Posts by Bellarmine

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Karl Keating on the Decline of the National Review and Other Matters

    07/07/2005 4:22:22 PM PDT · 97 of 152
    Bellarmine to annalex

    Good job of finding the French note on CSI. Someone needs to inform Mr. Keating of this before he sticks his foot in his mouth.

  • Karl Keating on the Decline of the National Review and Other Matters

    07/07/2005 2:15:03 PM PDT · 88 of 152
    Bellarmine to annalex

    That's not the CSI website. This is:

    I couldn't find any mention of "Peter II" here. Let me know if you do.

  • Karl Keating on the Decline of the National Review and Other Matters

    07/07/2005 1:20:53 PM PDT · 80 of 152
    Bellarmine to annalex

    I went to the Catholici Semper Fidem site and there was no mention of "Pope" Peter II. On "Pope" Peter II's site, there is a reference to material written by CSI. It's not clear to me that "Pope" Peter II has any affiliation with CSI.

    Gerry Matatics is speaking at a CSI conference soon. I hope Keating has his facts straight before he launches another public attack on Gerry.

  • Did John Paul II Solve the Pedophilia Crisis Before We Even Knew About It?

    03/09/2005 7:34:20 AM PST · 56 of 119
    Bellarmine to dangus

    I think the drop in abuse cases is most likely caused by the aging of the clergy.

  • Lay sermons permitted, Vatican tells Swiss bishops

    02/11/2005 1:26:39 PM PST · 4 of 111
    Bellarmine to B Knotts

    Communion in the hand, altar girls, and now this...

  • Vatican Sets Up Sports Department

    08/05/2004 7:28:25 PM PDT · 59 of 68
    Bellarmine to old and tired

    Sports can bring out the worst in people...

  • Vatican Sets Up Sports Department

    08/05/2004 7:27:02 PM PDT · 58 of 68
    Bellarmine to Conservative til I die
    The converse statement is also true. Sports and athletic activity can do much to degrade one mentally, physically, emotionally, and even spiritually.

    This was the message of my original post.

  • Vatican Sets Up Sports Department

    08/05/2004 3:21:48 PM PDT · 55 of 68
    Bellarmine to sinkspur

    I agree with everything you said.

  • Vatican Sets Up Sports Department

    08/05/2004 2:58:31 PM PDT · 53 of 68
    Bellarmine to old and tired
    To put it into language you might understand:

    Overcoming cramps, inclement weather, etc., will not get you to heaven, overcoming sin will.

  • Vatican Sets Up Sports Department

    08/05/2004 2:54:57 PM PDT · 52 of 68
    Bellarmine to sinkspur

    The quality of our physical home adds nothing to our worth before God.

  • Vatican Sets Up Sports Department

    08/04/2004 10:54:33 PM PDT · 49 of 68
    Bellarmine to topcat54
    A brief excerpt from Romano Amerio's Iota Unum. I would recommend everyone get a copy to read the rest of what he has to say regarding the Catholic view of sport.

    "Sport does not of itself have anything to do with the perfecting of the human being or with his destiny, and is of no assistance in attaining either, since excellence in physical attainments is quite compatible with a weakening of the subordination of these lower powers to reason. It is only the exercise of the will that confers any worth on the exercise of physical strength, inasmuch as an exercise of the will can increase the power of a man's reason and the extent of his moral freedom. One should not imagine there is any continuum between the physical and moral orders. There is a leap involved, that only the moral will can make."

  • "More Catholic Than the Pope" — New Book Responds to Arguments Raised by Extreme Traditionalists

    08/02/2004 3:20:36 PM PDT · 455 of 705
    Bellarmine to Maximilian
    Do you think the book will include Fr. Huels argument that an inudlt is required to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass?
  • "More Catholic Than the Pope" — New Book Responds to Arguments Raised by Extreme Traditionalists

    07/31/2004 4:46:06 PM PDT · 12 of 705
    Bellarmine to Diago
    You must remember that it is not the left that is winning away viewers from Madrid's audience, it is the traditionalists. Madrid appears to have picked the topic that will be the most beneficial to himself.

    Could you imagine what problems he may have arranging speaking engagements were he to author a book critical of the Left that controls the institutional church in America.


    07/27/2004 3:52:35 PM PDT · 4 of 16
    Bellarmine to Saint Athanasius
    I think the versions presented in this post and by the Remnant and Catholic Family News are in agreement. It is not the facts of what happened that are in dispute. It is the proper Catholic reaction to them that is.

    p.s. If you really think that the Hindus believe that "The Most Holy Mother" is the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, I've got a bridge in Arizona...

  • Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza

    07/16/2004 9:13:57 AM PDT · 192 of 902
    Bellarmine to gbcdoj

    All of these are condemned propositions right?

  • Father Zigrang suspended by Bishop Joseph Fiorenza

    07/16/2004 6:48:57 AM PDT · 134 of 902
    Bellarmine to AskStPhilomena
    To force Rome to act on what it might otherwise avoid, perhaps it might be wise for someone to bring a canonical denunciation of Bishop Fiorenza for his contentions about ecumenism and the “enduring validity” of the Mosaic Covenant, spelling out in chapter and verse how these things have been condemned in the history of the Church.

    Any members of the Diocese of Galveston-Houston out there willing to pursue this???

  • Some thoughts on the Tridentine Mass in Chicago

    06/10/2004 3:02:54 PM PDT · 21 of 28
    Bellarmine to corpus
    If you knew that the mass was likely to be irreverent, then I think the possibility of you being led to take part in the irreverence would qualify as a near occasion of sin. So you should probably avoid it.

    In my diocese, there are three churches I know of that have reverent masses so they would be okay. However, these masses do not qualify because of the immodest dress of many women who attend there, so they get dropped because of that reason. That leaves me with the Traditional Latin Mass as the only acceptable choice.

  • Some thoughts on the Tridentine Mass in Chicago

    06/10/2004 1:08:01 PM PDT · 19 of 28
    Bellarmine to corpus

    According to the evening prayers in my Saint Andrew Daily Missal (Tridentine), irreverence at mass is a sin against the First Commandment. Therefore, I don't think you are allowed to worship at those masses.

  • Karl Rahner’s Girlfriend

    04/29/2004 8:34:12 AM PDT · 64 of 110
    Bellarmine to Hermann the Cherusker
    Fr. Dormann, the author of the book, is not an SSPX priest. He is a regular Novus Ordo priest.
  • Gibson wanted for St Francis film

    04/27/2004 2:53:43 PM PDT · 13 of 13
    Bellarmine to wagglebee
    I would be surprised to see a traditionalist like Gibson make a movie with this charismatic group of Franciscans.
  • Pope Recalls Fatima Consecration

    03/24/2004 1:49:37 PM PST · 33 of 138
    Bellarmine to BlackElk
    It should be noted that the vision at Lourdes came AFTER Pius IX declared the "Immaculate Conception" a dogma of the Faith
  • The Scott Hahn Conversion Story

    03/15/2004 7:27:57 AM PST · 194 of 270
    Bellarmine to P-Marlowe
    Excerpted from New Oxford Review

    "...As we were saying, we were frolicking our way through the 5.6 Envoy. After enjoying Pat's column, we came across an article by Scott Hahn, Ph.D., entitled "What Does the Bible Teach Us About the `Most Elusive' Person of the Trinity?" The article is about the Holy Spirit, it's definitely not a humor piece, and it's scandalously fallacious.

    Now, we imagine that some of you reading this are asking, "Why, oh why, are you going to go after Dr. Hahn? He's on our side!" Yes indeed, he's one of our boys, one of our best and brightest, so much so that many orthodox Catholics regard whatever Dr. Hahn says as the Gospel truth. And that's precisely why we're issuing this red alert. No theologian, however much revered, is beyond fraternal correction.

    Our fear is that many orthodox Catholics will be seriously misled by what he's written. So read on.

    Dr. Hahn tells us this: "When the disciples heard that Jesus was about to leave and return to the Father, forever, they must have started wondering whether they were about to become spiritual orphans. To assure them otherwise," Dr. Hahn continues, "Jesus offered them real comfort and consolation [the Holy Spirit]," and this Spirit kept them and keeps us "from becoming `orphans.'" Note the word forever. It is not true that Jesus returned to the Father forever. Jesus will return at the Second Coming, and in the meantime Jesus returns with His Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, which, says Lumen Gentium, is "the source and summit of the Christian life" (#11).

