01 May 2008
We're sorry all of the Pii have been scarce and will most likely continue to be so - apologies to any faithful readers. When we logged we noticed there were nearly 30 unpublished comments waiting to be moderated. Sadly, most of them are angry and bitter because their authors think that we Pii really are angry and bitter (and hate FSU's guts). We've been over that before, and we're going to let it rest. There are bigger and better things - just take a look at this cake!
Thanks to the Carolina Cannonball
WE WANT ONE NEXT YEAR FOR OUR FEAST DAY!
16 December 2007
We hope Our readers have appreciated Our month-long endorsement of this movie on Our blog.
Having now broken the great silence, We return to Our usual hobbies of railing against Freemasons, pluralism, and Freemasons. Gaudete. Farewell for now.
12 November 2007
25 October 2007
From Rorate Caeli:
"Nothing could be falser" - Fellay explains it - "Williamson and I are on the same line, that which believes that we could hardly re-enter a Church as is. And the reasons are quite simple. Benedict XVI has indeed liberalized the ancient rite, but I cannot explain for what reason he made such a decision if he then allows the majority of Bishops to criticize and disobey him regarding what he determined. What should we do? Re-enter the Church and then be insulted by all those people?"
Yes. Re-enter. Reconcile yourself with the ONE and ONLY true Church. Stop thinking you're making all of us dead popes proud. And suffer. Suffer humiliation and insults. Suffer like Christ did, the Christ you purport to know so well, so much better than everyone loyal to Rome.
It is becoming all the more clear, folks, that even the most moderate of the SSPX are driven by a righteous pride, a pride which is only born of the prince of darkness. They are deceived more than they could possibly imagine, blinded by a faith in their own authority and in their own righteousness - a faith which will ultimately lead them to more pain, more discord, and more damnation. We'd prefer an ignorant pastor with lukewarm faith and a lukewarm congregation any day to the rift in the Church caused by these most proud, most disloyal, and most dangerous crowd.
And after this statement, it's a good thing for Fellay that we no longer hold the chair of Peter.
24 October 2007
The idea for a post on the Second Confiteor came to Us today after an enjoyable conversation with Our pastor (the Second Confiteor, by the way, is said by the servers before the people receive Holy Communion). When We brought up the Extraordinary Form and began discussing Our experience attending a Mass of this use two Sundays ago, We learned that Our pastor was quite eager to learn this older form of the Mass. Along with serving as the pastor for Our home parish, he also teaches Latin three days a week at the local Catholic school, which, We imagine, will enable him to learn the older Mass relatively quickly. We also discussed how he had taught himself the server's responses back in the fourth grade and how his experience completely destroys the excuses of those who claim that Latin is simply too difficult to learn. Needless to say, We have high hopes for the introduction of the Extraordinary Form at Our parish.
So what, you may be asking, does any of this have to do with the Second Confiteor? In the course of Our conversation, Our pastor mentioned that he had seen the Solemn High Mass which was broadcast by EWTN on September 14, and he was quite perturbed by the fact that the servers at this Mass said the Second Confiteor, which is not included in the 1962 Missale Romanum (MR). We informed him that We knew of this omission but were under the impression that, while not mandatory, the prayer was still optional. In fact, We said, We were under the impression that the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter still include this prayer in their Masses. We did, however, concede that, superficially, it seems odd to insist on complete and unswerving obedience to the rubrics for priests offering Mass according to the 1970 MR and not to do the same with regards to the Extraordinary Form. Our pastor agreed and was adamant in his belief that the Second Confiteor should not be said. So, although We were still interested in the topic, lest the conversation sour as a result of too much debate, We turned Our attention elsewhere.
Afterwards, this question of the Second Confiteor was still present in Our mind. We had been assured by others that its use was optional (according to some, desirable), and We assumed that this was an accurate understanding of the situation. Our conversation with Our pastor, however, had opened a window of doubt as to the veracity of these claims. Should the servers really continue to say a prayer which is not contained in the MR? Should this proposition be risked at the expense of compromising a correct understanding of rubrical integrity? We were unsure.
So, naturally, where does a pope of the mid-twentieth century turn in such a predicament? Why, to Google, of course! We were happy to see that one of the first results was a post by Fr. Zuhlsdorf on the reissue of Ludovico Trimeloni’s Compendio di Liturgia Pratica.
Exploring this book, Fr. Z writes:
You find, in brackets – meaning that the editor interpolated this part into the text – how to do the Second Confiteor before Holy Communion of the healthy faithful present.
