I saw the movie "Transformers" for the second time yesterday. I rarely go to see a movie twice in theaters, but this is one I can just see over and over again. Of course, I was a fanatic who watched reruns from the old 80's TV show before going to school, and when the "Beast Wars" series came out, I watched that one faithfully every day after school.


One of the things I didn't like about the movie was that the famous Transformers music theme, or some variation of it, was nowhere to be found on the entire movie soundtrack. But then, today I found on YouTube a cover version by Black Lab of the old theme from the 1986 cartoon movie. I don't like it as much as the 80's version (also on YouTube here), but I can't believe the movie producers didn't put it somewhere in the soundtrack.




If you haven't yet seen the movie, you probably should. Just know what you're getting into: it's a mindless summer action blockbuster with lots of explosions, special effects, and bad dialogue. Don't think too hard.

Up until today, I've been pretty neutral on the whole "Harry Potter" debate. I haven't seen the movies or read the books, but I haven't criticized them either, since I know that would just make me look like an idiot.

I'll give you something to REALLY worry about now. I just today discovered what the "His Dark Materials" book series is all about. Trailers are currently being played for a movie version of the first book, "The Golden Compass", due out in December. And believe me, all the hoopla about whether "Harry Potter" is anti-Christian or not is just totally irrelevant compared to this.

Here's a compilation of different reviews of this series from Christianity Today.


To summarize, the HDM series is set in an alternate universe that resembles Victorian Britain. The Church rules the entire world and, as one can only expect, is an all-evil entity. Through the characters, we learn that "For all of [the Church's] history...it's tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. And when it can't control them, it cuts them out"... "That's what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling"... and that "the Christian religion…is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all".

The main characters are young pre-teens growing up at the University of Oxford. At first, they're persecuted and brainwashed into waging a war against God and heaven, but later, the "God-killers" become the protagonists.

Since this series is not worth keeping the ending a secret, the God figure (called "the Authority") is actually an angel pretending to be the all-powerful God, but is so weak that he's killed by a gust of wind. The two main characters become like representations of Adam and Eve, triumphing over God and religion by eating the forbidden fruit in Eden.

The name "His Dark Materials" derives from a verse in Milton's Paradise Lost as a reference to God's "dark materials", from Satan's point of view.

Yeah, that's pretty blatant, all right. The author, Philip Pullman, has openly admitted to his books being anti-Christian and the "anti-Narnia". He seems to be noted for referring to Lewis's "Chronicles of Narnia" by saying: "It is monumentally disparaging of girls and women. It is blatantly racist. One girl was sent to hell because she was getting interested in clothes and boys."

What frustrates me so much is how these books are the second best-selling children's books in the world, after "Harry Potter". The first book, The Golden Compass (or "Northern Lights"), has been named in the UK as the best children's book of the past 70 years. There's so much controversy by the evangelical Protestant lobbyists for banning "Harry Potter" in school libraries and so forth, but not a single peep of protest against the "His Dark Materials" series.



Pullman has also got me convinced that monarchy is truly the most Christian form of government, simply because his books are against it. As one can tell from the works of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, monarchy is a strong, recurring theme. In "His Dark Materials", though, the Kingdom of Heaven is overthrown at the end and replaced by the Republic of Heaven. Pullman said on this:

"When it was possible to have a belief about God and heaven, it represented something we all desired. It had a profound meaning in human life.

"But when it no longer became possible to believe, a lot of people felt despair. What was the meaning of life? It seems that our nature is so formed that we need a feeling of connectedness with the universe. If there is no longer a king, or a kingdom of heaven, it will have to be a republic in which we are free citizens. We ourselves as citizens have to build the republic of heaven."

Anyway, to me, the whole "Harry Potter" thing seems like a red herring. Why isn't anyone saying anything about the HDM series?

The talk show radio host Roland Martin offered this stinging commentary against Pope Benedict XVI and the CDF's document on salvation and the Catholic Church on CNN.com. Excerpts:

Non-Catholics who are up in arms of the proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI that the only true church in the world is that of Catholicism shouldn't even bother getting upset. Just chalk it up to an old man trying to get a little attention.

...