    But Dr. Hahn seems to want to downplay Jesus so as to make more room for the Spirit: "Christians can place too much emphasis on Christ — if we also neglect the stated purpose of His coming. He came to earth in order to give us the Spirit." But Dr. Hahn has this somewhat backwards. As Pope John Paul II said: "The conception and birth of Jesus Christ are, in fact, the greatest work accomplished by the Holy Spirit in the history of creation and salvation…" (Dominum et Vivificantem, #50). Yes, Christ gave us the Spirit, but the primary purpose of Christ's coming was not to give us the Spirit, but rather to call for repentance and offer salvation. The greatest accomplishment of Christ was not to give us the Spirit; rather, the greatest accomplishment of the Spirit was to give us Christ the Savior.

    Moreover, the burden of Dr. Hahn's article is to argue, in his own voice or by approvingly quoting others, that we must see the Holy Spirit as "mother," "motherly," "maternal," and "the uncreated principle of maternity," as well as "feminine" and "bridal." Likewise, an "attribute" of the Holy Spirit is "womanhood."

    Dr. Hahn finds great significance in the fact that the Hebrew word for "spirit," ruah, is a feminine noun, and that an Old Testament term for the Spirit, shekinah, is also a feminine noun. We would add that the German word for girl, das Mädchen, is a neuter noun, not a feminine noun — which proves what? Also, the Greek word for spirit, pneuma, is a neuter noun and the Latin word for spirit, spiritus, is a masculine noun — proving what?

    And Dr. Hahn gives the matter a personal touch, telling us that "my kids have no trouble grasping what I mean when I call their mom 'the Holy Spirit of our home.'"

    Lest there be any doubt that Dr. Hahn is here proposing that the Holy Spirit is a "she," he notes that in the Old Testament "God's Spirit is identified with Wisdom," that "God's Wisdom is referred to as `holy spirit,'" and that all this is personified as "Lady Wisdom," and he quotes Old Testament passages that refer to God's Spirit as "she" and "her." Unfortunately, Dr. Hahn glides past the fact that the true and ultimate personification of this divine Wisdom is Jesus Christ, a man: He is "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24). Worse than gliding past it, he undercuts it by approvingly saying, "Benedict Ashley, O.P., notices how Wisdom is applied elsewhere…to Jesus (1 Cor. 1:24). `Yet more properly,' Ashley concludes, `it is to the Third Person of the Trinity…that the Old Testament descriptions of a feminine Wisdom are applied'" (italics added by the NOR). Nowhere in his article does Dr. Hahn call the Holy Spirit "He" or "Him," and nowhere does he refer to the Holy Spirit in masculine terms.

    Dr. Hahn even approvingly notes that St. Maximilian Kolbe was "so bold as to say that Mary was like an incarnation (`quasi-incarnatus') of the Holy Spirit." Alas, saints can say some of the strangest things. It's worth remembering here that when the Church declares someone a saint, she is not vouching for the orthodoxy of everything the saint ever asserted.

    Please, dear reader, think of the implications of a female or feminine Holy Spirit. When the angel visited Mary, she was told, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus." Mary answered quite rationally, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" And the angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you…" (Lk. 1:31, 34-35). The Apostles' Creed says Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. Of course, Jesus was also conceived by Mary in her womb, as Luke 1:31 says, but notice how the Creed places the emphasis on Jesus' being conceived by the Holy Spirit, by His power. And this is confirmed by Mary's fiat: "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word" (Lk. 1:38). In the human marital act, it is commonly said that the man is active and the woman is (relatively speaking) passive. The biblical text and the Creed make this dynamic unmistakably clear with the conception of Jesus.

    Mary gave birth to Jesus. But she did not know a man. Yet we all know that she did not conceive all by herself. Somehow Mary was fertilized. We don't know how; it's a mystery. But something happened. As John Paul II said, "The Holy Spirit…with his power overshadowed the virginal body of Mary…" (Dominum et Vivificantem, #51). Let's not be prudish. There is a sexual aspect here, which is to say that somehow the Holy Spirit "impregnated" Mary.

    Now, Mary was female, and if the Holy Spirit is female or feminine, then Jesus had two mommies, and presto, "gay" is good and so is "gay marriage." Dr. Hahn goes so far as to say the Holy Spirit is "bridal" and that "Mary's maternity is mystically one with that of…the Spirit." The imagery here is blatantly and scandalously lesbian.

    Feminist theologians and their Queer cheerleaders have been campaigning for a feminine Holy Spirit for decades. How odd — how depressing, actually — to see Dr. Hahn jump on the bandwagon.

    Now, Dr. Hahn says that his "findings" in favor of a feminine Holy Spirit are "tentative" (if so, he should not have published them in a popular forum), and that "if the Magisterium should find any of them unsatisfactory, I will be the first to renounce them and gratefully consign them to the flames — and then invite you to do the same."