However, there is a footnote (#4 my translation):
" The rubrics of 1962 suppressed the Confiteor before Communion, even if it is still being recited in nearly all the communities that celebrate in the traditional rite. For completeness the rite is indicated here, in anticipation of an official pronouncement of the Holy See. "
Okay… I guess I can live with that, provided we clearly understand that the Second Confiteor, as Siffi correctly indicated, was suppressed in 1962. Thus, because the Holy See gave use of the 1962 edition and not an earlier edition, the Second Confiteor should not be done [Our emphasis]. Still, there is an ongoing tradition of doing it in many places. I am sure that the Holy See will probably say go ahead, big deal.
This is the same technique used by those who wanted Communion in the hand and also girl altar boys, but that is another matter.
For the Solemn Mass, there is no mention at all of the Second Confiteor.
Considering this evidence, Our pastor was absolutely correct that the Second Confiteor was dropped from the 1962 MR, and he was also rubrically correct to assert that the practice should be discontinued. Because Pope Benedict has given permission for the use of the 1962 MR only, this is a logical conclusion for one to reach. We find it interesting that the editor of this book, Pietro Siffi, expects there to be an official response to the question on the part of the Holy See at some future date. Since the time of Fr. Z's post in May, We have not been aware of any such clarification.
In his commentary, Fr. Z does raise an additional point, that "there is an ongoing tradition of doing it in many places." So, in light of this, how should the rubrics be reconciled with traditional customs? This subject may need a post or two all to itself. Also, can people appeal to tradition in places where the Extraordinary Form has been recently re-established? This sort of appeal, at least on the surface, seems rather tenuous to Us.
Now, some may say that this debate is rather trivial. We would argue that this is not the case because it can demonstrate the liturgical attitudes of the people involved. As Fr. Z stated, liturgical progressives have also used arguments from tradition or custom (as wacky as that sounds) to gain approval for what were once abuses (like receiving Holy Communion in the hand). Even the smallest liturgical matters ought not to be taken lightly.
To this end, until a clarification is issued by the Holy See, We conclude that it is best to abide by the rubrics of the 1962 MR and omit the Second Confiteor from the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. In places where this tradition has been retained, there will, no doubt, be some resistance to this conclusion, and We are unsure of how to resolve the rubrics v. tradition question in general. We still think, however, that "say the black, do the red" is a rather strong argument.
Pius PP. XII
23 October 2007
We would like to preface our actual upcoming post with a quotation from a relevant and reliable source, namely Ourselves, in Our bludgeoning Encyclical Traditi Humilitati. Reading the rest of the letter will demonstrate at least two fundamental truths: 1) Holy Church has been in big trouble before, and 2) people never listen to the current Pope. The first ought to be a source of comfort for Our earthbound readers, while the second remains a perpetual source of annoyance for the eight-and-a-half Pontiffs at this blog.
“Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. … The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. … All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of Priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel. With tears We say: 'Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ.' Truly the impious have said: 'Raze it, raze it down to its foundations.' "
This is all that We shall speak concerning Ourselves; let it be known that it is an honor for Us to join the ranks of the other Pii here present, all of whom (save one) are many many times closer to being canonized than We ever shall be. Do keep the above passage in mind. And We, as a pledge of Our affection, lovingly impart the Apostolic Benediction.
22 October 2007
As we were sifting through our papal files this morning, we found this outrageous report from Catholic World News:
Erase baptismal record, Spanish court tells Valencia archdiocese
Valencia, Oct. 22, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A Spanish court has ordered Catholic officials in Valencia to remove a man’s name from Church baptismal records.
Manuel Blat Gonzalez, a homosexual man who objected to the Church’s campaign against same-sex marriage, had demanded that the Church erase the record of his baptism 40 years ago. The Valencia archdiocese refused, explaining that baptism cannot be reversed and the record is a historical document.
The Data Protection Agency, a government body charged with preserving individual privacy, took up the Blat case and won a court ruling that required the Church to discard sacramental records of those who made the request. The Valencia archdiocese appealed, but the appeal has now been rejected.
This is outrageous on a number of levels.
First we have the ridiculous Spaniard who wants his baptismal records destroyed. Now, tell us, what good will this really do for this silly man? It will not alter the fact that 40 years ago a priest baptized him. Not only can the sacrament not be reversed, but the historical act cannot be reversed either. No matter how you interpret the documents he wants destroyed, nothing will change.
Secondly, we have the worse case of the ridiculous Spanish government. This "Data Protection Agency" raises the very important question of the relationship of church and state and their authority or power that each holds. This seems to be terrible transgression of bounds. A government that is able to force the Church to destroy her records is a government that will soon try to make the Church its slave. Of course, this was already tried there less than a century ago.
Another dagger trust into the heart of Christendom.