The Day After

Many thanks to the Papal Secretary who kindly wished us a happy feast day - and a papal shout out and tiara tip to everyone else who celebrated that glorious anniversary.

We're sorry all of the Pii have been scarce and will most likely continue to be so - apologies to any faithful readers. When we logged we noticed there were nearly 30 unpublished comments waiting to be moderated. Sadly, most of them are angry and bitter because their authors think that we Pii really are angry and bitter (and hate FSU's guts). We've been over that before, and we're going to let it rest. There are bigger and better things - just take a look at this cake!


Thanks to the Carolina Cannonball

WE WANT ONE NEXT YEAR FOR OUR FEAST DAY!

Happy Feastday, Pius V!

Happy Feastday, Pius V!

A Post

We hope Our readers have appreciated Our month-long endorsement of this movie on Our blog.

Having now broken the great silence, We return to Our usual hobbies of railing against Freemasons, pluralism, and Freemasons. Gaudete. Farewell for now.

Picture credit: Baltimore Catechism (where else?)

Franciscan University

This is something that We have been wanting to post for a long time. Quite frankly, We are sick and tired of hearing about how Franciscan University is a great Catholic university. The recent publication of the Cardinal Newman Society placing it at the top of the heap of U.S. Catholic schools pushed us over the edge. Before We proceed, We request that you visit the following link: Franciscan University Holy Week Liturgies

No, We are not going to comment on how the liturgies there are consistently horrible or how the charismatic outlook of the school effects their "orthodoxy." We think this is secondary. The primary point We wish to make regarding this video is regarding liberal education per se. One of the greatest benefits of a liberal education is refinement of taste and an appreciation for that which is true, good, and beautiful. The fact that these college students are reveling in gatherings such as the ones shown above says a lot about the education one receives at Steubenville. A minimal knowledge of theology and philosophy is enough to see the separation of faith and reason in the aforementioned video. A minimal knowledge of music is enough for one to know that what is being played in the video has little to no artistic merit. 

If Catholic students are graduating from this university and see these liturgies as representative of their faith, there are much deeper problems that subjective sentiments and childish attachments to emotional music-- somebody is not being educated properly. We could excuse the lack of great scholars and resources to a greater degree if the graduates were at least a little cultured, but it looks like the situation is pretty bad. 

Vertical Worship

We wish to address Our readers today on a topic most dear to Our heart, namely, vertical worship. By vertical worship is meant worship that is directed toward God. This form of worship draws us Heavenwards toward God. Horizontal worship, on the other hand, unites worshippers closer with each other. While the liturgy contains elements of both vertical and horizontal worship, the liturgy as it is often celebrated in modern times unfortunately often places an undue emphasis on horizontal worship. This can have drastic effects on the faith of the churchgoers. There is a phrase, "lex orandi, lex credendi", which basically means how we worship reflects what we believe. If we are too focused on each other at Mass instead of God, we end up replacing God as the object of our worship with ourselves.

An example of this is in church architecture. The traditional church design is such that one's eyes upon entering the church are drawn toward the sanctuary and upwards, focusing on the crucifix, altar, and tabernacle. Church artwork would reinforce this vertical worship by giving the faithful images that elevate them toward worship of God. In many modern churches, this vertical worship has been replaced by horizontal worship. Tabernacles are hidden away out of sight and out of mind. Artwork is so obscure that it is difficult to determine what it is depicting. Instead of everyone facing the same direction toward the sanctuary, churches have their seating in semi-circular or circular designs so people are able to better see each other. In fact, We have heard of cases were people have stated that they do not think they are worshipping correctly unless they can see each other's eyes. Such designs bring about an emotional response where the churchgoer feels good because of this sense of community. However, the fact that everyone is at Mass worshipping God together is what shows the sense of community, not that people can see each other. Church music too has changed such that some songs focus more on the community of believers and their relationship toward each other rather than on God and our relationship with Him.

