Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Really? I mean Reeaaally?????

-Mr Mastro, -The Bible clearly shows that the Catholic Church in Revelations is the 'Whore of Babylon,.' -

Dear protestants,..

This is a quick note especially to those who try to get me to ‘debate’ with you.  This includes but is not limited to, Anglicans, (all breeds) Presbytarians, Lutherans, Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, SSPXers, Sedevacantists, Mormons, Methodists, Evangelicals and Pentecostals.  Oh yes, I’m sure I’ve forgotten a couple of groups in there, but I think you get my point.  This is not a blog post, instead I’m writing a note.  This is not Optimusmastro, instead, just plain old Marco Mastromonaco.  It would seem that you guys enjoy opening up discussions but are in fact closed off to someone else’s opinion especially when it concerns matters of Faith.  My conclusion?  Fideism!  To engage a Catholic in dialogue or discussion, you must essentially be somewhat prepared for a reasonable defense.  Therein lies the crux of the issue, ‘Reason.’  As Catholics, I can assure you that our Faith is not blind, however can the same be said for you? 

You see, we can logically articulate our Faith, and in using our intellective faculties are by no means afraid of science.  Science will show you the ‘How,’ however Theology will tell you the ‘Why?’  From here on out, it is useless to debate someone who is closed off, unless;
    -Pick a topic (ie Concept of God,..) and stick to it
      - Give equal time to all parties
3  - Be judged in a debators’ arena, with FACTS! (This includes, Church history, Church Fathers, and logic,..that being said, proving God by the Bible and the Bible by God is not valid reasoning.) 

God bless you all!  

Liturgy/Religious Freedom SSPX Part II

The idea or notion that the Liturgy is the central sticking issue between the Society of St Pius X and  Rome is a tired notion.  It is also a notion that has no weight.  While the liturgy during the time of the Council was called into question, (Ottavianni intervention) there still did remain some Theological barriers which prevented the SSPX from full reconciliation.  (Though the schism became formal in 1988, When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated Bishops without Papal approval..) in reality, it had already occurred.)  For this particular blog post, we will look toward the Ecumenical movement and specifically the idea of Religious Freedom. 

As always, we will contextualize the situation.  The Second Vatican Council, in many ways the cataclyst that launched into question a whole generation with regards to hermeneutics.  The Council in many respects broke with a certain rational for even holding a Council, as there was never any doctrinal dispute which necessitated a Council for correction.  On the issue of Liturgical Reform, this was undertaken way before VII was even a thought, in order to correct the Tridentine Rite and purge it from its own abuses.  At the time of Trent, the Real Presence was called into question by protestants, so Altars were created with a Tabernacle glued onto it.  This turned into a ‘Jesus’ refrigerator, and Adoration was not seen as a continuation of the same Sacrifice, but in certain places, became its own animal.  In a Liturgical setting, the Altar is to remain the focal point of the Liturgy, yet with a Tabernacle on it, it can become secondary, to the Real Presence in reserve.   Pope John 23rd in good faith, wanted an aggiornamento, an updating to present the Faith to a world that was changing.  The modern world, saw a sexual revolution, feminism and an all out assault on the establishment.  This of course produced breakaway groups, sedevacantists (No Pope, the CMRI, SSPV), Conclavists (A true Pope somewhere, usually elected by the person’s family), and of course, the SSPX, (Who believe that the Pope is valid, but may be a materiel heretic, but not a formal one…)

For Ecumenism, and inter-faith dialogue, the SSPX sees this as an invitation to Universalism, something that has been further clarified by both Bishop’s conferences, the 1994 Catechism and ‘Dominus Iesus’ (Document from the congregation for the doctrine of the Faith.)  The fact remains that we need to know the ideology of the other, before we can present the Gospel in its fullness.  So by hierchalizing different religions became necessary by asking how much Truth they possess?  The Orthodox are usually ranked first and seen as a ‘Sister Church.’  (On this issue alone, Ecumenism has worked, as in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athanagoras revoked the excommunications from 1054.  Both sides recognize valid orders, and the Orthodox understand the primacy of Rome.  There still remains a sticking point with regards as to how to exercise this ministry.)  Up next are the protestant traditions,..all ranked according to how much truth they contain.  (In this regard, ‘High’ Anglicanism is significantly closer than the United Church..).  Then we view the other monotheistic religions followed by the pantheistic ones. 

