Dictionary of Dissent
"A is Not A"
|the kind of liberal or neo-conservative logic it takes to
reconcile, for ex.: Mortalium Animos with the Assisi Events; Mediator
Dei with the Novus Ordo Mass as celebrated; Mirari Vos with the "spirit
II"; Testem Benevolentiae Nostra and Quas Primas with the typical
post-conciliar view of government; Unam Sanctam with typical
post-conciliar false ecumenism; and so forth.
|that part of the Mass more properly called the Sanctus
|often involving dancing, singing, hand-clapping, waving arms
around, being disruptive, picking up musical instruments and putting on
a show for everyone, "active participation," as modernists see it, is
the busy-ness of engaging in behaviors that are "fun," not rooted in
our liturgical purposes and heritage, and, especially, which usurp the
priest's role and detract from the Mystery of Faith. It's what goes on
in liturgy for the MTV generation with its 5-second attention span.
True active participation is understanding the Mass -- its supernatural
reality and purpose -- and praying it along with the
Angels and Saints in Heaven. It is offering ourselves up to Christ,
uniting our joys and sufferings with His as He pours out His life for
us and becomes truly present in the Eucharist. If you don't get an
"emotional high" from that in the traditional Mass (which is not the
purpose of the Mass, anyway!), the problem is you, not the Mass.
|the word means "God" and is a perfectly good word, one used
by Middle Eastern Catholics. When Roman Catholic priests refer to God
as such during the liturgy, it usually bodes ill, however.
|Someone Jews hate (Joe Sobran's definition). It could be
someone who doesn't like Zionism or American funding of Israel. Or it
could be someone who knows what the Talmud says. It could be anyone who
believes what the Catholic Church teaches: that Jesus alone saves.
Whatever it is, whoever gets the label is expected to act guilty and
apologize profusely lest his career, reputation, and any realistic
hopes of fulfilling political ambition be destroyed. A strong, emotive
adjective -- especially "notorious," "virulent," and "rabid" -- almost
always comes before "anti-semite" in everyday usage in order to
instantly brand the "anti-semite" further and ensure he gets no fair
hearing. It is also used in conjunction with the word "canard," which
in French means "duck" -- appropriate because that's precisely what one
should do if these words are hurled in one's direction.
the typical use of the word. Of course, there are true anti-semites who
think that anyone with a Jewish parent is up to no good, or that all
Jews are in on some big scheme together. Those folks are messed up in
|congregation of parishioners. The use of the word "assembly"
(also "gathering") to describe those who are at Mass includes the
priest, thereby blurring the distinction between parishioners and the
|the Body of Christ
|I must make mention of this because it drives me mad and is
so common (yes, I am commonly mad. On second thought, I am uncommonly
mad. But I digress.). Quite often, I hear someone speak of "Catholics
and Christians" as though Catholics are not Christians. Ex., someone
might say, "Catholics and Christians, along with many conservative
Jews, have come out in support of Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the
Speaking this way would be akin to saying "Veterinarians treat animals
and dogs," a sentence that intimates that dogs are not animals. Since
Catholics are not only Christians but are the original Christians,
better ways of relating the idea meant to be expressed are "Catholics
and non-Catholic Christians," "Catholics and Protestants," "Catholics
and other Christians," etc.
|what non-traditional Catholics do with the Sacraments: they
"celebrate them" (they tend to "celebrate" all kinds of things: their
bodies, their sexualities, their new Number 2 Pencils...). While use of
this word with regard to the Sacraments has a long enough tradition,
its overuse and use at the expense of words such as
"offer," "receive," etc., is indicative of a focus (once again) on fun
and partying as opposed to worship, and all at the expense of the
dignity of the ordained priesthood.
With regard to "celebrating" the Mass, while it is true that the Mass
is, in part a celebration, it is centrally and more fundamentally, a
Sacrifice. Sacrifices aren't "celebrated"; they are offered.
|"Celibacy" refers to the state of being unmarried. It is not
to be confused with "chastity," which all people -- married or
unmarried -- are called to and which refers to using the sexual
functions in accordance with one's station in life. Priests, in other
words, are called to be both "celibate" and, like all of us, "chaste"
-- the latter of which, for them, means that they must be sexually
continent since they are unmarried and sex outside of marriage is
sinful. I mention this here because the word "celibate" is too often
used incorrectly to indicate that one does not have sex, and because
actively homosexual priests take advantage of ignorance over this
matter by honestly proclaiming their "celibacy" -- even if they're out
cruising every other night.
|see "pastor, pastoral"
|a sort of, um, consciousness, man, or perfection of
energy...or something. "It's" the "spirit among us" -- exemplified by
that super-tolerant guy Jesus (among others), who was assassinated for
being a radical -- that becomes crystallized when we "gather" in the
"worship space" to "share bread and wine" from the "table."
|to modernists, the term "Church" applies to any heretical
sect. There's the Methodist "Church," the Presbyterian "Church," the
Baptist "Church," etc. In the real world, these faith communities are
just that -- faith communities -- and are not "Churches" because there
is only one Church and that is the Catholic Church which consists of
various ritual Churches, none of which includes those faith communities
outside their Communion. In the same vein, it is not accurate to refer
to the Catholic Church as a "denomination."
To sum up, the Church is the congregation of all baptized persons
united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same
sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. She (not
"it") is the the only Ark of Salvation, the Barque of Peter -- the
Spotless Bride of Christ made one flesh with Him in marriage and,
therefore, the Mystical Body of Christ.
|this is the new and improved goal of the Church, and refers
to a Civilization of Tolerance and Unwillingless to Preach the Gospel
Lest We Offend People. While tolerance of those who practice other
religions is a good, the assumption that error has rights, that there
can be Love without Truth, and that a recognition of the Kingship of
Christ is obviated in light of man's warm fuzzies for other men --
these things are lies.
|CINO stands for "Catholic In Name Only" and is a term to
describe Catholics who pick and choose which dogmas and doctrines to
believe, if any, and which to reject because of personal dislike of
those teachings or because they see those teachings as being in
conflict with the philosophical, cultural, or political premises they,
consciously or pre-consciously, use as a sieve through which to filter
their internal dialogue.
These Catholics cling to the religion out of emotional or famililial
attachment, through sentimentality, rather than through an act of the
will submitted to the intellect. Some refer to these Catholics as
"Poinsettia and Lily Catholics" or just "Lily Catholics" because the
only two liturgical days they tend to bother to show up for Mass are
Christmas and Easter (though Ash Wednesday seems popular, too).
|in the classic sense of the word, "clericalism" refers to a
policy of maintaining the power of the hierarchy (why have a hierarchy
if it isn't empowered to do certain things, anyway?). Nowadays, it
refers to an attitude that modernists accuse pre-Vatican II Catholics
of having had, by which they mean that pre-Vatican II Catholics were blindly
obedient, and brainlessly did everything the hierarchy wanted, like so
many trained poodles. There must be some truth to this stereotype or
else the human element of the Church wouldn't have imploded after
Vatican II. In any case, such "clericalism," as it were, isn't
Catholic; witness Sts. Catherine of Siena, Robert Bellarmine, Thomas
Aquinas, Athanasius, etc., but true clericalism -- the idea that
clerics should be treated as what they truly are -- is.
It's kind of interesting how one can categorize a Catholic by his
attitude toward clerics:
Catholics see their clerics as what they are: men who've been ordained
by Christ through His Church and given a sacred power to offer the
Sacraments. Some of them are saints, others are diabolical. We give
them ordinary religious assent, we respect their office, we kiss their
hands -- but we do not obey when they contradict the Faith.