Celebrating Mass ad orientem, with the priest facing the same direction as the congregation, nicely illustrates vertical worship. The priest leads the people in worship of God. Sometimes the way sanctuaries are arranged gives the impression that the people should be focused on the priest rather than God. The priest should not be the focus of Mass.

We have been told of the fruits of vertical worship, where the church architecture itself, by being designed in a way that leads one to contemplate God, has been efficacious in bringing non-practicing Catholics back into the fold. Thus, it is important that church buildings be designed in order to bring the people closer to God. Parish halls are places where people can spend time becoming closer with each other. If churches are designed to emphasize the worshippers rather than He Who is to be worshipped, then God will end up getting second-place in our belief, having been superseded by belief in ourselves. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Marcionism Redux

During our reign as Supreme Pontiff during the early years of Christianity, we excommunicated the heresiarch Marcion. Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the same as the God of the New Testament. He viewed the Old Testament God as the God of justice and the New Testament God as the God of love. Therefore, he rejected the entire Old Testament and much of the New Testament. He accepted heavily edited versions of the Gospel of Luke and some Pauline letters, having edited them so that there is no reference to Jesus being the Son of the Old Testament God. For these obstinate crimes against the Faith we excommunicated him.

Like many heresies, Marcionism did not die out completely after it was declared heretical, but implicitly lives on in modern times. We have heard Catholics profess ideas that it does not really matter how they live their lives because God will forgive them in the end since He is a God of love. Some even go so far as to believe that because they have done some good acts, this will excuse their sins regardless of their repentance. What these people have done (probably without realizing what they were exactly doing) is they have entered into a semi-Marcionism. They have implicitly rejected the idea that God is a God both of justice and of love; they ignore God's justice and focus solely on His love. Certainly, however, these people have not explicitly rejected the Old Testament, nor have they explicitly rejected that Jesus is the Son of the God of the Old Testament.

Our friends, we wish to inform you that God is a God of both justice and love. God loves all of us infinitely, and He is willing to forgive us our sins if we repent and ask for His forgiveness, thus, the importance of the sacrament of Confession. God is merciful and God is loving.

However, if a person refuses to repent and continues to commit mortal sins, he condemns himself to Hell. God's love for humanity is so infinite that He will never take away our free will. God allows us to freely choose Him or reject Him. And if one rejects God, then one is subject to His justice. God allows us to choose the unending punishment that is the just outcome of choosing mortal sin rather than choosing to follow His will.

We therefore admonish all to recognize that God is both Love and Justice. Do not be like Marcion and think this is a dichotomy. No sin is too large for God to be able to forgive, assuming the sinner is repentant and seeks God's forgiveness. We encourage frequent reception of the sacrament of Confession even if one is not in a state of mortal sin, for the graces given through this sacrament help strengthen one from committing future sin.

We repeat - God loves all of us, and He loves us so much that He allows us to freely choose against Him and endure the accompanying just punishment. God is a God of justice and of love. We abjure Marcionism in all of its forms.

Fellay, Williamson: Fundamentally Proud

From Rorate Caeli:

"Nothing could be falser" - Fellay explains it - "Williamson and I are on the same line, that which believes that we could hardly re-enter a Church as is. And the reasons are quite simple. Benedict XVI has indeed liberalized the ancient rite, but I cannot explain for what reason he made such a decision if he then allows the majority of Bishops to criticize and disobey him regarding what he determined. What should we do? Re-enter the Church and then be insulted by all those people?"

Yes. Re-enter. Reconcile yourself with the ONE and ONLY true Church. Stop thinking you're making all of us dead popes proud. And suffer. Suffer humiliation and insults. Suffer like Christ did, the Christ you purport to know so well, so much better than everyone loyal to Rome.

It is becoming all the more clear, folks, that even the most moderate of the SSPX are driven by a righteous pride, a pride which is only born of the prince of darkness. They are deceived more than they could possibly imagine, blinded by a faith in their own authority and in their own righteousness - a faith which will ultimately lead them to more pain, more discord, and more damnation. We'd prefer an ignorant pastor with lukewarm faith and a lukewarm congregation any day to the rift in the Church caused by these most proud, most disloyal, and most dangerous crowd.