    Ok, Dr. Hahn, you are hereby notified that the Magisterium has already determined that your "findings" are unsatisfactory. The Holy See's Liturgiam Authenticam (issued in English on May 7, 2001) declared: "In referring to almighty God or the individual persons of the most Holy Trinity, the truth of tradition as well as the established gender usage of each respective language are to be maintained" (#31-a). What is the truth of tradition on the gender usage for the Holy Spirit? All you need do is refer to the Catechism, which calls the Holy Spirit "he" and "him" (e.g., #683, 687, 1092, 1107, 1129, 2652).

    Earlier, in 1997, the Holy See issued its Norms for the Translation of Biblical Texts for Use in the Liturgy, saying: "In fidelity to the inspired Word of God, the traditional biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is to be retained" (4/3). "Similarly, in keeping with the Church's tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are not to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit" (4/4).

    And Jesus Himself repeatedly calls the Holy Spirit "He" and "Him" (see John, chapters 14, 15, and 16). If Jesus, the pre-existent Second Person of the Trinity who came down from Heaven, was wrong about the gender identity of the Holy Spirit, then Jesus was wrong about a host of other things as well. Indeed, maybe Jesus didn't really come down from Heaven, and maybe the Incarnation itself is a fictional doctrine.

    So, dear reader, if you have the 5.6 Envoy on hand, Dr. Hahn is inviting you to tear out his article and burn it.

    But his article is adapted from chapter 10 of his new book, First Comes Love: Finding Your Family in the Church and the Trinity (Doubleday [also a popular forum]). And the book is even more scandalous than the article. In the Sources and References section of the book, Dr. Hahn approvingly quotes Benedict Ashley as explicitly claiming that the Holy Spirit is Christ's "Bride." So the Holy Spirit is not only one of Christ's Mothers, but His Bride as well. Thus Dr. Hahn's imagery is not only lesbian, but incestuous. Yikes and double yikes!

    Now that Dr. Hahn knows what the Magisterium teaches, we trust he'll order Doubleday to recall all the copies of his book from Barnes & Noble and all the other stores and, along with the copies in the warehouse, pile them up in the parking lot and burn them. What a bonfire that'll be!"

  • The Scott Hahn Conversion Story

    03/12/2004 12:58:13 PM PST · 49 of 270
    Bellarmine to Salvation
    The New Oxford Review was the source for the criticism of Hahn's views on the Holy Spirit. To read what they have to say here is the web address:

  • Lefebvre Group Attacks Pope's Ecumenical Vision

    02/03/2004 9:00:35 AM PST · 38 of 64
    Bellarmine to Unam Sanctam
    The letter does make one direct accusation of apostasy, against Cardinal Kasper.
  • Lefebvre Group Attacks Pope's Ecumenical Vision

    02/03/2004 7:31:50 AM PST · 19 of 64
    Bellarmine to Maximilian
  • Lefebvre Group Attacks Pope's Ecumenical Vision

    02/03/2004 7:25:15 AM PST · 17 of 64
    Bellarmine to ninenot
    According to a survey posted in The Latin Mass magazine, he was in the top 5.
  • Lefebvre Group Attacks Pope's Ecumenical Vision

    02/03/2004 6:28:29 AM PST · 6 of 64
    Bellarmine to NYer
    I read the letter and found it to be a devastating critique of the ecuminical vision of JPII. The letter provided a stark contrast between JPII's views and the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church backed up by numerous references to prior Church teaching.

    Also encouraging was the attack on Cardinal Kasper. Hopefully, those cardinals who consider Kasper a candidate to be the next pope will wake up after reading this letter.

  • Review of Liturgical Reform Proposed by Cardinal Sodano

    09/03/2003 1:37:17 PM PDT · 161 of 187
    Bellarmine to Hermann the Cherusker
    Unfortunately, since 1966 the Index of Prohibited Books is only used as a moral guide, and reading, discussing or publishing books listed on it no longer carries any ecclesiastical penalties.
  • Lawyers eye former pope's blueprint to shield clergy

    08/01/2003 10:56:43 PM PDT · 239 of 319
    Bellarmine to sinkspur
    Would not the picnic basket tabernacle suffice for specific proof?
  • Lawyers eye former pope's blueprint to shield clergy