This is nothing but a naked attempt by Pope Benedict XVI to "own" Jesus by virtue of the Catholic Church considering the apostle Peter as its leader.

...

It is these kinds of missives by Pope Benedict XVI that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide.

Actually, in regards to the last statement, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrated the document, because it recognized that the EO Church has valid apostolic succession and it truly a "church". So, it really did build and support: just not Mr. Martin's community.


CNN's not the only news source that's got me slightly irritated today, though. Although it's not really FOX News's fault, one of their popular commentators, Cal Thomas, went off yesterday about how, according to him, St. Peter was just too incompetent for Christ to appoint him as pope.

I have to admit, it's pretty rare to see all these political commentators put their two cents in on matters of doctrine and Scriptural interpretation. Now, let's see some Catholics step up to the plate. Sean Hannity, anyone? .... nah, I doubt it.


Here's a much more reasonable reaction from a non-Catholic to the CDF's document. A Quaker, to be specific. To summarize: "well, duh. Of course the pope is Catholic."


In other news, I saw on American Papist that apparently there was some conflict on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday. Majority Leader Harry Reid invited a Hindu minister, Rajan Zed, to deliver the day's opening prayer for the Senate. During the prayer, three Christian protesters interrupted with various things, such as, "Lord Jesus, forgive us, Father, for allowing the prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight", and "You shall have no other gods before you." The protesters were arrested and escorted away by police afterward.

I'm really not sure what to think of this incident. The gut reaction most people will have, including Christians and other monotheists, and even myself, is that the reaction was bigoted and uncalled for. This is especially of concern when looking at the content of the prayer itself, which looks as though it could have been prayed by an orthodox Christian. Instead of a definite opinion, as I often make, I'll just leave a few questions and meditations:

Why was there a Hindu minister acting as chaplain, when no one member of the U.S. Senate is a Hindu? Does this mean that the role of the chaplaincy in the Congress has been reduced from giving practical, spiritual counsel to Congressmen to merely being a stage for acts of multiculturalism? Given that no one in the Senate is a Hindu, isn't this use of a Hindu chaplain actually a great blasphemy against democracy and "rule of the majority"?

Which god was Mr. Zed praying to? Sen. Reid said after the prayer, "I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly Father regarding peace." Which heavenly father, though? Hindus believe in many gods and goddesses, although from a logical point of view, the God of Abraham can't be among them, because it was the God of Abraham was said, "thou shalt have no other gods...", as the protester quoted. And what about Muslims, who are often offended at the idea of calling God "father", because that would be diminishing their view of God as all-powerful lord and master? There are just so many problems here...

As the protesters were escorted away by police, one said "we are Christians and patriots". What relevance does that have, though, given that the U.S. is officially a secular state? And, even though we are "one nation under God", no one seems to be able to officially identify which God this is. Is it Mr. Zed's god? Sen. Reid's god? My god? Yours?


To be honest, I think the best solution for this "democratic" society is to use democratic principles: most Senators are Protestant Christians, so use a Protestant chaplain (as the Senate has done for all of its chaplains since the founding of the Constitution, with the exception of one Catholic priest). If a Catholic priest were to pray the "Hail, Mary" or invoke a saint in Congress, I would still understand if people protested, because in America, "majority rules".

Wanton Popery! again covers the glorious reign of Pope Benedict XVI today with more news.

Today, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a new document which clarifies some potential confusions made by the Vatican II constitution Lumen Gentium. Of course, so many Catholic theologians have claimed that Vatican II changed the role of the Catholic Church from the "one, true church" to "one of many churches".

Well, the CDF just put the smackdown on that notion. Here's the English version of the text on the Vatican website. It's in a Q&A format of five questions and answers. The gist of it is that although God's grace may be found in other religious communities, the Catholic Church is still the one church built by Christ Himself, and that those churches which were founded after the Reformation and lost the apostolic succession cannot be called "churches" in the full sense.

Gerald Augustinus provides his cliff notes version of the document here, as well as a commentary on the "substitit in" clause here.


