Christianity. However, of all the different forms of Christianity, Catholicism is one of two that is MOST LIKELY to increase the chances of a marriage survival. The only Protestant form of Christianity that compares is Lutheranism.

Married Priests In The Catholic Church

A Married Priest With His Wife And Children

(Rorate Caeli) - Very interesting answers in this lengthy interview granted by the leader of the Traditional Anglican Communion, Primate John Hepworth, to The Australian Inquirer...

Married Priests:

Inquirer: How do the Pope's proposals mesh the Latin celibate discipline for all clergy with Anglicanism's longstanding acceptance of married priests and bishops?

JH: Bishops in the new Anglican structure will be unmarried. This is out of respect for the tradition of Eastern and Western Christianity. But priests who come from Anglicanism will be able to serve as priests in the new structure, whether married or not, after satisfying certain requirements. The truly radical element is that married men will be able to be ordained priests in the Anglican structure indefinitely into the future...

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The concept of married Catholic priests (under the Anglican Ordinariates) poses no threat to my Traditional Catholic sensibilities whatsoever, and here is the reason why. The Catholic Church has had married priests in the United States for literally DECADES! The first class come from former protestant ministers, usually Anglican, already married who seek to become Catholic priests. In most cases, the Church has granted this. The second class is this...

(PG News) - Saturday, October 02, 1999
By Ann Rodgers-Melnick, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

The Vatican has cautiously opened the door to the ordination of married men as Byzantine Catholic priests in the United States.

The change comes as the Metropolitan Byzantine Archdiocese of Pittsburgh prepares to celebrate its 75th anniversary tomorrow at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, Downtown. But the new law is not a full return to the church's practice of 75 years ago, when Rome's permission was not needed.

A set of newly approved canon laws for the archdiocese permits bishops to submit the names of married candidates to Rome for approval on a case-by-case basis....

read full story here

Here we see that Rome has allowed married men in the United States to become Byzantine Catholic priests for exactly ten years now. All of this comes with no shock or disruption to the Catholic Church in North America. The key here is rites. By that I mean liturgical rites. In the western world we are most familiar with the Roman Rite, however the Catholic Church actually consists of many rites. There are four primary rites in the Catholic Church, all of them recognizing the Bishop of Rome as the sovereign pontiff. Each primary rite has other rites that may have sprang forth from it, but primary rites form the main groups. These four primaries are the Roman Rite, Antiochian Rite, Alexandrian Rite and Byzantine Rite. All of them are 100% Catholic. All of them are in full apostolic communion with the pope (who is head of the Roman Rite). All of them make up the Catholic Church. Yet only one of them has mandated celibacy of all it's clerics, and that is the Roman Rite.

Celibacy has always been practiced in Christianity by those who were able to practice it. Jesus Christ himself was celibate, as was the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Paul, the apostle who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament. St. Paul encouraged celibacy among all those clergy who were able to practice it. However, the first pope, St. Peter, was married, as were a number of bishops in the early Catholic Church. Christianity has always placed high value on both marriage and celibacy as two different ways of practicing chastity. Though celibacy was preferred among the clergy as a way of fostering total devotion to care of the Christian flock. As St. Paul put it, the married man strives to please God and his wife, while the celibate man strives only to please God. It wasn't until the early second millennium (1100's) that celibacy was mandated of all clerics exclusively in the Roman Rite. This mandate did not apply to other rites within the Catholic Church. Any charge that the Catholic Church banned marriage from all clergy is spurious to say the least, as married Catholic men have always been allowed to become priests in the other Catholic rites. However, it had been the custom within all rites for some time to restrict the office of bishop to celibate men alone. This is not to say that a married man couldn't be a bishop. It's just that it hasn't been the custom of any Catholic rite to allow this for some time, and that is not likely to change.