A sub-set of traditionalists, sadly, does have that attitude
attributed above to pre-Vatican II Catholics -- but only with regard to
their own priest. They won't fix dinner without running the
menu by Father to ensure they're not sinning by roasting instead of
Catholics see the very concept of "cleric" as a hideous offense against
equality and fraternity and yadda yadda. However, they always pull out
the "You must obey; he's a Bishop" card when it comes to a Bishop who
is pushing what they want.
Catholics (you'll find them in the mainstream, softly whimpering about
liturgical abuses) do tend to be a bit clericalist. Many see any papal
doodling as "infallible" and, while they usually have wonderful
Catholic imaginations and true desire to do the right thing,
they often have a false sense of obedience and an ignorance about
Vatican II and the liturgy and such. Their lives in the Church are
usually a living Hell (liturgical abuses, insanely heretical
catechists, etc.), but they never do anything about the true causes of
these problems out of fear of being "disobedient." There is a lot of
heroic patience in the neo-conservative crowd; if only they'd read
about some of our warrior Saints, study the Faith further, "go trad,"
and light a few fires!
|members of a particular church, i.e., parish. Beware
especially of a parish referred to as "vibrant faith community." This
generally means there are a lot of liturgical abuses and the focus is
on fun instead of worship. "Faith community" should be used to describe
an heretical "Christian" sect, not a Catholic parish church (see
|half-truth in the name of "peace." "Compromise," in
modernist-speak, means getting the traditional side to move away from
the absolute Truth and toward the "center," which is the same as saying
toward the modernist side. Successive acts of "compromise" will end
with the traditional side no longer traditional and the Truth
eradicated in favor of "peace" -- this in spite of the fact that Christ
said He did not come to bring "peace" but the sword.
It is good to compromise on where to go to dinner, what movie to see,
whether to put the couch here or there -- all matters of taste. But to
compromise on Truth is to slap Christ and all the martyrs in their
|Obsolete. See "Reconciliation."
|for modernists, this is the psychological mechanism
controlled by the gonads or selfish desires. The duties to "obey one's
conscience" (funny how they never mention the duty to inform one's
conscience) never extend to traditional Catholics. It works like this:
|"I have to use
contraception; deep in my conscience I knew it was the right thing to
do, what with the ozone being all messed up and such."
|"Kewl! As long
as you obeyed your conscience..."
conscience and years of prayerful study tell me that what's been going
on in the human element of the Church lately is evil."
Reactionary! Trad! Lidless-eyed Freak!"
|According to the dictionary, a synonym for "conspiracy" is
"plot," which is further defined as "a secret plan for accomplishing a
usually evil or unlawful end." A conspiracy theory, therefore, is a
theory that alleges two or more people making a plan for unlawful or
To hip, sophisticated readers of the New York Times, the idea that
people do conspire against the Church and the Christian tenets of
Western Civilization is extremely laughable, in spite of the fact that
the existence of conspiracies against these is a no-brainer. If one
describes as "conspiratorial" the actions of Freemasons, Zionists, or
political neo-conservatives -- even if one has good evidence and if
others of great intelligence, learning, and virtue agree -- one has
placed oneself outside of the category of those who may be taken
seriously (or even allowed in polite society, in the case of
On the other hand, the most ridiculous, historically unsound,
groundless "conspiracy theories" that intimate the evil, dastardly
Catholic Church has hoodwinked billions of people for two millenia,
such as the conspiracies alleged in "The Da Vinci Code," are not only
acceptable, but lauded. It is "ridiculous" to think that forces
unleashed in the so-called "Enlightenment" have sought to damage and
degrade the Church, and successfully so as all evidence proves, but is
perfectly brilliant to think that the Catholic Church, for two thousand
years, has hid from the world the Gnostic "Gospels" of true wisdom only
so the Church could maintain its evil power over the simple man and
keep women in our place (nevermind the Protestant accusations of
Mary-worship. As long as the Church is bad one way or another, all is
well). Anyway, go figure. Jesuits can conspire, of course, as can big
corporations and fundamentalists and such. But people with
anti-Christian attitudes would just nevah-evah think of planning any
assaults. It's just "loony" to think so, dontcha know!
|The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Liberals use
"Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" instead to avoid using "sexist"
language and "imaging" God as masculine in any way
|what the Church should become and what every nation should
become politically, according to moderns -- this in spite of the facts
that democracy always leads to tyranny and there can be no
"democratization" of the Truth. When "the greatest political good"
amounts to those proverbial two wolves and a sheep voting on what to
have for dinner, you know we're lost.
|modernist-speak for talking incessantly until the traditional
side gets worn down and changes Catholic teaching or until a generation
or two has heard the endless chatter, becomes confused, and leaves the
|chancery, or the central administrative building of a diocese.
|in the language of dissent, to "discriminate" is to commit an
evil act, to treat people with a lack of the sentimentalism they call
charity and with no awareness of the "hallowedness" of the concept of
To Catholics, discrimination is what normal, psychologically and
spiritually healthy people do -- must do -- every time they make a
decision between two or more options. Back when the world was
relatively sane, a person who made good choices was said to have
"discriminating tastes," and that was considered a good thing. People
knew that some things were sacred, other things were not, that some
people actually were better than others, that some things were ugly and
other things were beautiful. The unwise would have us now believe in a
pantheistic "all things are sacred" worldview, equate the pedophile and
murderer with the greatest of Saints, and view a painted primitive
circle on a canvas as "art" on a par with a work by Caravaggio. They've
so linked the word "discrimination" with "racialist bigotry" that to
"discriminate" nowadays is to be considered a Nazi or admirer of the
KKK. I say, let's reclaim the word and make clear that Catholics do
discriminate -- against sin, against unwise decisions, against the
actions of bad people, against ugliness -- while loathing racial
bigotry and the idea that repentance and redemption are only for some
|pagan worship of the earth as "Gaia." This is opposed to
worshipping only God and to orthodox Christian ideas of stewardship of
the earth and marvelling at God's creation as small-"S" sacramental
|relations between "faith communities" that leads to
indifferentism (the idea that all religions are of equal value). True
ecumenism leads to an understanding of our differences and never comes
at the cost of Truth; the false ecumenism that predominates leads to a
watering down of Catholic practices, heretical indifferentism, and out
and out scandals, such as the Assisi Ecumenical Prayer meetings.
Note, too, that religious tolerance and respect for people who,
in ignorance, worship in false religions are one thing; it is another
thing entirely to speak of "respect for other religions" or
"religious freedom" in the modern sense of a radical separation of
Church and State, or as in the idea that error has positive "rights."
|in modernist-jargon, this refers to political or other
temporal power. True empowerment, however, is freedom from sin, in
|the time period following the Renaissance and which is seen
as the beginning of man's sudden coming to wisdom after 17 centuries of
Christianity. Seculars would have us believe that the "Enlightenment,"
so-called, has brought forth good things -- equality, fraternity,
"liberty," democracy, etc. But a closer look at these alleged "good
things" will show that they contradict each other (liberty and equality?)
and have led to little but evil as they've been defined for us
"moderns." Equality is a joke idea outside the order of dignity and as
regards quality before the law; true liberty is freedom from sin and
from the coercion of evil people; true fraternity depends on Truth Who
is Christ; democracy is the situation in which the "majority" (which,
in real life, means those who control the media and bribe politicians)
get to make the laws we have to live under.
|that part of the Mass that is rightfully called the Introit
|The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. New-speak likes to describe
the Sacrifice only in terms of a "meal," a most Protestant
notion that has no business being emphasized at the expense of
the concept of Sacrifice.
|Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister, i.e., a lay person who is
appointed to help the priest in Bugnini's 1970 Mass distribute the
Eucharist in truly extraordinary circumstances -- that is, when a
sufficient number of priests or deacons is not available. Extraordinary
Eucharistic Ministers (EEMs) are overused even in Novus Ordo terms,
usually appearing in almost every Novus Ordo Mass in every parish, even
when they are not necessary even according to the General Instructions.