Even more on the motu:

Pat Buchanan writes a great article on the motu: A Triumph for Traditionalists. Excerpt:

Elevated to the papacy at 78, Benedict XVI will take no action greater in significance for the Catholic Church than his motu proprio declaring that the Latin Mass must be said in every diocese – on the request of the faithful. Dissenting bishops must comply.

"What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us, too," said the Holy Father in his apostolic letter, as he authorized the universal use of the sole official version of the mass allowed in the four centuries between the Council of Trent and Vatican II.

To which many Catholics will respond: "Alleluia! Alleluia!"

And so the pope has come full circle. At Vatican II, the future Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Holy Office for the Defense of the Faith under John Paul II, went about in coat and tie and was seen as a radical reformer and modernist theologian in the mold of his friend Hans Kung.

Now, Kung is silent, Ratzinger is pope, and the Latin Mass, which had fallen into disuse with the introduction of the new rite in 1970, is back.

From GMA News: Philippine bishops welcome Latin Mass.


From the Bradenton Herald: Local clergy supports revival of Latin Mass. Excerpt:

Rev. Julio Rivero of Bradenton's Sacred Heart Catholic Church says his church has never had a full Latin Mass in its roughly 40-year history. But that may soon change.

Pope Benedict XVI issued a statement recently encouraging a broader access to the old Latin Mass, sparking new life in a ceremony that had waned since the Second Vatican Council.

"Isn't it wonderful?" Rivero said Monday. "I plan to get permission to do the Latin Mass. It has a beauty that the English Mass doesn't have."

A negative op-ed from the Boston Globe (what else do you expect from these guys?): Concilium Vaticum IIum, vale! Excerpt:

CATHOLICS AROUND the world should now have no illusions. Pope Benedict XVI's recent decision to encourage wider use of the traditional Tridentine Mass in Latin is the latest move in his long campaign to undo liberal reforms in church practices popular with Catholics since the 1960s.

The move may well trigger liturgical schisms in dioceses throughout the world.

The form of the Mass was promulgated by Pope Paul V in the Roman Missal in 1570. In this rite the priest stands on an elevated altar, facing away from the people and mumbling the most sacred parts of the liturgy in Latin.

LOL, it's St. Pius V who promulgated the 1570 Missal, not Paul V. And I believe the correct term is "sotto voce", not "mumbling".

The world's responses to the motu proprio are rolling in. As many around the world are rejoicing, others are weeping. Here's one example, from the Italian bishop Luca Brandolini, a member of the liturgy commission for the Italian bishops' conference, who gave an interview to La Repubblica. You can read it at Rorate Caeli. A couple excerpts:

"Please, do not ask me anything, I do not wish to speak [about it], for I am living the saddest day of my life as a priest, as a bishop, and as a man."

"It is a day of grief, not only for me, but for many who lived and worked in the Second Vatican Council. Today, a reform for which so many labored, at the cost of great sacrifices, animated solely by the wish to renew the Church, has been canceled."

"The episcopal ring which I carry on my finger belonged to archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the father of the Conciliar liturgical reform. I was, at the time of the Council, a disciple of his and a close co-worker. I was close to him when he worked in that reform and I always recall with how much passion he worked for liturgical renewal. Now, his work has been canceled." [James: A disciple of Bugnini... well, that explains everything, I guess.]

What melodrama. I truly feel sorry for this bishop, particularly by how blind he seems to be.

Here's a more illuminating viewpoint from Father Paul Ward: The Tail Just Wagged the Dog. To answer the weeping Italian bishop above, I'd cite this from Fr. Paul's editorial:

That said, one would have to be blind to speak well of the results of the Novus Ordo. Kumbaya Masses, Masses with electric guitars and drums, Masses with bar-room piano Music, Masses with the faithful holding hands and swaying, Masses with priests and bishops inventing whatever words they want. Masses where the Gospel is read by the non-ordained. Masses where the texts of the readings, including the Gospel, were altered on the fly by the reader to be made politically correct. Masses with pathetic, erroneous and misleading translations to the vernacular authorized by our bishops. Masses with liturgical dancing. Masses with Homilies against the Holy See, against pro-life, empty of catechesis. Masses where the Eucharist was abused, fragments cast about on the floor falling from patens and corporals and communicants’ hands – often dirty hands at that. Masses with communion for everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics, those in mortal sin and those in public scandal. And all of this is the tip of the iceberg.