    08/01/2003 10:52:25 PM PDT · 237 of 319
    Bellarmine to Land of the Irish
    This looks to me to express the notion of the Mass as a memorial meal. Do you think that the priest who installed this tabernacle has the proper intent when offering Mass?
  • Lawyers eye former pope's blueprint to shield clergy

    08/01/2003 10:34:24 PM PDT · 232 of 319
    Bellarmine to Thorondir
    "No salvation outside the church"
  • Lawyers eye former pope's blueprint to shield clergy

    08/01/2003 10:30:41 PM PDT · 228 of 319
    Bellarmine to ultima ratio
    If the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are not the same, what is the meaning of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"? Does it refer to the Church of Christ or the Roman Catholic Church?
  • Lawyers eye former pope's blueprint to shield clergy

    08/01/2003 5:19:40 PM PDT · 89 of 319
    Bellarmine to ultima ratio
    You bring up a good point. It is also interesting to me that those who charge others with not accepting Vatican II do not realize just how much of Vatican II's teachings the church no longer accepts.

    For example, Vatican II outlined pastoral measures for reforming the Roman Rite. Yet, no one could seriously argue that the Novus Ordo Missae represents the application of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI decided to ignore the outline set forth by Vatican II and instead reformed the mass the way he saw fit.

    The same can be said for Dei Verbum. Could anyone argue that the modernist filth issuing forth from the Pontifical Biblical Commision is in line with Dei Verbum?

    Or even further, what about Assisi I and II? There is no way to justify these events based on Dignitatis Humanae, even as liberal as that document is.

    I say that I accept all of the teachings of Vatican II, but what in the world does that mean? How can I keep track of all of its directives that have already been abandoned, and how can I know which ones will be abandoned in the future?

  • Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism - Distinctions with Philosophical Differences

    07/17/2003 7:19:29 AM PDT · 81 of 97
    Bellarmine to ninenot
    I wish I could take your "so what" attitude ninenot.
  • Wednesday Audience - Meditation on Canticle of Isaiah 66

    07/17/2003 6:34:41 AM PDT · 12 of 12
    Bellarmine to Saint Athanasius

    Biblical scholars consider that this final section, open to a splendid and festive future, is the testimony of a subsequent voice, that of a prophet who celebrates the rebirth of Israel after the dark period of the Babylonian exile. We are, therefore, in the sixth century B.C., two centuries after Isaiah's mission, the great prophet under whose name the whole of this inspired work is presented.

    From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    The "Second Isaias" gives rise to other more critical and less important problems. With the exception of one or two passages, the point of view throughout this section is that of the Babylonian Captivity; there is an unmistakable difference between the style of these twenty­seven chapters and that of the "First Isaias"; moreover, the theological ideas of xl-lxvi show a decided advance on those found in the first thirty­nine chapters. If this be true, does it not follow that xl-lxvi are not by the same author as the prophecies of the first collection, and may there not be good grounds for attributing the authorship of these chapters to a "second Isaias" living towards the close of the Babylonian Captivity? Such is the contention of most of the modern non­Catholic scholars.

    This is hardly the place for a discussion of so intricate a question. We therefore limit ourselves to stating the position of Catholic scholarship on this point. This is clearly set out in the decision issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 28 June, 1908. (1) Admitting the existence of true prophecy; (2) There is no reason why "Isaias and the other Prophets should utter prophecies concerning only those things which were about to take place immediately or after a short space of time" and not "things that should be fulfilled after many ages". (3) Nor does anything postulate that the Prophets should "always address as their hearers, not those who belonged to the future, but only those who were present and contemporary, so that they could be understood by them". Therefore it cannot be asserted that "the second part of the Book of Isaias (xl-lxvi), in which the Prophet addresses as one living amongst them, not the Jews who were the contemporaries of Isaias, but the Jews mourning in the Exile of Babylon, cannot have for its author Isaias himself, who was dead long before, but must be attributed to some unknown Prophet living among the exiles". In other words, although the author of Isaias xl-lxvi does speak from the point of view of the Babylonian Captivity, yet this is no proof that he must have lived and written in those times. (4) "The philological argument from language and style against the identity of the author of the Book of Isaias is not to be considered weighty enough to compel a man of judgment, familiar with Hebrew and criticism, to acknowledge in the same book a plurality of authors". Differences of language and style between the parts of the book are neither denied nor underrated; it is asserted only that such as they appear, they do not compel one to admit the plurality of authors. (5) "There are no solid arguments to the fore, even taken cumulatively, to prove that the book of Isaias is to be attributed not to Isaias himself alone, but to two or rather to many authors".

  • Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism - Distinctions with Philosophical Differences

    07/17/2003 5:34:42 AM PDT · 78 of 97
    Bellarmine to ninenot
    Thus, a reconciliation of Hegel to Aquinas is not, in itself, some sort of launch into Protestantism

    He is attempting a synthesis of Phenomenology to Thomism according to the modern philosophy of Hegel.

  • Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism - Distinctions with Philosophical Differences

    07/16/2003 9:43:00 PM PDT · 76 of 97
    Bellarmine to ninenot
    Actually, Fr. Ripperger explains JPII's method in this article. It is called the Hegelian dialectic. In this case, Thomism, is the existing element or thesis. It is opposed by Phenomenology, the antithesis. The synthesis of the two represents a new thesis which is an advance over the old (Thomism).

    The whole problem with the pope's method is that it embraces the modern philosophy of Hegel.

    Perhaps his work, which has been around for over twenty years, is still largely unexplained because it is utterly unexplainable.

  • Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism - Distinctions with Philosophical Differences

    07/15/2003 8:30:07 PM PDT · 31 of 97
    Bellarmine to sandyeggo
    The truth is divisive.
  • Latin Mass held in town for one day

    07/02/2003 12:13:22 PM PDT · 13 of 13
    Bellarmine to ultima ratio
    I'm surprised that this is the first post about this on the site. I heard this happened in the Diocese of Galveston-Houston. Does anyone else have any more details?
  • Do babies go to Heaven?

    12/30/2002 8:42:17 AM PST · 11 of 1,512
    Bellarmine to PFKEY
    It is a "De Fide" teaching of the Catholic Church that anyone who has the stain of original sin cannot enjoy the beatific vision. The theological debate over the centuries has been about what state the soul of an infant dying with original sin rests in. The prevailing view is that these souls will enjoy perfect happiness even though they do not enjoy the beatific vision.
  • An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L.

    12/02/2002 2:14:12 PM PST · 302 of 943
    Bellarmine to ultima ratio
    I think one interesting point to make regarding the original article is the history of the use of Latin in the Novus Ordo.

    The following is an excerpt from Bryan Houghton's book Mitre and Crook dealing with this subject. This is an excellent book that I would recommend to every Catholic wishing to understand the revolution that took place in the church in the 1960's and 70's (It is out of print but fairly easy to come by).

    "On June 14th, 1971, the Congregation for Worship issued a Notification granting to Episcopal Conferences the right to impose the exclusive use of the vernacular in the New Ordo, once the translations had been approved. It thus became illicit to celebrate the New Ordo in Latin. (. . .) It also repeated the provision in the instruction of October 20th, 1969 that the Old Mass could only be said by aged priests sine populo.

    Be it noted that a Notification is a purely administrative document and has no legislative authority whatsoever. Moreover, this particular one was itself undated and unsigned. It is therefore worth less than the paper on which it was printed. The bishops, from Rome to Stamford, remained mute.

    Of course, the inevitable result of this particular piece of administrative folly was to throw all Latinists into the arms of the Tridentiners. There was no alternative if the New Ordo was illicit in Latin. It became imperative to divide the opposition, especially as Archbishop Lefebvre had cropped up in the meantime. The laity had thus found a bishop with the promise of future priests. Hence the Notification of October 28th, 1974. This document reverses the previous ruling: the New Ordo may now be said in Latin or vernacular with equality off esteem."

    This bit of history should be kept in mind by those who attend the NO in Latin. They should know that it was never Rome's intent to preserve the Latin language in the liturgy. This should be obvious when one considers the nature of the New Mass. Why would you say the NO in a language incomprehensible to the people? After all the NO is all about the people. It makes sense to say the Traditional Mass in Latin as it is addressed to God, but the NO is centered aroung the people, and thus should be said in the vernacular. Fr. Houghton, in his book makes it clear that he thinks the NO in Latin is the worst of all choices.

  • New Forms of Incense in LA Cathedral

    09/04/2002 4:14:48 PM PDT · 31 of 39
    Bellarmine to petrusv2
    Is anyone but the priest even allowed to incense the altar? I know that the Deacon or altar server will incense the priest and then the faithful after the priest has incensed the altar, but I have never seen anyone but a priest incense the altar.



    09/02/2002 4:26:57 PM PDT · 135 of 179
    Bellarmine to patent
    Thank you for the reply patent. Here is some more...