Unbelievable.

And after this statement, it's a good thing for Fellay that we no longer hold the chair of Peter.

The Second Confiteor

First, We would like to congratulate all of Our worthy predecessors in the Chair of St. Peter on their posts thus far (this includes Pius VIII, who is altogether too hard on himself.) Although We had hoped to rejoin Our pious brethren last week, We hope We will be forgiven the delay considering the topic We have in mind to discuss. We know that it is sure to ruffle some feathers, but hopefully, We still have enough readers with feathers to ruffle. +[[[:-) Thus, without further ado, We enter the heated realm of debate over the Second Confiteor and its use in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

The idea for a post on the Second Confiteor came to Us today after an enjoyable conversation with Our pastor (the Second Confiteor, by the way, is said by the servers before the people receive Holy Communion). When We brought up the Extraordinary Form and began discussing Our experience attending a Mass of this use two Sundays ago, We learned that Our pastor was quite eager to learn this older form of the Mass. Along with serving as the pastor for Our home parish, he also teaches Latin three days a week at the local Catholic school, which, We imagine, will enable him to learn the older Mass relatively quickly. We also discussed how he had taught himself the server's responses back in the fourth grade and how his experience completely destroys the excuses of those who claim that Latin is simply too difficult to learn. Needless to say, We have high hopes for the introduction of the Extraordinary Form at Our parish.

So what, you may be asking, does any of this have to do with the Second Confiteor? In the course of Our conversation, Our pastor mentioned that he had seen the Solemn High Mass which was broadcast by EWTN on September 14, and he was quite perturbed by the fact that the servers at this Mass said the Second Confiteor, which is not included in the 1962 Missale Romanum (MR). We informed him that We knew of this omission but were under the impression that, while not mandatory, the prayer was still optional. In fact, We said, We were under the impression that the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter still include this prayer in their Masses. We did, however, concede that, superficially, it seems odd to insist on complete and unswerving obedience to the rubrics for priests offering Mass according to the 1970 MR and not to do the same with regards to the Extraordinary Form. Our pastor agreed and was adamant in his belief that the Second Confiteor should not be said. So, although We were still interested in the topic, lest the conversation sour as a result of too much debate, We turned Our attention elsewhere.

Afterwards, this question of the Second Confiteor was still present in Our mind. We had been assured by others that its use was optional (according to some, desirable), and We assumed that this was an accurate understanding of the situation. Our conversation with Our pastor, however, had opened a window of doubt as to the veracity of these claims. Should the servers really continue to say a prayer which is not contained in the MR? Should this proposition be risked at the expense of compromising a correct understanding of rubrical integrity? We were unsure.

So, naturally, where does a pope of the mid-twentieth century turn in such a predicament? Why, to Google, of course! We were happy to see that one of the first results was a post by Fr. Zuhlsdorf on the reissue of Ludovico Trimeloni’s Compendio di Liturgia Pratica.

Exploring this book, Fr. Z writes:

You find, in brackets – meaning that the editor interpolated this part into the text – how to do the Second Confiteor before Holy Communion of the healthy faithful present.

However, there is a footnote (#4 my translation):

" The rubrics of 1962 suppressed the Confiteor before Communion, even if it is still being recited in nearly all the communities that celebrate in the traditional rite. For completeness the rite is indicated here, in anticipation of an official pronouncement of the Holy See. "

Okay… I guess I can live with that, provided we clearly understand that the Second Confiteor, as Siffi correctly indicated, was suppressed in 1962. Thus, because the Holy See gave use of the 1962 edition and not an earlier edition, the Second Confiteor should not be done [Our emphasis]. Still, there is an ongoing tradition of doing it in many places. I am sure that the Holy See will probably say go ahead, big deal.

This is the same technique used by those who wanted Communion in the hand and also girl altar boys, but that is another matter.