These horrors do not constitute ancient history, but serve as the common experience of the faithful all over the world to this very hour. Can all of this can be described as the new “lex orandi” (the “law of prayer”)? Can all of this be described as the “ordinary expression” of the law of prayer?

I guess they can, for the results on the faithful have been as catastrophic as is the Novus Ordo liturgy. From bad priests came bad parents. From unchaste priests came unchaste parishes. From bad catechesis in the homilies practically all catechesis was lost. From the disobedience to liturgical norms came disobedience to ecclesial – and sometimes even to natural – law. From the lagoons and contradictions of norms in the liturgy came the creativity for each one to fill in as he saw fit. Again, the list could go on. Indeed, “lex orandi lex credendi”! The law of this bad liturgical prayer spawned bad faith. And the whole situation flowered from this: broken families, empty seminaries, vanishing religious houses, dearth of scholarship, moral confusion, small Mass attendance and countless scandals of the clergy. And our Pastors praise such results.

Can the pastors of the Church not see what they have done? Can they fail to see the deep links between this sad situation and the so-called “reform” of the 1960’s and 1970’s? If some or all do not, I think it is through some diabolical influence. It is so flagrantly evident, that nothing can explain their lack of seeing, unless it were insanity or some supernatural influence of evil origin. But yes, they go on singing the praises of the new order of the Mass and all that came with it. How long, oh Lord, how long will the pastors abandon us sheep to the wolves? Have mercy, lord, have mercy.

Also, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos says in an interview: "Not a Rejection of the Council".

A great sermon from the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest on the motu proprio here. Excerpt:

Dear Faithful!

The Church is always young. She renews herself daily through God’s Grace. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a continuous source of new life, renewed strength, and ever greater youth for Holy Mother Church and all her children. Therefore, we begin the Mass with the words: “Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat iuventutem meam,” I enter to the altar of God, to God who rejoices my youth!

God renews the youth of His Church. This has just happened again. The Holy Father has published on his own initiative the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum and granted that from now on every priest has access to the eternally young Roman Rite, the Rite of the Holy Roman Church through her long life, the Rite of her youth that continues in heaven.

As far as my own Archdiocese of San Antonio goes, I don't know just yet what the motu will mean.

The motu proprio has been posted on the front page of the Archdiocese of San Antonio. Archbishop Gomez has posted his own statement about Summorum Pontificum here, and it's generally positive.

My pastor, Father Christopher Phillips, has posted his own thoughts about the motu proprio here on his blog. Unfortunately, he's currently unwilling to implement the motu in our parish unless the Archbishop requests him to do so; his reasons for doing so are outlined in the entry. On the bright side, Father Phillips is also the best and probably the most tradition-minded priest in the whole archdiocese and currently offers the NO Mass in Latin, ad Orientem, etc. as well as very reverent Anglican use Masses, so the motu isn't really a "necessity" here.

That being said, if you're reading this and are a TLM fan, please drop a positive comment in my priest's blog and put in a good word for the 1962 Missal and the motu. Perhaps he'll change his mind.

I believe that we're sitting on what will the beginning of a rebirth of the Catholic faith, perhaps a second Counter-Reformation.

On July 10, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Pope Benedict's old department when he was still cardinal) will release a new document reaffirming the role of the Catholic Church in the plan of salvation. Namely, it will clarify the phrase in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium which states that the Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church".

CWNews states:

The document to be released on July 10 will repeat and reinforce the fundamental message of Dominus Iesus that the Church founded by Jesus Christ exists fully in the Catholic Church alone. The document will critique the notion that other religious bodies may also represent the Church founded by Christ, and caution against the "ecclesial relativism" that Pope Benedict has criticized in the past.

And, of course, there's the letter that the Holy Father issued to the Catholic Church in China. I know that's kind of old news by now, but here's the letter anyway. Here's Pope Benedict's explanatory note to the letter.

From AsiaNews: Cardinal Zen: "No hidden politics in papal letter, Beijing's reaction cause for hope."

From China's The Standard: Pope's letter lifts underground church morale.