The crisis that erupted in the Protestant Anglican Communion during the late 1970s led some Anglican clergy to seek refuge in the Catholic Church, and among them were married Anglican priests. So in the early 1980s, Pope John Paul II created a "Pastoral Provision" in the Roman Rite that would allow married Anglican priests to be ordained as Roman Catholic priests and continue to practice their Anglican customs. This was essentially an experiment to see if married clergy (operating under an "Anglican Use" pastoral provision) would coexist well among a predominately celibate priesthood within the Roman Rite. The experiment proved to be a success, in that these married priests proved to be just as faithful and devoted as celibate priests within their limited capacity as married men. Ironically, they often proved to be more conservative, more orthodox, and more traditional than the average number of celibate priests throughout the United States. This is not to say that marriage makes one more conservative, orthodox or traditional, but rather demonstrates that marriage does not in any way detract from these things. In other words, married men make just as good priests as celibate men, thought admittedly, married men do not have as much time for their priestly duties. So if you're looking for quantity of ministry, celibacy is definitely the way to go, but if you're looking for quality of ministry, there really is no measurable difference between married and celibate.

As the Anglican Ordinariates are organized and grow, we can expect a larger number of married Catholic priests operating under this pastoral provision of the Roman Rite. What does that mean? Well in essence, it means the Catholic priesthood will be much more accessible to married men in the years ahead. Granted, it's always been available through the eastern rites, but this is the first time in a thousand years when it will be widely available to Catholic men in the Roman Rite (under Anglican Ordinariates). In practical application however, I wouldn't expect a flood of married men applying to the priesthood. There are still many strictures that make the priesthood difficult for married men even under an Anglican Ordinariate. For starters, probably the biggest obstacle is money. Married men tend to need a lot more of it then celebrate men, and the Church is not likely to provide a higher salary to married priests at risk of discrimination against celibate priests. So married priests will have to work on the side to bring home the bacon, now splitting his obligation three ways between ministry, family and job. Either that, or his wife is going to have to go out and work. However, a married priest would be just as obligated to obey the Church's teachings on contraception, so he is likely to have at least a few children and possibly more. That being the case, we're talking about more money and less time for ministry. All and all, the Church is getting less bang for it's buck with married priests, and I'm sure that played a role in the Church's initial decision to mandate celibacy in the Roman Rite nearly a thousand years ago.

I should point out that this is just one pastoral provision within the Roman Rite. It is not the entire Roman Rite itself. In many ways, the whole Anglophone world has just become a laboratory. It's a repeat of the experiment done with Anglican Use priests in the United States thirty years ago, but this time on a much grander scale. It doesn't apply to the Spanish-speaking world on the same level, nor the French-speaking world, etc. It mainly applies to the English-speaking (Anglophone) world and who knows where it will lead? One thing is certain. English speaking Catholics have been clamoring for married priests for decades. Now they're going to get it, though perhaps not the way they expected, and certainly with no hint of sacrificing traditional Catholic orthodoxy.  If anything, they should expect incoming married priests to be more traditional and conservative than many of their celibate counterparts.  At least that's what the trend has been so far.

Pope Calls Upon ALL Catholics - "Kneel For Communion"

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The directives have already been issued, the example has been set, the call has been made. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, is calling upon all Catholic laity to boldly and obediently kneel for communion, and receive on the tongue, regardless of what the normal practices are in your local parish. Future decrees on this may be made public at a future date, but the Holy Father is calling upon the lay faithful to begin acting now. No priest or bishop has the authority to stop you, lecture you, or deny you communion for this. From now on, anyone who kneels before the Blessed Sacrament, and receives on the tongue, is not only showing proper adoration to our Eucharistic Lord, but is also demonstrating obedience to the Holy Father. Of course, people with physical infirmities that prevent them from kneeling are exempt, but they can still receive on the tongue as a sign of adoration and obedience.

(News Blaze) - Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, the pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.

The Holy Father's reasoning is simple: "We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God." (May 22, 2008)

According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. "Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today" (May 22, 2008)...

read full story here

Catholic Men Should Be Knights Not Masons

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The Knights of Columbus, of which I am a 4th degree member, is a fraternal Catholic order with a membership of some 1.7 million men. It is designed primarily to serve the Catholic Church, and secondarily the men who are members, by providing a means and conduit through which they may help each other, their families, the Church and third-party charities. The Knights of Columbus also provides life insurance policies to it's members and uses the proceeds to benefit the Catholic Church in various ways.