For the Solemn Mass, there is no mention at all of the Second Confiteor.

Considering this evidence, Our pastor was absolutely correct that the Second Confiteor was dropped from the 1962 MR, and he was also rubrically correct to assert that the practice should be discontinued. Because Pope Benedict has given permission for the use of the 1962 MR only, this is a logical conclusion for one to reach. We find it interesting that the editor of this book, Pietro Siffi, expects there to be an official response to the question on the part of the Holy See at some future date. Since the time of Fr. Z's post in May, We have not been aware of any such clarification.

In his commentary, Fr. Z does raise an additional point, that "there is an ongoing tradition of doing it in many places." So, in light of this, how should the rubrics be reconciled with traditional customs? This subject may need a post or two all to itself. Also, can people appeal to tradition in places where the Extraordinary Form has been recently re-established? This sort of appeal, at least on the surface, seems rather tenuous to Us.

Now, some may say that this debate is rather trivial. We would argue that this is not the case because it can demonstrate the liturgical attitudes of the people involved. As Fr. Z stated, liturgical progressives have also used arguments from tradition or custom (as wacky as that sounds) to gain approval for what were once abuses (like receiving Holy Communion in the hand). Even the smallest liturgical matters ought not to be taken lightly.

To this end, until a clarification is issued by the Holy See, We conclude that it is best to abide by the rubrics of the 1962 MR and omit the Second Confiteor from the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. In places where this tradition has been retained, there will, no doubt, be some resistance to this conclusion, and We are unsure of how to resolve the rubrics v. tradition question in general. We still think, however, that "say the black, do the red" is a rather strong argument.

Pius PP. XII

To Whom the Lips of Children Made Sweet Hosannas Ring

To cut to the chase: bad things have happened in the last few decades. Granted, this is a terrible (though true) thesis statement, which We hope you will forgive, seeing as how We have not written anything in 177 years. Bad things have always happened and always will happen—fair enough—but all can agree that the last forty years have seen a sharp decline in Mass attendance, a growing aloofness to the Magisterium, and a deepening gullibility for New Agey pluralistic hogwash. Why are such symptoms “bad things”? Well, because they put souls in peril of (likely mortal) sin, and ultimately endanger their eternal happiness in Heaven. Hopefully we can all agree this is bad. Now for a clue as to the remedy for the disease behind these symptoms, let’s ask our friend the Baltimore Catechism …

PIUS VIII & LOYAL READERS: What must we do to gain the happiness of Heaven?

BALTIMORE CATECHISM: To gain the happiness of Heaven we must know, love, and serve God in this world.

Why, thank you, Friend Baltimore; you will reappear later on, We promise. So, we all must know, love, and serve God. Now it’s Our hunch that the order of those three is more than merely alphabetical. You serve someone because you love him; and you cannot love someone you do not know. Ergo, our friend Baltimore and a little on-the-spot logic have concluded that the first and most important question we should ask ourselves is: are we making sure that the faithful know God?

Know? No.

The Church has ensured that her members may come to know her Founder 1) through the Sacred Liturgy, which expresses the Church’s lex credendi, and 2) through the Christian education of her little children. As to number 1, well, there’s a reason We mentioned it first, but We are glad to see that the topic has already been addressed last week (and will continue to be covered) in depth by several Pii more knowledgeable than Ourselves. As to number 2, well, since no one ever prays to this Pius, We have had plenty of spare time to pay special attention to the current educational situation. And, in short ... +[[[:-(

We see modern catechetical textbooks. We see problems. Even at the middle school level, they are picture books. Now this wouldn’t even be all bad, if said pictures comprised lots of

instead of lots of

Illustrations like the first one clearly can convey the explicit truths of the Catholic Faith. But the other "trendier" and "cooler" pictures speak nothing of the supernatural; they are corny and students know it; they usually even depict questionable degrees of Christian modesty. (Apparently no one listened to you either, XI.) Much the same with the remainder of the typical CCD book: colorful sidebars, implicit canonizations of non-Catholic social workers, “Confirmation projects” like planting a garden, wonderful suggestions for background music during class, etc. … all apparently intended to apologize to the students, “Sorry about these doctrines and stuff in the appendix; religion is actually quite FUN!” In short, publishers feel compelled to make a catechetical textbook look and read (and in Our opinion, smell) just like a hip modern textbook for any other subject; a veritable television-in-a-book.