To add to the other good news, Vatican reports budget surplus due to Peter's Pence collection. Peter's Pence raised €74.3 million this year, compared to €43.4 million last year.


From the UK Times: The Ratzinger Effect: More money, more pilgrims, and lots more Latin! There are a couple things I disagree with in the article, but still....


And don't forget that the new English translation of the Novus Ordo Mass is coming soon!

There's a whole lot to be thankful for. Long live Pope Benedict XVI, and long live Christ the King.

The previous post was just about the motu itself. Pope Benedict has also issued an explanatory letter to the bishops of the world on what the motu means and how to best implement it. Here it is: Letter to the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio Data" Summorum Pontificum on the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970.

Note how this letter uses a more personal "I", as it opens with "my dear brother bishops", as opposed to the royal We in the official document. I like that little touch.

The letter says what we all know: "News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown."

And most importantly:

"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."

Here are some other commentaries and explanations of what the motu means.

Father Z's comments from "What Does the Prayer Really Say?" ("As one friend put it, the world has been made just a little bit safer to live in...")


Gerald Augustinus's cliff notes version of the Motu here, and cliff notes of the Pope's explanatory letter here.


Honorius at American Inquisition writes: What Summorum Pontificum means to a Traditionalist. Great personal article here.


Anita Moore from V for Victory! on the negative reception: What We Can Expect from the Mod Squad.


On Monday, EWTN will have a special on the motu at 9pm Eastern time. Bishop Bruskewitz will be one of the guests.


And best of all, a YouTube video made by Father Finigan over at Hermeneutic of Continuity.

Alleluia, alleluia! Ps. 109:4 The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." Alleluia, alleluia!



Today's alleluia before the gospel reading is particularly relevant for today: for today, this 7.7.07, the motu proprio is here! It is titled Summorum Pontificum, "of supreme pontiffs".

The official Latin text may be found here on the Vatican's website. An unofficial translation to English is right over here. I like how the translation has retained the Pope's "royal We", rather than reduce it to "I" as so many translations do. It opens as such:

"Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, 'to the praise and glory of His name,' and 'to the benefit of all His Holy Church.'

"Since time immemorial it has been necessary - as it is also for the future - to maintain the principle according to which 'each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.'

My quick interpretation of what it means:


The Pope has directly acknowledged that neither Vatican II Council nor the 1970 "Novus Ordo" Missal has ever abrogated or abolished the Missal of 1962, aka the Tridentine Latin Mass (this means that any priest who tells you that Vatican II abolished the old Mass is simply misinformed or lying).

The old Mass and the new Mass do not contradict or oppose one another, but are really one and the same Mass of Jesus Christ, albeit in different forms. The 1970 Missal is the ordinary form, while the 1962 Missal is an extraordinary form; but both are the same Roman Rite of Mass.

Priests may offer the Tridentine Latin Mass with or without the "indult" (express permission) of the local bishop, as was previously required.

... having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:

"Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

"It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.

The Scripture readings may be proclaimed in the vernacular, not necessarily in Latin as before.

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

And especially of note, priests may celebrate not only the Tridentine Mass, but Tridentine baptisms, marriages, and anointing of the sick. Previously, only priests belonging to special Tridentine orders like the FSSP or ICKSP could do it, and only in their special parishes. Bishops may use the Tridentine rites of confirmation; I'm not sure yet if they may grant priests permission to use it, too. Priests may also use the old Roman Breviary, not just the new Liturgy of the Hours. This one is of particular interest to me, as the reason I didn't join the local indult chapel is because it wasn't authorized to perform baptisms or do anything other than just Sunday Mass.

"Art. 9. õ 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it. õ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it. õ 2 Clerics ordained "in sacris constitutis" may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

Priests should offer the Tridentine Mass if there is a demand for it in their parishes. If the desire is not granted, the matter should be appealed to the bishop. If the bishop cannot grant it, then it should be appealed to Rome, via the commission Ecclesia Dei.

"Art. 5. õ 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church...

õ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages...

"Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 õ 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".

These provisions will take effect on September 14, the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross.

"We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as "established and decreed", and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.

" From Rome, at St. Peter's, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate."

Yes!