The Knights of Columbus was founded by The Venerable Father Michael J. McGivney in New Haven, Connecticut on August 2, 1881. His primary motivation was to organize a mutual benefit society to assist widows and orphans of families who had lost their primary bread winner. Life in the late 1800s was extremely harsh for Catholic immigrant families in the United States. During that time discrimination made it difficult for a Catholic man to get a good job. Catholics were regularly excluded from labor unions. Local charities and benefit organizations also frequently excluded Catholics. Catholics were also disenfranchised politically, as it was nearly impossible to get a Catholic elected to government office. Most Catholic men were forced to work in coal mines, sweat shops and ship yards, where they were subjected to harsh labor, poor working conditions, and less then minimum wage. As a result, many Catholic husbands and fathers lived short lives. The one organization well established in America, which could potentially help them, was Freemasonry. Unfortunately, Freemasonry had a strong religious/occult element that challenged the Catholic Church's claim of absolute truth revealed through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Because of this, Freemasonry was soundly condemned by the Catholic Church. In addition to that, the Church also had significant political problems with Freemasonry in Europe.

These things prohibited Catholic men from joining the Freemasons under penalty of excommunication. In the late 1800s, this put many Catholic men in the terrible situation of having to choose between the Church and the welfare of their families. The Venerable Father McGivney sought to create a Catholic men's organization that would allow men to pool their resources, talents and energies for the common good and for the sake of their families, but he sought to do so without the religious/occult element that earned Freemasonry the scorn of the Catholic Church.

So the Knights of Columbus was formed under the ancient precepts of medieval chivalry, paralleling in some ways the degree programs used by the Freemasons, but without the unchristian oaths and occult rituals. The Vatican prohibition against Freemasonry remains today, and the reasons for this are fully explained by Catholic apologist John Salza (learn more here). According to the New Code of Canon Law (1983), this prohibition remains in effect under penalty of interdict.

The Venerable Father McGivney initially authored three degrees though which the Knights of Columbus would receive their initiation into the order.

Now if you looking to know the secrets of the degree rites, you won't find them here. 'The Catholic Knight' has taken a pledge not to reveal them on my honor. However, I should point out here that what I have taken is a pledge, not an oath, and there is a significant difference. A pledge is a promise. That is all. It is based on one's honor. Nothing is sworn, and there are no penalties if the pledge is broken. All that is lost is the honor of the man who broke the pledge, simple because he did not keep his promise. When I took my degree rites, I pledged not to tell what goes on there based entirely on my honor as a practicing Catholic man. No threats were made, and no penalties were warned. If I tell the secrets, nobody is going to slit my throat or cut my heart out. Nobody is going to kill me or harm me. Nobody is going to seek retribution against my family or business. I'll still be able to get a good job. I'll still be able to do business. I might even still be allowed to keep my membership in the Knights of Columbus. However, I will have lost my honor. I made a promise, and I would not have keep it. That prospect alone, is enough to keep me quiet. For I wish to be an honorable man. That's why you won't find the degree rite secrets here.

In addition to that, these pledges are made with the explicit exception to religious or civil duty. So for example, if my priest or bishop needed to know something about my knowledge of the degree rites, I could reveal that to them even if they were not members of the Knights of Columbus, without breaking my pledge. Furthermore, if an officer of the law, judge or courtroom attorney needed to know my knowledge of the degree rites, again, I could reveal that information without breaking my pledge. That's because these exceptions of civil and religious duty are explicitly written into the pledges. I could take it a step further, and some of my brother knights may take issue with this, but so be it. If my wife, whom I am sacramentally bound to in matrimony, for some reason needed to know my knowledge of the degree rites, again citing religious duty to honor this holy sacrament of matrimony, I could reveal that information without breaking my pledge.