    Precisely, and precisely my point. The thing they critiqued is not the thing that today exists. Many try to use their words to justify their present day critiques of the Mass as it now exists. However, the Cardinals didn’t critique the present day Mass, they critiqued something that was changed.

    The GIRM is the only thing that has changed. The Order of Mass as it was first proposed in 1969 was exactly the same in 1971. Only the accompanying explanation of it changed. Therefore the original heretical GIRM was used as an explanation for the Mass exactly as it is today.

    Re Bacci: Did he retain his objections though? The thing he critiqued no longer existed, he had no reason to withdraw it. If you criticize the new tax bill, and the tax bill is voted down, do you need to withdraw your criticism? No, of course not. But then a new tax bill is proposed that is similar to the old one, but different with respect to several of the things you criticized. It is voted on, and passed. But you don’t critique this one. One cannot necessarily assume that you approve of this new tax bill, but it is equally true that one cannot necessarily assume you disapproved either, as you haven’t spoken either way. If you want to show that either Cardinal disapproved of the Novus Ordo as it was refined, you need to quote them, not assume. As to the circumstances of Cardinal Ottaviani’s retraction, is he a man or a mouse? Just how impotent do you view the man to be? He is responsible for his words, and you cannot both cite him as authority and cite him as lacking facilities, which is what HDMZ seems to do.

    Again, only the GIRM changed. The Mass was exactly the same before and after. Therefore, your claim that the thing he criticized no longer existed is not true. This is why Bacci never retracted his position, and why I personally don’t believe the blind and seriously ill Ottaviani did either.

    A time ago ultima ratio and I debated over the Sacrificial language in the GIRM. I produced a compilation of the language in the first part, and he chose not to respond to it in any meaningful way. If you like, I will produce the same for you, and you can guess what meaning was meant by the Church. I don’t care what modernists and heretics read into it. These are the Sacrificial language the Church can use that will get through to these people, any more than there is no Sacrificial language the Church can use to get through to some Trads.

    What you can show me is a list of citations where the Tridentine formula has been added to the Protestant formula using the word “Or” or an equivalent phrase. At best you can show me something ambiguous. And yes, I will have to “guess what meaning was meant by the Church,” because the Church was not clear.

    Mere words, entirely meaningless. Name one Protestant that has adopted the Novus Ordo. Not a single action in 30 years to follow up on two sentences by two Protestants. That isn’t much of an approval.

    In 1972 the Anglican Archbishop of Southwark praised the Novus Ordo and said he used it and would like to see it made available to all Anglicans. There’s one.

    You are correct about the Protestants at Trent. I was mistaken on that point.



    09/01/2002 12:01:12 AM PDT · 31 of 179
    Bellarmine to patent
    I just couldn't let these posts pass without comment

    Cardinal Ottaviani published an intervention, not a condemnation.

    “To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorised, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error. “ – Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Paul VI accompanying the Critical Study

    This is not a condemnation???

    He published it before the Novus Ordo was finalized.

    The letter and accompanying Critical Study (later named the Ottaviani Intervention) were presented after the Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1969. The Novus Ordo was set to be made obligatory on November 30, 1969. It was precisely because of the actions of Bacci and Ottaviani that the Novus Ordo was delayed and revised.

    After discussions with the Pope and further revisions, he withdrew the intervention. You rely on his authority and his objections for your position, be he withdrew them, and so the very authority you cite speaks against you.

    The circumstances of Ottaviani’s supposed retraction are extremeley suspicious. Bacci never recanted his position.

    '7. At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice.13 For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross,14 Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements.15"

    The first sentence could be read two ways: “At the Lord’s Supper, the people of God are call together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”

    Or, “At Mass, the people of God are call together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice.”

    The first is Protestant, the second is Catholic. Guess which meaning all of the modernists in the church today read into it????

    Care to prove that protestants formulated the new Mass?

    No, but here's what they think of it.

    "The new eucharistic prayers have a structure corresponding to that of the Lutheran Mass." – Roger Schultz, Protestant observer at Vatican II

    "nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant." - M. G. Siegle, Protestant professor of dogmatic theology.

    They were mere observers, just as Protestants observed the Council of Trent, and were allowed to comment on it.

    There were no Protestant observers at Trent. They were invited, but none came.


  • St. Catherine Review: Communion in the Hand

    07/09/2002 10:31:52 AM PDT · 52 of 65
    Bellarmine to narses
    Good post narses.