This serves to once again water down the ordained priesthood and
banalize the Eucharist. They are wrongly called "Eucharistic Ministers"
by modernists, leaving out the word "Extraordinary," to further this
end and even though only the priest is the ordinary Minister of the
UPDATE: Apparently, and according to EWTN experts, EEMs are now
to be referred to as "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion" or
"EMHCs". This changes everything!
|In the post-conciliar human element of the Church, a lack of
respect for the priesthood has led Catholics to call priests by their
first names without being invited to. A priest named Joseph Jones
should, though, be addressed and referred to as "Father Jones," not
"Father Joseph," "Father Joe," "Snoop-Priesty-Priest" or what-not
unless you are specifically instructed by him to call him otherwise.
|to Modernists and neo-conservative Catholics (who've
consciously or pre-consciously absorbed the values of Freemasonry),
Freemasonry is a mere social club with a bad reputation among
traditional Catholics (and many Protestants, for that matter). To
almost 300 years worth of Popes and to good historians, Freemasonry is
an anti-Christ (and therefore anti-Church) subversive movement that
works out to be a heady blend of Talmudism, Kabbalah, "Enlightenment"
Rationalism and, at the highest, hidden levels, Satanism. Many good
people are Masons who have no idea what Freemasonry is
because they are at its lower levels. They have no idea about the roles
Freemasonry has played in the subversion of the Church and in
collectivist or secularizing revolutions. Some Catholics deride such
ideas ("That's a --teehee- conspiracy theory!
Hahaha-chortle!"), but our great Popes took it quite seriously
indeed -- and it is absolutely forbidden for a Catholic to become a
Freemason, even now.
|church building. Calling it a "gathering space" puts the
emphasis on those "gathering" as opposed to on God, as the liturgy in a
parish that uses this term is also apt to do.
|In today's world, a "Gentile" is considered to be anyone who
does not practice Pharisaism. In the eyes of God and of His Church,
Catholics are not "Gentiles" but are Israel, the very seed of Abraham
(see Jeremias 31:31-34, Matthew 3:7, Romans 11:16-23, Galatians 3:7-29,
etc.). There are, though, those who claim to be Jews (i.e., of Judah)
but aren't (Apocalypse 2:9 , Apocalypse 3:9, etc.)
|Offering. The "presentation of the gifts" is actually the
|A language of some of the Uniate Catholic Churches, the
lingua franca of Palestine at the time of Jesus, the original language
of the Septuagint and most of the New Testament, etc. What Modernists
do with the Greek language is this, though: in the Roman
Church, they throw around words relevant to Byzantine liturgies
and Byzantine Churches while simultaneously eradicating
traditional Latin words that are relevant to the Roman
Rite and the Roman Church. You will hear "Anaphora" for
"offering," "koinonia" for unity, "kairos" for experiencing time
transcendentally, and "Eucharist" a billion more times than "Communion"
(you will also hear the word "Eucharist" used to refer to the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass, too, as in "we are having a Eucharist at 9:30"),
Now, there is nothing wrong with these words; they are perfectly fine.
But they are used for definite evil purposes and with bad attitudes:
- They are used in
the same way that Legalese is used by shysters, and medical jargon is
used by some doctors: to confuse and gain power through intimidation.
When some "liturgist" or "theologian" starts talking Greek to little
75-year old Mrs. D'Onofrio who's worshipped in the Roman Church all her
life, her "it's all Greek to me!" confusion allows them to get away
with making her feel stupid for things like wanting to kneel for
Communion (er, Eucharist), and thereby intimidating her into going
along with their destructive plans.
- Liberals pick
and choose among the bits and pieces of the Byzantine world and shove
the parts they like down Romans' throats as an object lesson. For ex.,
they like the idea that Greek priests can be married, so they appeal to
all things Greek as the model for how the Roman Church should be. They
never tell you, though, that from the beginning of the Church, married
priests in all the Churches, East and West, were to
abstain from their wives (doh!), which is why celibacy was introduced very
early on (see Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira, A.D. 300-306, and
Canon 3 of the Council of Carthage, A.D. 390, for ex.). They won't tell
you that it is the Roman Church that maintains the Tradition given to
us by the Apostles in demanding sexual abstinence on the part of
priests, whether the priests are married or not married (celibate).
- There is, in the
minds of many, the idea that the non-Roman Catholic Churches and the
Orthodox Churches are somehow "cooler" than the Roman Church. So, like
American WASP-y teenagers claiming to be "Wiccans," like Hollywood
stars calling themselves "Buddhists" or "Kabbalists," like Jan Brady
putting on a brown wig, throwing around those Greek words is, like, far
|the proper Western Christian transcription of the word is
"allelúia," not "hallelujah"; the latter is an English Protestant
"Reformation" use based on the Masoretic texts. And what does this
glorious word mean? "All hail to Him Who is!"
... And while I'm on this sort of topic:
Catholics end prayers with "Ah-men," not "Ay-men." Catholics in England
say "Ay-men" when responding to prayers in English (they use Ah-men
when responding to prayers in Latin, of course). No Catholic should
ever say "Ay-men AND Ay-men!"
- The name of the
man who wrote "City of God" is pronounced "Au-GUS-tin," with the accent
on the second syllable, not "AW-gus-TEEN."
- The last Book of
the Bible (which has 73 Books, not 66) is "Apocalypse," not
"Revelation" -- and those 7 Books the Protestants tore out are the
"Deuterocanonical Books," not "the Apocrypha." In addition, some of our
Old Testament Books have funny names (e.g., "Malachias or
"Paralipomenon"), and we number our Psalms using the Septuagint's
system, not that of medieval rabbis (the 23rd Psalm begins "The earth
is the Lord's and the fulness thereof," not "The Lord is my
refers to God, not any spooky thing that happens. Phenomena pertaining
to the good angels, the demonic, etc., are referred to as
- We use "A.D."
and "B.C." when writing dates. "C.E." and "B.C.E." are for atheists,
Jews, pagans, apostates, and sell-outs. (By the way, "A.D." comes
before the date; "B.C." comes after.)
It's always fun to read "B.C.E." out loud as "Before Christian Era,"
and to read "C.E." as "Christian Era" -- or to ask those who don't why
the "Common Era" began when it did.
- "Going medieval
on someone" would be a very good thing to do. To use the word
"medieval" as a synonym for "barbaric," "stupid," or "unenlightened"
shows an ignorance of History and an exposure to anti-Catholic
- Yes, we actually
pray TO Saints. Some conservative Catholics are afraid to say this,
mistakenly thinking that "to pray" means "to worship as God or a god"
(or are afraid that Protestants think that). All they need is a
dictionary to find that "to pray" means "to ask." Now, pray tell, was
that so hard to figure out?
- In the same way,
we actually do "worship Mary" -- but not with the sort of
worship that is due to God alone (latria) which has become the
modern Protestant sense of the word (this is why many Catholics, using
this modern definition, insist we don't "worship Mary"; we most
definitely don't believe she is God! We do not "worship Mary"
in any sense that Protestants accuse us of, i.e., we don't "worship
Mary" in the modern, Protestant sense of the word!). "To worship" does
not necessarily mean treating someone or something as God. The British
call their magistrates and mayors "Your Worship," and I don't think any
of them mistakenly consider Mayor So-and-So to be the Father Almighty.