When I took my pledges, I did not swear on anything. I did not call curses upon myself. I did not use the Lord's name in vain. I simply made a promise. That is a pledge. Unlike an oath, which frequently involves swearing, calling down curses upon one's self if the oath is broken, and often invokes the name of someone holy (like God for example) to bind one to the oath. Freemason's do take oaths, and that is very much a part of their degree rites. In contrast, Knights of Columbus do not take oaths. It is not part of our degree rites. And this is because the Scriptures are very clear...

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." - Exodus 20:7

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." - Matthew 5:33-37

"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." - James 5:12

Now as for the degree rites themselves, this is what I can tell you without breaking my pledge...

1. They are based on (1st degree) Charity, (2nd degree) Unity and (3rd degree) Fraternity. There is of course the optional 4th degree of Patriotism which was developed later. But these first three degree rites were crafted by The Venerable Father McGivney himself.
2. Everything taught in these rites is 100% Biblical. There is no occult or "secret knowledge" conveyed in the Knights of Columbus. You could just as easily find the lessons of these degree rites in a Sunday homily or Scripture reading.
3. Lessons are best remembered when emotion is attached to them. For example, when you get a good scare, you are far more likely to remember the lesson associated with it. A similar thing could be said for positive emotions as well, such as relief and joy.
4. The degree rites are specifically designed to evoke emotion on the part of the candidate who is taking the rite.
5. Because the degree rites are designed with the intent of evoking emotion, they MUST be kept secret, so as not to spoil the surprise for the candidate. The candidate must be unaware of what will happen, lest it spoil the intended emotional response, and the lesson of the degree rite be lost to mundane procedure, failing to leave an indelible mark on the candidates heart and mind.
6. There is no ritual hazing in the Knights of Columbus, and nothing is ever done that would undermine the dignity of a Catholic man.
7. Degree candidates are not ever asked to divulge deep dark secrets about themselves, nor say anything that would compromise their integrity, nor put themselves into a compromised position.
8. Alcohol is never used, and is not permitted, during degree rites.
9. Knights and candidates are exhorted to be good Catholic Christians, and to show no partiality between members and non-members. As Catholic Christians, knights do not look down upon non-members, nor are they permitted to consider themselves "better Catholics" simply because they are knights.
10. Priests are permitted to audit and observe degree rites, nothing within the order is kept secret from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This is one reason why the Church has historically supported the Knights of Columbus and is currently considering the order's founder, The Venerable Father Michael McGivney, for canonization as a Saint.
11. While the Knights of Columbus offers quality life insurance to it's members, at a reasonable price, no member is required to buy it. Nor is any member "pressured" to buy it. The insurance plans are simply offered as a benefit.
12. Membership in the Knights of Columbus has many other benefits besides life insurance.

I'm afraid that's all you'll learn from me. Some might say I've already said too much. If so, I apologize, but I do not believe I have revealed any of the secrets of the order, nor do I believe I have violated my pledge to keep the elements of the degree rites secret. Personally, I have found my experience with the Knights of Columbus to be a rewarding one. Simultaneously, I have taken time away from the Knights of Columbus as well, so as to attend to family matters, in which my brother knights have always been very understanding and assured me that family comes first. They have also been quick to offer assistance whenever I was faced with personal and business difficulties.

If your a Catholic man who would like to learn more about the Knights of Columbus contact your local chapter. Personally, I would encourage getting involved in a knights council that is directly attached to a particular parish. This helps coordinate parish and knight activities in such a way that they become mutually beneficial.

* 'The Catholic Knight' blog does not speak for the Knights of Columbus organization, nor do the 'Knights of Columbus' necessarily approve the contents of this blog. 'The Catholic Knight' makes this blog entry merely as a testimony of my own personal experience.