    One thing I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion is that the practice of communion in the hand leads to tiny particles of Our Lord being strewn across the floor of the church. This does not happen when communion is administered at the communion rail with an alter server holding the pan under your chin. I know I wouldn't be afraid of shaking hands with Jesus were he to appear before me, but would I stomp him under my foot?

  • Can the Bishops Heal the American Church?

    06/04/2002 12:43:14 PM PDT · 91 of 138
    Bellarmine to Catholicguy
    Regarding St. Bellarmine, I hope you won't accuse anyone who proposes that resisting an unlawful order by the pontiff can sometimes be justified of being an inane apostate anymore.

    I don't think your statement that the canon has changed over time is specific enough. The Roman Canon was fixed at the time of Gregory the Great. It remained unchanged until Pope John XXIII inserted St. Joseph's name into the Canon, causing a great uproar. Of course now, the canon no longer exists. You can't have multiple canons, it denies the meaning of the word.

    I have seen the Mass on EWTN, and I must say that I disagree with you. I do see it as a radical change. Aside from the smells and bells, and the Latin, it is no different from the most outlandish charismatic mass. I have attended very reverent Novus Ordo masses, even in Latin, and they depress me just as much as the worst Novus Ordo masses. As to what the mass will look like in 100 years, who knows?

  • Can the Bishops Heal the American Church?

    06/04/2002 12:14:00 PM PDT · 86 of 138
    Bellarmine to Catholicguy
    The question stands...

    Why are you asking me that question? Are you confused? I have never said that Pope Paul VI promulgated a mass contrary to the faith. I don't appreciate your insinuation that I have...

    Charity is the highest of virtues...

  • Can the Bishops Heal the American Church?

    06/04/2002 11:23:12 AM PDT · 80 of 138
    Bellarmine to Catholicguy
    It is the Mass available to virtualy ALL the Catholics on this Planet. In what WAY is it "an interesting question" as to whether or not one should attend?

    To me it is an interesting question based on my experience as a Catholic. I have attended the Novus Ordo my entire life. I had no idea until a year or so ago that the entire liturgy of the church had been changed so radically just before I was born. I remember once attending an Anglican service and commenting to my Anglican friend who was considering converting to Catholicism that the Anglican service was nearly identical to the Catholic mass so that he wouldn't notice any difference. Little did I know at the time that his liturgy was 400 years old and mine was 30. Also, I was unaware that his liturgy was made the way it was by people who despised the Traditional Catholic Mass. So exactly what am I supposed to think Cathilocguy? I will still attend the Novus Ordo, and I don't doubt it's validity, but as far as my own salvation goes, I feel much safer going to the Traditional Mass.

  • Can the Bishops Heal the American Church?

    06/04/2002 10:58:34 AM PDT · 77 of 138
    Bellarmine to Catholicguy

    If you do desire to take on that burden, be prepared to cite Aquinas and Bellarmine in support of such apostate inanity

    "Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior." - St. Robert Bellarmine

    Everyone is a Pope EXCEPT the Pope, I guess. And I guess it is "Catholic" to think the Pope COULD promulgate a Liturgy of the Mass that is contrary to the Faith.

    Again see the quote above. You should know your church history a little better before you start accusing people of not being Catholic.

  • Can the Bishops Heal the American Church?

    06/04/2002 9:09:23 AM PDT · 52 of 138
    Bellarmine to american colleen

    But the faith says that we must be obedient to the Pope/Magisterium teaching, does it not? Not going to Mass because all there might be is the "Novus Ordo" is contrary to the faith. Jesus is Present in the "Novus Ordo", is he not? I would rather receive the Body of Christ in a "Novus Ordo" Mass than not receive Him at all. That said, I do love the Latin/Tridentine Mass.

    Yes, we must be obedient to the Pope/Magisterium. But obedience is a matter of Justice. It is sinful to obey an unjust command (unjust in this case being contrary to God's Law). This is also a matter of faith.

    As to whether or not we should attend the Novus Ordo if that is all that is available, is an interesting question. I have attended Novus Ordo masses where the priest has made it abundantly clear that he does not agree with the church's teaching on the sacrifice of the mass and the real presence. In this case, he would lack intent, which is required, and therefore would not consecrate the host, and I would not in fact be receiving Jesus. Also, the chances that I will hear a heretical homily at a Novus Ordo mass are very high based on my own experiences. Personally, I will attend the Novus Ordo if that is all that is available, but I have a hard time condemning the person who wishes to avoid it.