The point for Protestants reading this is this: if you come across a
traditional Catholic text referring to "Mary worship" in a good light,
don't freak out.
- The Church is
referred to as "She" not "it," and the proper possessive pronoun for
the Church is "Her" not "its." The Church is a Form in the Mind of God,
a divine institution with a human element, the Bride of Christ made one
with Him, thereby becoming His Mystical Body. It is not a merely human
institution. Because of this, if someone in the Church commits a sin or
teaches an error, even if that someone is a Pope, it is not right to
say "the Church committed a sin" or "the Church taught an error." In
fact, it is blasphemous to do so as it defames the very Mystical Body
of Christ. One should instead refer to the individual involved or to
"the human element of the Church."
- Catholics don't
"take" Communion, we "receive" Communion
- Having a
"personal relationship with Jesus" is what we call having faith,
repenting, receiving the Sacraments, and living a virtuous life
- "Born again" is
what you get when you're baptized
- "Saved" is what
you get when you are baptized, and what you get again when you repent
of sin after Baptism. You are eternally saved when you die in a state
- Major pet
peeve alert: Catholics should be very, very careful when speaking about
ecclesiastical problems. The Church is holy, spotless, the very Body of
Christ. Mistakes that are made by Her members should be attributed not
to "the Church," but to "the human element of the Church.".
|to liberals, if it exists at all, it's the place where those
uptight traditional Catholics and political "reactionaries" go
|the worst disease experienced by mankind ever, worse
than the influenza epidemics, smallpox epidemics, Mad Cow, Ebola, the
Black Death, cancer and diabetes combined. This disease, of
course, is totally unrelated to human behaviors and could be eradicated
if only the Vatican would sell off its art
collections and open a condom factory. (This is not to
denigrate those who suffer from this wretched disease, God bless them,
or to intimate that all who suffer from it got the disease by engaging
in some sinful behavior. But, really, the political attitudes and
unwillingness to be honest about HIV/AIDS are maddening).
Speaking of condoms, can you imagine this?:
|Before we engage
in one of the sins that cry out to Heaven, Sebastian, would you mind
putting on this condom?
|No, the Pope
says no to condoms! You know how seriously I take Catholic doctrine,
|Well, if we die
from AIDS, it will be his fault then!
|a perfectly fine name for the Third Person of the Trinity --
but whatever happened to "Holy Ghost"? My thoughts are that replacing
"Holy Ghost," which has very specific connotations in the
English language (though it comes from the German "Geist" for
"Spirit"), with the more nebulous word "Spirit" is a way to use the
word "spirit" as a segué to concepts such as "zeitgeist" or "spirit of
the times," etc. We move from the "Holy Spirit" acting in Vatican II
(He was there, but was often ignored) to "the Spirit of Vatican II" to
"the post-conciliar spirit," and so on, which leaves us open for
|traditional Latin Catholics call the the preaching after the
Gospel the "sermon." Greeks and liberals (and no, I am not accusing
Greeks of being liberal!) insist on referring to it as a "homily," and
to the latter, a "homilist" is anyone with anything to say after the
Gospel Reading at Mass, be they pagan, Protestant, witch, atheist,
Unitarian, Jew, etc. In real life, a sermon can only be given by a
|"Agoraphobia" is the fear of public places, "tonitrophobia"
is the fear of thunder, "maieusiophobia" is the fear of childbirth. To
hear liberals tell it, "homophobia" is the fear of homosexuals. The
term is used, though, to describe anyone who believes homosexuality is
disordered and that acting on homosexuality is a sin. The use
of "homophobia" is meant to pathologize a healthy attitude toward
homosexuality, to make those who believe in Scripture appear to be
"mentally ill" in the same way a person who has a fear of public places
is "mentally ill." The only time the word "homophobia" should ever be
used is when applied to the type of person who runs out of the room in
a sweat-drenched panic if a homosexual were to enter. Otherwise, it's
Especially "clever" is the liberals' accusation that "homophobes"
(their definition) are such because they are secretly, maybe even
pre-consciously, "gay" themselves. I wonder if that means that liberals
hate traditionalists so much because, way deep down, they actually love
Latin. Hey, get some help for that problem, tradophobes! Don't hate!
|the "real sin" of Sodom and Gomorrah, if one buys what the
homosexualists are selling. Yes, to our brilliant moderns, buggery
wasn't the issue at all, it was just Sodom's bad manners (nevermind
Jude 7). If the inhabitants of these doomed towns had only left
chocolates on the pillows for their overnight guests, or purposefully
spilled a little wine on the tablecloth at dinners they hosted in order
to help the invited not worry about making a mess, or maybe remembered
to include party favors at their soirées, they wouldn't have been
pelted with brimstone. Silly them! If only Emily Post had been around
to help them out...
|as opposed to the simple charity (rooted in Truth) owed to
all men by Christians, "human dignity" in the post-Conciliar era is a
concept much more aligned with the Masonic idea of the exaltation of
man. Honoring "human dignity," and all the political ramifications
thereof, is the general focus of the new theology and is the impetus
behind many scandalous behaviors. This worldview sees the Incarnation
as having united all men, as a collective, to Christ for all
time in a way that disregards the need for individual conversion. Its
soteriology is universalist, and so, the Gospel message is lost because
"all men" are saved.
The Truth is, there is no dignity inherent in being human aside from
the dignity inherent in our being His creatures, made in His image. We
become truly dignified when we are born again through Baptism,
and only then, or by some extraordinary act of God, may we share in the
Divine Nature. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, but
lost the dignity of "likeness" through sin. Until we repent and receive
His grace, we, too, are lost in sin and have lost our likeness to God.
|the way we envision God. According to the modernists, we are
to get rid of the God of revelation and "re-image" Him according to our
subjective "needs." For ex., if we are women, we need to "image God" as
feminine; if we are Chinese, we are to "image God" as Asian, etc. (hey,
I wonder how Hitler "imaged" Him!)
|a parish that goes out of its way to describe itself as
"inclusive" should be avoided. All Catholic churches are "inclusive" --
"catholic" means "universal" -- and all are welcome, red and
yellow, black and white, those struggling with homosexuality, drug
abuse, past abortions, whatever. Modernist parishes use the word
"inclusive" to mean "heresy, active homosexuality, gender feminism,
etc., are not condemned here. We pick and choose among Catholic
teachings to make you happy."
really funny that the push for "inclusivity" only
applies to liberals. While they have no problem bashing the Church for
not being "inclusive" because She speaks out against sin, these same
people don't want traditional Catholics anywhere near them.
|the popular-among-modernists process by which the liturgy
becomes anything but Catholic as it adapts to new cultures. Every
culture must have its own liturgy, you see. Certain African tribes must
sacrifice chickens during the Mass in order for the liturgy to have any
"meaning for them," Nordic lesbian line-dancers have to "experience the
liturgy" in a way that "affirms" their Nordic line-dancing lesbianism,
and so it goes.
Paradoxically, this hyper-sensitivity to other cultures never extends
to, well, Catholic culture as it has been -- or had been -- for 2,000
years. While the Wangalese tribesmen simply must have priests
dressed in feathers offering a "Eucharist" made of rice and caterpillar
lungs, the traditional Catholic who wants the ancient Catholic Mass is
just a "reactionary" who "doesn't accept the teachings of Vatican II"
and who must be shut up at all costs.
|To the Modernist, the word has no relevance at all except in
reference to the rumblings of their own egos.
To the conservative/neo-conservative Catholic, the word can refer to
anything from the fruits of properly convened and papally approved
dogmatic Councils, infallible solemn defintions, and anything that has
always been taught by the Church -- to episcopal whimsies and gibberish
the Holy Father might mutter in a deep R.E.M. stage of sleep as long as
it can be interpreted in a modernist fashion.