Unbiblical Roman Catholic Pagan Cult and Mystery Whore of Babylon

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The title of this thread may raise a few eyebrows. Sorry for the shocker. As some of my readers already know, before converting to Catholicism, I was a "born-again" Evangelical/Pentecostal teacher who was originally raised in a Baptist Church. My journey of faith led me through the rigors of Fundamental Protestantism, and the depths of outright anti-Catholicism. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I had heard a pastor preach to his congregation that the Catholic Church is an "unbiblical cult" and the prophetic "Whore of Babylon" written of in the Book of Revelation.

I eventually decided to research the origins of this wretched organization called the Roman Catholic Church. In doing so I quickly discovered that all the authoritative literature on the topic were keen on quoting each other, but very little cited information more than a couple hundred years old. In fact, most cited a single book written in the middle 1800s called "Two Babylons," by Alexander Hyslop. This particular author constructs an entire volume of accusations against the Catholic Church, based on his own superficial connections between this or that ancient ritual, but does virtually nothing at all to back his claims with original source documentation. In fact, finding any original source documentation to support these claims, that dates prior the Reformation Era, is virtually impossible. It seems as if accusations against Catholicism developed as a product of the Reformation itself, and not vice versa.

As a result of this, I began reading the history of the early Church and quickly found a plethora of original source documentation dating back to the first few centuries of the Christian age. What I learned was shocking! and turned my whole world upside down. The early Christians were all Catholic! That's right, the earliest Christians, meaning those who were persecuted by the Caesars and fed to the lions, believed in the transubstantiation of the eucharist, prayed to the Virgin Mary and the saints, recognized the primacy of the pope, and made offerings for their loved ones in purgatory. Oh sure, they didn't use all the fancy terminology I just cited, but the core of their belief system was virtually identical. Knowledge of history spelled the end for my Protestantism.

If you're a "born-again" Christian who believes Catholicism is unbiblical, then you've got a lot of homework to do. The Bible commands us not to spread false witness against our neighbors (Exodus 20:16). If you say Catholicism is unbiblical, and it isn't, then you're spreading false witness, and thus breaking the commandment of the Lord. So you owe it to yourself to find out if Catholicism is truly unbiblical.  If you think Catholicism is unbiblical, then it's time to do your homework to see if you're right. Every argument has two sides. You can't formulate an honest opinion if you've only heard one side. You have to hear both sides of an argument before you can decide between them. Most "born-again" Christians are very familiar with the Protestant side of the argument against Catholicism, but they don't know anything about the Catholic side. Most "born-again" Christians, who take the time to learn the Catholic side, are shocked to discover that Catholics actually can make a Biblical argument in favor of Catholic teaching, and this argument can be well reasoned at that. So if you're a "born-again" Christian who believes Catholicism is unbiblical, then take the challenge, and see how much you really know about the Bible. Examine the links below.

Here we have one of the most exhaustive Catholic apologetic resources on the Internet. Special thanks to John Salza for making this resource possible...

THE CHURCH
The Biblical Church
Primacy of Peter
Apostolic Succession

THE BIBLE
Scripture Alone
Oral Tradition
Deuterocanon
Septuagint

THE SACRAMENTS
Baptism
Confession
The Eucharist
Confirmation

Holy Orders
Anointing of the Sick

HOLY MATRIMONY
Divorce & Remarriage
Contraception
Homosexuality
Husband's Headship
THE VIRGIN MARY
THE SAINTS
JUSTIFICATION
SALVATION

ESCHATOLOGY
Second Coming / Rapture
Purgatory
Hell
Zionism

THE TRINITY
Jesus Christ's Divinity
The Holy Spirit
Messianic Prophecies

OTHER
Angels
Tongue Speaking
Usury
Sacramentals
Sunday Worship
Suffering
Fasting
Drinking
Vain & Repetitious Prayer
Modesty in Dress
Just War

SCIENCE
Evolution
Geocentrism

CATHOLIC Q& A
The Church
Scripture Alone
Baptism
Confession
The Eucharist
The Blessed Virgin Mary
Justification
Purgatory
Sexuality
Miscellaneous
Freemasonry
TOP TEN QUESTIONS
DIFFERENT CHURCHES?