As for the text, sometimes it is frankly not bad. This still renders the surrounding visual barrage most unfortunate, as it puts the truths of the Holy Faith on par with the Letter of the Day on Sesame Street. Far worse and far more common are the texts simply filled with copious amounts of nothing; and worst of all are those of the kind that ask their fifth-grade users to make up their own Eucharistic Prayers and share them with the class. (We kid you not. And this without any surrounding explanation of the Mass.)

In short, dear Baltimore Catechism, the books of today are everything that you are not: long-winded, inefficient, elusive, vapid, cutesy, banal, and condescending. And in view of this, We hereby forcefully deny that a conscientious catechist would commit sinful disobedience by, umm, “supplementing” his assigned textbook with your wonderful questions and answers. (N.B., We here speak Our mere opinion, based upon Our own painfully disappointing observations. We are by no means speaking ex cathedra. We don’t even have a cathedra to speak ex anymore.)

These are Our doleful complaints. The most important knowledge that is available to the mind of the child—upon which hangs the earthly and eternal happiness of its pending students—is somehow expected to be taught to children from circus-books, by catechists who unfortunately were “taught” in the exact same way. And thus we have a most discouraging cycle all set in place.

We are tempted to think that We have been rather good at diagnosing this entire catechetical problem—but that is, after all, very easy to do. There must still be further underlying causes behind this problem, We are sure, probably involving the lack of Priests in the classroom combined with the advent of silly pop-psychology. But you already knew that those are bad. Nonetheless, We here repeat Our cry: the most necessary requirement for leading the wandering faithful to eternal happiness, if we still believe in Truth and Hell and things like that, is to ensure that they all know God, know Who He is, and know what He has taught through His Church; and only then can they come to love Him and serve Him, and thus gain the happiness of Heaven.

The battlefield, then, is the classroom. “… Students’ minds and morals are molded by the precepts of the teachers.” (Yours truly.) The very fact that you have visited a blog run by deceased, heresy-hunting, modernism-hating Vicars of Christ probably means that you should be on that battlefield. Side by side with reverent and literally awesome liturgy, it is solid instruction at an early age that must reawaken the faithful to the precious knowledge of Our Lord and of His Church’s beautiful deposit of Faith.

Prologue

Warmest greetings and a blessed Tuesday to Our readers; and speaking of Tuesday, make certain to give a special greeting to your respective Guardian Angels for Us. We are, by the way, the eighth in the line of Papae Pii, though not nearly as prestigious as I, V, VII, IX, X, XI, XII, or, unfortunately, even the anti-Pope Pius XIII. Go figure. Reigning for a mere twenty months will do that, We suppose.

We would like to preface our actual upcoming post with a quotation from a relevant and reliable source, namely Ourselves, in Our bludgeoning Encyclical Traditi Humilitati. Reading the rest of the letter will demonstrate at least two fundamental truths: 1) Holy Church has been in big trouble before, and 2) people never listen to the current Pope. The first ought to be a source of comfort for Our earthbound readers, while the second remains a perpetual source of annoyance for the eight-and-a-half Pontiffs at this blog.

“Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. … The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. … All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of Priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel. With tears We say: 'Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ.' Truly the impious have said: 'Raze it, raze it down to its foundations.' "

This is all that We shall speak concerning Ourselves; let it be known that it is an honor for Us to join the ranks of the other Pii here present, all of whom (save one) are many many times closer to being canonized than We ever shall be. Do keep the above passage in mind. And We, as a pledge of Our affection, lovingly impart the Apostolic Benediction.