To the educated and traditional Catholic, it refers to those things on
the left side of the dash above.
|"Islam means peace," President Bush would have had us
believe, even as he seems intent on bombing Muslims out of existence.
To those of us who know better, "Islam" means "Submission."
|"early Christianity" is what is meant by this term, a term
that seems to be used by those "Biblical scholars" who think Mary
Magdalen was supposed to have been the real leader of the early Church,
that St. Paul (not St. Peter) was the real leader of the early Church,
that Jesus was gay (or at least didn't mind homosexuality at all), that
Jesus was a radical egalitarian political leader, etc. When one hears
the phrase "Jesus movement" used, one can safely prepare oneself for
the lies to follow.
|What is known most commonly as "Judaism" today is not the Old
Testament religion. It is, instead, Pharisaic rabbinism -- a religion
with no priests and no sacrifices, and which sees the Old Testament
only through the filter of the Talmud and other rabbinical writings.
Though the Old Testament religion is also sometimes called "Judaism,"
these two religions should never be confused. Catholicism is the true,
Old Testament Judaism -- but fulfilled and consummated by the Messiah
that the practitioners of the Old Testament religion expected. See
Jeremias 31:31-34, Galatians 3:7-29, Matthew 3:7, Romans 2:28-29,
Romans 11, Apocalypse 2:9 and 3:9, among many others.
|as typically used and understood, "Judeo-Christian"
is an oxymoronic term, similar to "Big-Little," meant to make
Christians feel ("feel" being the operative word) that post-Temple
rabbinic Pharisaism is compatible with the religion centered on Jesus
Christ. Those who use this term usually conflate the Old Testament
religion with Pharisaism, the only brand of Judaism that remains (aside
from the religion of a handful of Karaites and Ethiopians), and intend
for their audience to believe that modern Judaism and Christianity
share common "values" (those who believe this need to read the Talmud
and the Tanya sometime). The only way this term makes any
sense at all is if the "Judeo" refers to the Old Testament religion.
But given the conflation of the Old Testament religion and modern
Judaism, it is better to avoid this phrase.
|Jurisdiction refers to the authority exercised over a given
area. Because priests of the Society of St. Pius X don't have (or
claim) ordinary jurisdiction in any diocese, and because jurisdiction
is required in order for a priest to hear confessions and witness
marriages, those Sacraments when offered by S.S.P.X. (and other
traditional) priests is often labelled "invalid." The S.S.P.X.'s
defense is that there is such a thing as supplied jurisdiction which
makes those Sacraments quite valid. Canon 144 §1 of the 1983 Code of
Canon Law states:
In common error
about fact or about law, and also in positive and probable doubt about
law or about fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance
both for the external and for the internal forum.
With regard to
Confession, Canon 844, §2 states:
necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and
provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's
faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a
Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the
Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in
whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canons 144 and
844 are believed by S.S.P.X. defenders to supply the necessary
jursdiction. Such matters are for the Holy Father to decide.
|for the liberal, the Kingdom refers to a naturalist socialist
and paganized earthly utopia. In Truth, though, Christ's Kingdom is not
of this world aside from where Heaven meets Earth in the Church; but we
are to strive on earth to reflect His Heavenly Kingdom in its integrity
by following the divine plan for ordered social life -- a plan based on
natural law, Christian morality whose Truths are given to us through
the Church, and recognition of Christ's Kingship.
of the Mass and the Divine Office -- the work of the people, the public
worship of the Church. A modern "liturgist," however, is usually one of
two types of extremist creatures:
a) a person raised on the ecclesiastical equivalent of the principle of
modern art that states that anything that isn't new is "derivative"
(which is a Very Bad Thing) and who likes to inject into the Mass
bizarre displays that have nothing to do with the supernatural
realities of the Mass and which aren't rooted in the Tradition (which
is, of course, inherently derivative)
~ or ~
antiquarian who believes that the Mass and Sacramental life of the
Church must be conducted exactly the way it was in the first
century with no room for organic growth rooted in the
supernatural realities of the liturgy and its more mundane fruits
(e.g., catechesis). These same people, however, have no desire to
return to the Catacombs, use Latin or Greek exclusively in the liturgy,
restore the year-long public penances, bring back fasting and
abstaining from sex during the entire season of Lent -- well, you get
the idea: they deny the Church the authority to ordain new disciplines
that better signify the Truth and aid in true worship.
Paradoxically, they also get squirmy and squirrely whenever archaeology
disagrees with their notion that 1st c. liturgy was some stripped-down,
feminist, New-Agey luv-feast.
Liturgy of the
|Mass of the Faithful, i.e., that part of the Mass that only
the initiated, "living members" of the Church (those in a state of
grace) are allowed to fully participate in
Liturgy of the Word
|Mass of the Catechumens, i.e., that part of the Mass the
uninitiated and "dead members" of the Church (those not in a state of
grace) are allowed to fully participate in
Magisterium, Living Tradition, Living Church, etc.
|To modernists, the fact that the Magisterium, Tradition, and
the Church Herself are rightly called "living" means that they are
always in a constant state of flux. Because the Modernist types believe
in Darwinian-style evolution, they tend to see things that are "living"
as "evolving," eventually from one species to another, higher species.
This explains how they can, without batting an eye and thinking that
they are doing the Church a favor, push liturgical revolutions and
ideas of a "growing understanding of doctrine" that, respectively,
destroy Ecclesiastical Tradition or lead one to believe that what was
eternally true is no longer true.
On the contrary, the Magisterium is immutable, Tradition is immutable,
and the Church is immutable, in the same way God Himself is both
"living" and "immutable." These things are "living" because we, who are
alive, live under and in them, and the Holy Ghost, Who is alive, guards
them. Neither the Magisterium nor Tradition nor the Church can change
anything that has been handed down in such a way that touches the substance
of the Faith. In addition, disciplines should change only consistently
with Sacred Tradition, the very purposes of Ecclesiastical
tradition, and Natural Law, and only then with regard to quantity or
quality -- never in terms of substance (and, obviously, changes
which lead to lesser quality, such as many of those after Vatican II,
should be changed back).
|to liberals, "love" amounts to warm-fuzzies that have nothing
to do with supernaturally infused virtue expressed in a manner directed
by the will and grounded in Truth.
|the new god. This concept is a result of a refocus from
theology to anthropological philosophy. The new trend in episcopal
thinking starts with man himself instead of starting with the God of
revelation. It glosses over the reality of original sin and assumes
that if man just gazes at himself long enough, he will then seek out
God (Who may be found in any religion, but only "most fully" in the
Catholic religion). This emphasis is reflected in the focus on
"community" and the restructuring of our church buildings and liturgy
to put man (er, humankind) at the center.
|if she is mentioned at all, she is presented as the
"archetype" of the unwed, dis-empowered, homeless woman who went on to
become a radical feminist. She should never be "imaged" as a veiled
woman uttering her fiat; she should be "re-imaged" as a gutsy broad who
said ixnay to the patriarchy's rules against out-of-wedlock motherhood
and maybe even became a priestess to boot
|To Catholics, Mary Magdalen is a former sinner, the penitent
out of whom 7 devils were cast, the one who annointed Jesus' feet, the
sister of St. Martha and Lazarus, and one of Christ's greatest
disciples, the first to know He rose from the dead. To Protestants, the
above referred to two different Marys, maybe even three.
To liberals, repeating the idea that the Magdalen had been a prostitute
is the patriarchy's way of keeping her in her place. Why they believe
that her having been a great sinner before her conversion is some sort
of slam to her Christian dignity isn't explained given that traditional
Catholics also believe that Pope St. Peter denied Christ three times,
St. Paul used to kill Christians, and so on.