Evolution DOES NOT Contradict Christianity

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It seems so strange to me that so many Christians get all worked up about this issue. As a young man, indoctrinated by the secular humanism of today's public education system, I embraced the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution to the point of nearly denying the existence of God. Then after graduating from high-school, I got back in touch with my Christian roots, and became a Bible-thumping Fundamentalist. It was at that point I rejected evolution completely and embraced the neo-Morrisian theory of creation. Looking back on it now, I just have to laugh. It's funny how this scientific theory has become such a polarizing wedge in our society, so that many people of science think they have to reject faith, and many people of faith think they have to reject science.

Converting to Catholicism was probably the best thing for my sanity. On this particular issue, it allowed my faith and reason to be integrated once again, where I can now evaluate the theory of evolution with an open mind, and without any threat to my faith as a Christian. In truth, I think both Charles Darwin and Henry Morris added tremendous contributions to the debate, and I think that both of them will go down in history that way. What is needed in the whole creation/evolution debate is a little HUMILITY! And I say that to both sides. Evolution is a scientific THEORY, but then literal creationism is a theological THEORY as well. As the great astrophysicist Stephen Hawking once said: a theory is the best understanding of reality we have -- until a better one comes along. (That's my own paraphrase anyway.) A little humility on the part of both evolutionists and creationists would go a long way toward restoring civility to the debate once again. The simple fact is, none of us where there at the creation of the world. None of us, neither scientist nor theologian, eye-witnessed the biological processes that led to the creation of the first man. The best thing we have to rely on is a guess. Scientists look at the fossil evidence and make educated guesses. Theologians look at the scriptural evidence, and it's peripheral context, and also make educated guesses. It was Charles Darwin (a professing Christian) who guessed about natural selection and the origin of species. It was Henry Morris (also a professing Christian) who guessed about the effects of water dynamics on the fossil record. Both men have given us quite a bit to chew on, and I dare say that both men have given us just a shred of truth about what really happened. Between the two of them, maybe we can start to figure it out.

The following article demonstrates how Catholic Christians need not fear the theory of evolution, so long as certain theological ground-rules are understood. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did...

(New Oxford Review) - ...If we look at evolution and how it affects various religious stands, we see how the Church's teachings have such a solid foundation that they are never truly threatened by scientific ideas.

In contrast, fundamentalist Christians base their faith on a so-called literal reading of the Bible. This creates fundamentalism's most embarrassing problem. The fundamentalist must insist that the "days" of Genesis are the days of our week that God created man directly out of the dust, and so forth.

The same problem occurs whenever the Bible -- understood in a way that allows no interpretation, symbolism, or development -- must encounter the world.

The Catholic Church knows that the Bible requires symbolic readings in some places and literal readings in others. The interpretive and teaching authority of the Church gives guidance to the reader of Scripture. The believer is not left alone with what he can understand or imagine. Therefore, the Church does not trap her children in simplistic worldviews. Whatever views science develops about evolution, the Catholic Church will have the resources, in Scripture and tradition, to develop trustworthy understandings that can reconcile science's theories with the truths of revelation.

Liberal Protestantism has made the opposite mistake of fundamentalism. It has been too quick to make accommodations. Liberal Christianity readily accepted Darwinism -- and it also often accepted the pseudo-scientific hypotheses of Marxism and Freudianism and a host of destructive 20th-century "isms." It has become sort of a Vichy regime for modern secularism, doing the bidding of the materialistic mindset while trying desperately to keep alive a sham of independence.

Scientific dogmatism looks at its experiments, assumptions, and hypotheses, and can see nothing else. The Catholic Church is able to look on creation as a whole, and see that there are too many "coincidences" for this all to be random. She can see the handiwork of the Lord in the evolution of man, and in the rest of creation. She can embrace the universe's mystery and paradox. As Augustine wrote in his Confessions, addressing God, "You are the most hidden from us and yet the most present amongst us.... You are ever active, yet always at rest. You gather all things to yourself, though you suffer no need.... You grieve for wrong, but suffer no pain. You can be angry and yet serene.... You welcome all who come to you, although you never lost them."

With such insight, the Church can see that God allows mankind to evolve, yet He still guides that evolution. The same holds true for all other phenomena: They may look random, and many may be random, but the Catholic faith holds that God steps in, in mystery and in hiddenness, to control the ultimate outcomes.

The Catholic mind embraces 2,000 years of history and wisdom -- and many more years, if you include the Church's Old Testament patrimony. Therefore the Catholic worldview, with its long memory, knows that what "enlightened opinion" held to be undeniable truth in A.D. 30 was forgotten by A.D. 500. Thus the Catholic mind is not easily impressed by the latest headline or alleged discovery.

Non-Catholic worldviews are truncated and skewed. For example, to the liberal Protestant, everything before, say, 1965 is a black pit of ignorance and oppression. To the fundamentalist, everything between, say, A.D. 75 and 1500 is a gaping void. To the proud scientist, everything in his field before his latest grant proposal is foolish error.

The dogmatic scientist refuses to believe what he cannot see and measure. The fundamentalist refuses to believe what he cannot find in his King James Bible. The liberal Protestant refuses to believe what he cannot read in The Christian Century or on the editorial page of The New York Times.

Evolution, in asserting the role of random events, is joined by contemporary physics and chaos science in finding that there is randomness in the cosmos. So, to answer to Einstein: Yes, God does play dice.

This seems compatible with the understanding that man is free. Catholicism has always seen that there is a large element of freedom in our lives. God even seems quite willing to let us roll the dice ourselves. However, God is still in control. A controlling agent can allow much randomness, yet still have ultimate control.

God rolls the dice too. Sometimes, however, He slips in a pair of loaded dice. He is willing to play the game; He rigs, however, whenever we play so badly that we jeopardize the ultimate outcome....

read full story here

RELATED STORY

• Christianity & Science - Part 2

Pope Pius IX and the Confederacy

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: One of the most overlooked facts of the American Civil War Era is the sympathy the South gained from Europe's most influential monarch - the pope of Rome.

Pope Pius IX never actually signed any kind of alliance or 'statement of support' with the Confederate States of America, but to those who understand the nuance of papal protocol, what he did do was quite astonishing. He acknowledged President Jefferson Davis as the "Honorable President of the Confederate States of America."

From this we can glean three things about Pope Pius IX...

1. He called Jefferson Davis by the customary title "Honorable."
   
2. He acknowledged him as president of a nation.
   
3. In doing so, he (at least on a personal level) effectively recognized the Confederate States of America as a sovereign entity, separate from the United States of America.

News of this reached the North, and the Whitehouse was considerably irate about it, prompting a response from the Vatican that the pope's letter did not amount to an "official" recognition in the "formal sense."

The pope's letter to Jefferson Davis was accompanied by an autographed picture of the pope.

There are many possible reasons why this pontiff would be sympathetic to the CSA and her president, but the most likely one was that Pope Pius IX recognized in the traditional Christian culture of the South, a mindset opposed to the advance of liberal Modernism. You see it was Pius IX who composed the famous "Syllabus of Errors," which condemned the Modernist philosophies of liberalism, humanism, secularism and marxism. It is speculated that Pius IX saw in the Confederacy a political movement steeped in European Christian tradition, and therefore a potential ally against liberal modernism on the North American continent. Alas, the Confederacy was ultimately defeated, and President Davis was captured. As the 'Deconstruction' of the South commenced, and Davis awaited his trial, it is understandable why the pope would be sympathetic.

Pope Pius IX was a revered figure in the post war South. General Robert E. Lee kept a portrait of him in his house, and referred to him as the South's only true friend during her time of need. Both Davis and Lee were Episcopalians, as were many Southerners before the War, a denomination which had many things in common with Catholicism before the 20th century influence of Modernism of course. Davis was frequently visited by Southern Catholic nuns during his imprisonment, who delivered messages for him and prayed for his release. He eventually was released, having never stood trial, on the grounds that he committed no real crime. It is believed the majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court at that time acknowledged the right of secession.