Even more disturbing, though, is that some people believe that Mary
Magdalen was Jesus' wife, or at least the bearer of His child, which
makes her the true "Holy Grail." They find "evidence" for that in the
feminine-looking St. John depicted in the restoration of Leonardo da
Vinci's "Last Supper," and if anyone should know, Leonardo would
because he was there in the Upper Room, despite his having
been born one and a half millennia too late. (Pssst... check out
"John the Baptist." Ya think he's sending a secret message with
that image, too? Not only that, much of the femininity of da Vinci's
depiction of St. John is due to restoration. See these photos
comparing John and Jesus before restoration with John and Jesus after
restoration. Both links will open in new browser window.)
To anyone reading who might believe the "Da Vinci Code" nonsense:
please contact me! There's a bridge in New York City I simply must
|to liberals, the word apparently means only "a quantity or
aggregate of matter." At least they don't like this word much with
regard to the what priests offer, and they tend to replace it with
"Eucharist," "Liturgy," or "Service" -- anything but "Most Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass" or a variation thereof.
|while in the real world, "ministry" refers to the office,
duties, and functions of the clergy, in the modern Catholic world,
everyone has a "ministry" because, of course, everyone now likes to
think of himself as clergy. We have "Music Ministries," "Funeral
Ministries," "Singles Ministries," "GLBT ministries" (that's
Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgendered" for the "unenlightened"), and even
"Hospitality Ministries" whose "ministers" are in charge of the coffee
and donuts after the "Eucharistic Celebration." Use of these "minister"
titles seems to be a harmless thing on the surface, akin to a little
kid carrying around Daddy's briefcase and claiming to be a lawyer, but
its effect is that those hated lines between the ordained, ministerial
priesthood and the royal priesthood of the laity keep getting blurred,
causing problems in discipline, a Korah-like rebellion against
authority (see Jude 1:11 and Numbers 16), and, ultimately, sacrilege.
The biggest bogus "ministry" of them all, though, seems to be the
Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" that has taken up residence in the human
element of the Church these past 40 years. Where Orwell's "Ministry"
spoke of war as peace and of slavery as freedom, some current hierarchs
like to speak of Jesus as the Savior for us, but not for the Jews --
even as He is united with all men for all time since His Incarnation.
Bend your mind around such things for too long, and aspirin stocks will
|To the out and out Modernist, miracles don't exist. To the
"social Gospel" types, every nice thing or event is a miracle -- the
birth of a baby, pretty snowflakes, personal computers. This word
shouldn't be watered down: a "miracle" is an extraordinary wonder of
God that is above, contrary to, and outside the laws He made and by
which Nature operates.
|beware of a church whose website has a "mission statement."
All churches should have the same mission: teaching, guiding, and
sanctifying its parishioners through serious and orthodox sermons; the
Sacraments; solidly Catholic catechesis; spiritual guidance in the
Confessional; a well-developed Catholic culture; encouraging charity by
urging mutual support among the parishioners and by encouraging the
corporal works of mercy (i.e., to feed the hungry to give drink to the
thirsty, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, visit the sick, visit
the imprisoned, and bury the dead.)
|to the modernist, somewhere along the line, in the same
manner as a kitten who gave birth to poodles, man gave birth to "Modern
Man." This "modern man" is a different species of human than his
ancestors; he is more discerning, more intelligent, and has no need of
such outdated things as hierarchy, rules, faith, or religion. No, he is
egalitarian, "reasonable," without law, and finds the "god within."
Modern Man's brilliance and superiority can be recognized by his rates
of murder (including abortion, suicide, euthanasia, and genocide),
sexually transmitted diseases, out of wedlock pregnancies, broken
homes, depression, general angst, divorce, drug abuse, and unhappy
If anyone thinks that man's nature has changed since the Fall, that man
suddenly evolved after the so-called "Enlightenment," he is sadly
mistaken and very ignorant of the 17-20th c., the last being the worst
as we increasingly separated ourselves from Christ and His Church. We
can only change our natures by divinization through faith, repentance,
and the Sacraments.
|In Catholic theology, a Mystery is a "a truth which we are
not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but
which, even when revealed, remains 'hidden by the veil of faith and
enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness.'" Since beauty and signs
of the Transcendent have been stripped away from our churches and
liturgy, pretty much the only "mystery" left is the question, "Where'd
they put the tabernacle this week?"
|not traditional, so therefore good. In these post-conciliar
years, we hear of the "new evangelization," "new springtime," "new
theology," "new Advent," "new ecumenical orientation," etc.
|this doctrine is no longer true, according to Modernists.
Even His Holiness John Paul II spoke very ambiguously about it, in the
13th chapter of "Redemptor Hominis," in which he states that the object
of the Church's care "is man in his unique, unrepeatable human reality,
which keeps intact the image and likeness of God Himself." Catholicism,
of course, still teaches the doctrine of original sin, which is that we
are born lacking grace, having lost our likeness to God and having
wounded our image of Him. We regain our likeness to Him by the grace of
God Himself, through Baptism, the other Sacraments, and continually
turning our hearts toward Him (metanoia) in humility, gratitude, and
| Lay pretend-pastor. See "pastor".
|though Our Lord and His Church have affirmed that it is His
death on the Cross -- the shedding of His blood, as foretold by the Old
Testament sacrifices -- that saves us, to many modern Catholics (and
many Protestants), it is His Resurrection alone that somehow saves us
(at least that's how they behave).
This is believed in spite of clear Scriptural proof (Matthew 20:28;
26:28, Mark 10:45, Luke 22:19;. 24:25-26), all those Old Testament
types, and the teaching of Popes and Church Doctors for two millenia.
This error has led to a liturgical focus on His Resurrection as the
salvific event and a consequent Protestantizing of the Mass, the
replacement of Crucifixes with "Risen Christ Crosses," etc., a denial
of the role of suffering, and a de-emphasis on His Sacrifice which
is the true source of our salvation. This is probably one of the key
concepts that has corrupted the Mass and rendered it a happy-dappy,
sing-songy Protestantized feel-good get-together instead of the renewal
and re-presentation of His Sacrifice which the Mass truly is.
Please get this concept straight: His Blood saves; His
Resurrection and glorious Ascension finish the job, and are His promise
to us if we repent, are baptized, and do the will of the Father. We get
to our own Resurrection through the Cross!
|to Modernists, "pastor" is anyone in the parish who does
anything, and "pastoral" describes what they do. In real life
Catholicism, though, the term "pastor" is reserved for the priest
alone, as are "chaplain" and like words.
|the quaint, "pre-Vatican II" act, now held to be ridiculous,
of making amends for offending God. Doing penance for things you don't
need to do penance for (Crusades, Inqusition, patriarchy, order,
Passion Plays, certain Mel Gibson movies, etc.) is fine, though
|the part of the Novus Ordo Mass that replaced the Confiteor
|priest. Though "presider" is a perfectly fine word used by
the Fathers, the word is used by modernists at the expense of
the word "priest" in order to water-down the concept of the priesthood,
rendering the priest a liturgical technician as opposed to a man
ordained by Christ's Church to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass.
|not traditional, not orthodox, easy on sin, modernist,
anything your Grandpa wouldn't recognize as Catholic. (N.B. Believers
in overall "progress" and evolution toward greater human perfection are
entirely ignorant of human nature which is marked by corruption
resulting from original sin)
|the words mean "for many" and are found at the very heart of
the canon of the traditional Mass.