Southern Americans of today should take comfort knowing that the old Confederacy did have a European friend, and it just happened to be one of the most respected men in the world - not only a head of state, but also the leader of the world's largest Christian religion. The day will come when Pope Pius IX will be canonized as a Saint. He has already been beatified, which puts him well on his way. When that day comes, Southerners will have a special bragging right, not enjoyed by many nations even today. They will not only be able to boast of his sympathies during and after the great War, but they will also have in their collective possession a relic of the man - a hand written letter and autographed photograph.

On The American Civil War:

The American Civil War cannot be cast in the simplistic terms of pro-slavery verses anti-slavery. Lincoln said the war had nothing to do with slavery, and General U.S. Grant said that if he thought the war was about freeing the slaves, he would turn in his sword and fight for the other side. Grant was also a slave owner before, during and after the war.

In contrast, General Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist. Many Southerners shared his views. President Jefferson Davis requested land owners to promise their slaves freedom in exchange for military service. The abolition movement was also growing in the South before the war. The 13th Amendment that legally freed the slaves, (not the Emancipation Proclamation), was actually ratified by many Southern states before many Northern states.

The historical fact is that the Civil War was a conflict between TWO slave nations - the USA and the CSA. Granted, the USA had already banned slavery in some states, but the same movement was growing in some CSA states as well. Historical revisionists have spent a little over 100 years trying to paint the Civil War as some idealistic holy crusade against the injustice of slavery. That image doesn't hold up to the historical facts. The Civil War was mainly about money and power - particularly taxes and investments. What the South did was no different than what America's Founding Fathers did during the American Revolution. Both were acts of rebellion and armed insurrection. Both attempted to establish free and independent nations. Both were dominated by slave economies. The only difference between them is this. In the American Revolution the rebels won. In the American Civil War they didn't.

Pope Paul VI On Vatican II

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The pope who concluded the Second Vatican Council had the following to say about it. All Catholics should take note...

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document."

-- Pope Paul VI

General Audience, 12 January 1966

source in Italian only

What does this mean? It means that in spite of whatever you've heard, the Second Vatican Council may not be fully infallible -- not according to the pope, and not according to the bishops who participated. It was indeed an ecumenical council, and it was perfectly legitimate.  However, the council can choose when, and when not, to exercise the chrism of infallibility. It just so happened that the bishops of Vatican II chose not to exercise it at all, and this is confirmed in the statement made by Pope Paul VI recorded above. It means that while the documents produced by Vatican II may contain some infallible statements, especially related to matters already defined by previous councils, they do not enjoy the exact same indisputable status as the documents produced by Vatican I and the Council of Trent.

That being said, Vatican II should not be interpreted in a vacuum. Everything contained in the conciliar documents must be interpreted in the context of historic Church tradition, and with the understanding that they can in no way counter or reverse the fully infallible documents produced by Vatican I and the Council of Trent.  It also means the conciliar documents can be debated to a certain degree by the bishops who hold to different opinions of them.  Most importantly, it means they are subject to further definition and clarification by the Holy Father, who can most certainly make these judgements ex cathedra, and therefore infallibly.

So what does this mean for the average Catholic? It means the Church has not changed. Vatican II helped to clarify some pastoral issues that were already being debated in the Church, but it in no way changed the Church. The Catholic Church today is still under the exact same doctrines and teachings as it was before the Second Vatican Council. This is important, because many Catholic parishes today operate as if Vatican II changed everything, when in fact, it did not. If you want to know what the teachings of the Church are today, simply pull out a catechism from the 1950s, and there you will find all the teachings of the modern post-conciliar Church. It's the same today as it was yesterday. Sadly, that might be difficult to see with the quality of catechism publications provided in this post-conciliar world. That's why I keep a hardbound 1950's illustrated catechism in my home to teach my children. So to prevent confusion, it would be prudent for all Catholics to do likewise.  You can acquire one such catechism here, though I'm sure there are many on the market if you know where to look.