"Hic est enim
Calix Sanguinis Mei, nove et aeterni testamenti: Mysterium Fidei: qui
pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum"
-- "For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal
testament: the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for
many unto the remission of sins."
In the English
translation of the Novus Ordo Missae, the words have been changed to
"for all." This might not seem like a big deal to too many people --
"didn't Jesus die for all?!" -- but it is a very big deal indeed. By
replacing the word "many" with "all" after two millenia, the
translators of the Novus Ordo 1) changed the words of Christ, and 2)
lead us to accept the idea of universal salvation.
Yes, Jesus did die for all of us, and He offers to each of us
that grace. But, that grace is not efficacious for all; we must
individually repent, be baptized, receive the Eucharist, and so on. At
the Mass, those present are those who've answered His call, and it is
for us alone (normatively speaking) that the shedding of His Blood will
be unto the remission of sins. (Note, too, how the traditional
use of the words "Mystery of Faith" refers not to His death,
resurrection, and coming again as in the New Mass, but to the miracle
of the wine changing into His Blood. And we wonder why people no longer
believe in the Real Presence...)
|The "Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults" -- the
post-Vatican II means of instructing catechumens and candidates into
the ways of the Church before their Baptism or Confirmation. While I
think that formal instruction is a great and necessary thing, what RCIA
all too often works out to be is a much-too long 6 months worth of
weekly classes in which, with very few exceptions, a bad, liberal
Catholic (at best) teaches others how to be bad, liberal Catholics (at
best). There are a few relatively decent RCIA classes out there (God
bless those who truly try to teach Catholicism!), but one undergoing
the process should have pre-Vatican II catechisms, Encyclicals,
Missals, and devotionals to see what they're likely missing.
|the Sacrament of Penance (Confession). While "Reconciliation"
is a perfectly good and Biblical word for the Sacrament, I've found
that those who cringe at the "old-fashioned" names -- names which more
accurately convey the spirit of contrition which is at the heart of the
Sacrament -- tend to be on the dissident side.
|the (rarely-used) room one now goes to outside of
traditionalist circles in order to have the face-to-face chat with
one's priest, a rap session known as the (often invalid as offered)
"Sacrament of Reconciliation." In real life, the Sacrament of
Reconciliation (better and more aptly known as "Penance" or
"Confession") is not valid without true contrition, confession, and
absolution in proper form. It should be received kneeling in a
Confessional, with the priest in cassock and stole.
|Sunday School, where kids learn to draw pictures, color, and
make projects to bring home and clutter their parents' houses.
"Religious Education" should not be confused with "Catechism" or
learning the Truths of the Faith (i.e., the Creed, the Commandments,
|as opposed to recognizing the impossibility of forced
conversion and the goodness of tolerance, the Masonic idea of
"religious liberty," with its radical separation of Church and State,
has come to replace the traditional Catholic concept of the Kingship of
Christ. The false idea of "religious liberty" (again, as opposed to the
recognition of the impossibility of forced conversion and to the
goodness of tolerance) invariably leads to secularism, materialism, and
paganism, which is what we see in the United States today.
|one of the more common buzzwords, "renewal" is used as a
deceptive and vague term for "progress." By using the term "renewal,"
modernists attempt to assure people that what is being done is really
"nothing new," but the "true" practices of the "historic Church" which
got lost in those nasty Middle Ages when people were Catholic.
They forget that Pope Pius XII decried antiquarianism (the idea that
liturgy and such has to comply precisely with 1st c. realities with no
room for organic growth that enhances orthodoxy and worship), and then
they simply lie about what those 1st c. realities were. Much of what
modernists believe (or claim to believe) about the "early Church" is
simply not true, but they will claim it over and over, much in the same
way political mantras keep getting repeated until they become "common
|destruction. When used to refer to plans for a church
building, it means the eradication of all Catholic elements so that the
"assembly" can "worship" in the architectural equivalent of a cat food
can. If you're a typical Catholic, unless your parish is truly
one-in-a-million with regard to orthodoxy and taste, don't give money
for "renovation" plans. And beware of their tactics ("we just want to
make minor repairs.. the roof is leaking and the floor needs to be
replaced, that's all"). Instead, hire a lawyer -- or be preprared for
some peachy, mauve, earthy, or pastel color schemes, an Olympic-sized
Baptismal font, and a really ugly Risen Christ "Crucifix" (or worse) to
go over the new "table."
|the "right" to kill babies
|the hard-to-find, badly-decorated room in which modernists
place the Tabernacle. More appropriately called a "Blessed Sacrament
Chapel," these chapels are logically used when a church has lots of
tourist traffic which leads to disrespect for the Sacrament. Nowadays,
though, they are used as an excuse to remove the Tabernacle from the
Altar in the sanctuary, the "justification" being that lay-people (who
are otherwise wonderful enough to do the Pope's job) are too stupid to
know where to focus their attention if the Altar that's used for the
Sacrifice is also used for reservation of the Blessed Sacrament. This
same sort of excuse -- "the laypeople are so easily distracted" -- is
also used to justify removing statues, icons, candles, etc.
The other excuse for hustling off the Tabernacle to some side-show is
that in the Novus Ordo liturgy the priest (wrongfully) faces the people
and, why, it'd be rude for him to have his back toward the tabernacle.
The answer to this one is a no-brainer: turn around, Padre, face East
and "do liturgy" right.
At any rate, the musical tabernacles game was predicted by Pope Pius
XII in Mediator Dei:
A day will come
when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt
as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become
God, that His Son is merely a symbol, a philosophy held by so many
others, and in the churches Christians will search in vain for the red
lamp where God awaits them, like Magdalen weeping before the empty
tomb, "Where have they taken Him?"
|See "Paschal Mystery" above. When I see one of these in
Catholic churches, I want to slap someone. When I see one in a
Protestant faith community building, I want to ask, "Wow! Jesus flew
off the Cross? Where's THAT in the Bible?!!" Also known as
|Apparently, the Sacraments are to be seen nowadays by us
hipsters as any of a number of loosely ritualistic, inherently
ineffectual but sociologically important practices that Catholics "do"
or "celebrate" according to their "faith tradition"
| A "presider" (formerly "priest") that comes to a priestless
parish for the sole purpose of performing certain liturgical functions
that a rigid, patriarchal hierarchy has not yet allowed others to
"celebrate" out of the desire to prevent those outside their "little
boys club" from being "full participants" in the Church
|the "spirit of man's intolerance to differences." Otherwise,
an outmoded cartoonish figure whom the Church "used to believe" exists.
|Altar boy or acolyte. Nowadays, the servers are often Altar
girls, a phenomenon which gets little girls used to being in the
sanctuary which is reserved for priests, causes boys to not want to
serve as Altar boys after serving at Mass has been feminized, and
therefore, reduces priestly vocations. Mammas, don't let your babies
grow up to be altar girls. Please.
|Theologically, this does not exist at all for modernists. In
sociologial and psychological terms, though, "sin" is: not living out
your "God-given" perversions; denying yourself sensual pleasure in any
way; and getting "hung up" on such concepts as Truth, obedience,
sacrifice, and, paradoxically, sin itself.
|This word used to indicate a woman who was called to an
active religious order (those called to the contemplative orders were
called "nuns," but they rarely make those anymore). Now, with some
holy, dedicated, hardworking, wonderful exceptions (God bless them!),
the word seems to refer to a woman who would've made a heckuva gym
teacher if she hadn't received the call "from God" to promote abortion
and contraception, hold workshops, take over priestly roles, and
generally make the lives of traditional Catholics a living Hell
|"social justice" is now the purpose of the Church, according
to modernists. In the real world, the true purpose of the Church is
helping people repent and come to Christ, and the offering of the seven
The modernist definition of "social justice," instead of focusing on
classic Catholic teaching (such as the evils of usury, communism,
materialism, violations of the principles of subsidiarity and private
property), usually promotes statism, Marxism, illegal immigration,
environmentalism outside the bounds of Christian stewardship of the
Earth, egalitarian feminism, the view of sexuality as a matter of
"lifestyle choice," and the promotion of contraception and, possibly,
|hymn, psalm, or canticle -- which nowadays would most likely
have as a subject matter our own wondrousness
|Sophia means "wisdom," and when capitalized refers to the
Holy Wisdom of our Lord. Nowadays, "Sophia" has been turned into a
feminine goddess of the same name by neo-pagan "Catholics"
spirit of Vatican
|the post-1962 zeitgeist which blew the the human element of
the Church wide open to practices that aren't remotely orthodox,
changed the presentation of doctrine and dogma, and dared to
try to turn Holy Mother Church into a democracy that has "social
justice" as Her purpose for existing. The invitation of this wondrous
"spirit" was to have been an "opening of the window" of the Church to
let in some fresh air, and who'd argue that a nice little breeze on a
sunny day isn't a good thing? But one shouldn't throw open the shutters
when the weather outside is frightful -- and there's nothing more
frightful than the 1960s (well, except for the stifling, racist,
far-too-conformist 1950s, but I digress again). It's sad that so few
had the brains to leave the window closed, or to close it once the the
polluted waters started rising in the corridors. It's even more
pathetic that now, after 40 years of staring at the wreckage, so many
Catholics think the deluge was a good thing or are too afraid to demand
|anything that "feels right," eases necessary and God-given
unpleasant emotions (such as guilt), brings one toward a "progressive"
view of God and His Sacraments, and leads to watching too much Oprah
and Dr. Phil. Whatever it is, "spiritual growth," to modernists,
couldn't possibly include perfect obedience (see Aquinas), orthodox
understanding of hierarchy, ideas of absolute morality, etc.
|The much anticipated "regeneration" and "revitalization" of
the Church following Vatican II. People will speak of this springtime
as either already here or just around the corner, all in spite of the
reality of the situation which is marked by decline in vocations, Mass
attendance, faith in true Catholic dogma, adherence to Catholic
teaching on contraception and abortion, etc., and in spite of an
increase in scandal, corruption, confusion, liturgical abuses, etc.
People who speak of this "springtime" are either liars or are in very
|"supernatural," sadly, has come to refer to anything out of
the ordinary that happens. Have a telepathic experience? That's
"supernatural," they say. Same with seeing "ghosts" and the like. In
Catholic thinking, though, "supernatural" refers to God (i.e., the Uncreated).
"Preternatural" refers to the angelic (including the demonic) order and
what is often called the "paranormal"; "natural" refers to that which
physicists can quantify; both of these orders concern the created.
Blurring the distinction between the supernatural and the preternatural
leads to the worship of angels, to paganism, to lowering God to the
level of the created, etc. Keep the differences clear!
|Altar. Anything the Modernists can do to change the Mass from
a true unbloody Sacrifice into a mere "gathering" of believers come
together to have a "meal" is what they will do, and referring to the
Altar of Sacrifice as a "table" helps.
|spoken in sneering, revolted tones, the word as used by some
Catholics refers to those Catholics who force them to think and to
confront the realities of their post-Conciliar Church experiences.
Synonyms: lidless-eyed freak; schismatic; reactionary idiot; heretic;
Protestant; integrist; and other assorted labels that demonstrate vast
depths of Christian charity.
The "trad" motto:
We are what you
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
makes some people really uncomfortable. Something else to make them
friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but
traditionalists" -- Pope St. Pius X, Letter on the Sillon
There is a
sub-set of self-proclaimed traditionalists, however, who are quite
frightening and do deserve the moniker "rad trad." Some
"traditionalists" seem to gravitate toward the "trad movement" out of a
fear of the confusing and painful nature of modern life. They dislike
what gender feminism has done to our culture, so they seek to "go back"
to the 1950s or the Victorian era (both eras dominated by Protestantism
in the United States). They are rightfully angry at what has been done
to the family, but blacklash against women in ways that are nothing
less than misogynist. They seek ready-made personae to put on so they
no longer have to make decisions. They over-idealize the past, are
overly-nostalgic, and are knee-jerk in their reactions to anything new.
Because the past eras they over-idealize were dominated by
Protestantism (and Irish/French Jansenism in the American Catholic
realm), they have warped -- veritably Gnostic -- outlooks on things
such as sex and the body. They tend to be bitter, humorless, and
lacking in prudence, warmth, and charity. They love stressing God's
Justice, forgetting about His Mercy. Pray for them...
|"Tridentine" means "pertaining to Trent," where the great
Council of Trent took place. The word is used as an adjective for the
ancient Mass in order to lead people to believe that the Mass offered
by traditional priests was invented at the time of the Council of Trent
in the 16th century, so "if Pope Pius V can invent a new Mass, why
can't Paul VI?"
Careful traditional Catholics do not refer to the Mass as "the
Tridentine Mass," but to simply the "ancient Mass," the "traditional
Mass," or the "Mass of St. Peter," etc., because the Mass in question
was not invented at Trent; it was merely canonized after it and
made the standard Rite for the Roman Church, thereby replacing the
newer Rites that had sprung up (any Rite less than 200 years old, see
Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum), in the same way that the Books of Sacred
Scripture that had always been in use were officially canonized then to
thwart Protestant objections to the deuterocanonical Books.
|in Newspeak, "unity" is the goal of "ecumenism" (see above)
and generally means a blending of Catholicism and Protestantism (and
other religions) so that all may be "one" in some One World Religion
sort of way. The supreme sign of this "unity" will be seen when Jews,
Muslims, Catholics, and worshippers of the Great Thumb all hold hands
during the "Our Father."
In the real world, however, the Church is unified, is already
One (and Holy, and Catholic, and Apostolic -- together, the four marks
of the Church which we affirm in the Creed each week). The goal of true
ecumenism isn't "unity" because the Church
already has that characteristic; it is the return of heretics
and apostates to the Catholic Church which already has the mark
of unity in Her true teachings (as opposed to Modernist presentations
thereof) and Sacraments.
|that which is subjectively "valued." This Nietzschean word
has come to replace the word "morality," which clearly suggests the
absolute and objective Source (God) of all Good.
||"The Vatican" is
a term journalist use to mislead Catholics and others with regard to
Church teaching. For example, if a cleric of any rank, speaking outside
his level of authority, were to say something a journalist either likes
and wants to promote to the word, or dislikes and wants to promote to
the world as hideous, reactionary, medieeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Church
teaching that just "proves" that Catholicism is for idiots, he will
write that "the Vatican says" such and such. They
also do this with the phrase "the Pope"; if some committee or other
were to publish something that either supports a radical agenda or
makes the Church look bad, the typical journalist will write that "the
Pope" -- or even "the Catholic Church" -- "teaches" whatever it is that
the journalist is selling. Keep an eye out for it; you'll see it over
and over. You could make a drinking game out of it. And get very, very
|to far too many Catholics, the closing of Vatican II happened
in Year One for the Church. Nothing existed before it, and everything
that has come since has been nothing but daffodils and whiskers on
|what the modernists are always trying to find or give to
other dissidents. Among their main activities (man, are they active!)
are trying to "find their voice," "give someone a voice," "voice" this
or that objection, etc. Yack, yack, yack... chatter, chatter,
chatter...workshops, symposia, and conferences...by gosh, we need more
|the Precious Blood
|the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
|particular church, i.e., a parish church
Back to For Catholics