The fact of the matter is that the question of Liturgy remains a smokescreen.  Pope John Paul II offered them a personal prelature back in the 1980s which they rejected, even after they had a signature.  Their real problem remains the problem of Religious Freedom and how to properly understand it.   ‘Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate attempted to show that God in His infinite Mercy desires all men to be saved.  In doing so, the Church does not promote universalism, but through dialogue and discourse attempts to show that the human person is called to freedom.  The freedom to accept or reject, the Gospel of Christ, being proposed and never imposed.  ‘Freedom’ is doing what you ought, not what you want!  That is license.  Has this position changed from the Church reaffirming Herself as the one True Church changed?  Absolutely not!  However in reaction to the Father Feeney issue from the 1940s, an amplification was needed.  This position is also closer to Aquinas thought.  The Church returning to its sources sought to recognize what is true and holy in other religions in order to advance and further engage people.  The Church must separate a contextual situation from its actuality.   The SSPX plain and simple, look to the Syllabus of Pius IX as ‘infallible’(which it is not, as to read it literalistically would not have me typing on a computer, as that would be an error... Syllabus ) while forgetting the context in which it was promulgated!  So there is an issue within their Theology whereby even Jesus would be called into question when He meets the Samaritain woman or still St Paul in Acts would be called into question by the SSPX as to how he evangelized in Athens.  I think the above video by Bishop Fellay of the SSPX shows that it has nothing to do with Vatican II.  

A few clarifications;  Archbishop Lefebvre never rejected Vatican II or the Reform of the Mass.  What he rejected was the Rite put in place in 1969 by Paul VI,.. (which it can be argued deviated from Sancrosanctum Concilium).  Secondly Pope John Paul II had them already set up as a prelature which Lefebvre rejected.  The next SSPX post will examine the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, its context when it was written, (the end of Christian philosophy,) and staving off the birth of so-called enlightenment thought giving way to modernism. 

Pope Saint Pius X,………………ora pro nobis.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Fr Pipahhh the Sequel, State of the Union,..

Once again, I, Fr Jason Piper will use Cybertronian ears, eyes and speech, to say what I got to say,..Optimusmastro will return a little later,..

Yesterday (January 20th) marked my one year anniversary of ordination to the priesthood. I have been reflecting on the past year, and the following is one of many points about the priesthood that have been in mind:
Back in September, eight months since I had been ordained, I was told something to the effect of; "people are saying you've changed since you became a priest... its like you think you have a license to do whatever you want." My response was basically... yes, I have changed. No, I don't think I can do whatever I want.
Regarding "you've changed since you became a priest"
When someone is ordained, they do in fact change. There is an ontological change, in which there is a change in one's very being; priesthood isn't something you do, it is who you are... I am priest (through Jesus the one Priest). When I was ordained, I changed, my very being changed by the very ordination (Sacrament of Holy Orders).
Also, when one is ordained, they receive a new office, or charge. They are now a priest (ontological change), and are therefore are to act within that role, fulfill that role, function within that role. After I was ordained, I changed my mode of action to conform with my new reality.
Regarding "a license to do whatever you want."
When one is ordained, he is responsible for what he does, within the role he is to fulfill, based on his new reality "I am priest." Now, lets say there are liturgical abuses going on, for example; on Sundays the psalm is replaced by a poem (contemporary writings speak to our current reality), and the Old Testament reading is removed (it makes mass too long). Before ordination the seminarian may express his dislike for such practices, and really that is all he can do. It is the priest who has been entrusted with the sacred duty of transmitting what the Church has put forth. The seminarian is placed with the priest to learn from him, not tell the priest what to do. If the priest wants to persist in error, there is nothing a seminarian can do about it. That priest will answer to Jesus on the day of his judgment.
However, once that seminarian becomes a priest, and he himself has been entrusted the sacred responsibility of faithfully transmitting what the Church puts forth; he can, and therefore should refuse to allow the liturgical abuse to go on when he is the presider. Far from thinking 'now that I'm a priest I'll do whatever I want' (or have the license to do whatever one wants), the attitude should be; now that I'm a priest I will do what I should do, what I was entrusted to do. He will also answer to Jesus on the day of his judgment.
On Authority:
If someone does not change when they become a priest, there is something seriously wrong. I'm not talking about a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type of change. Or like He-Man “I’VE GOT THE POWER!!!” Rather, a change in which one assumes the serious responsibilities they were entrusted with; by God through their bishop who represents the Church.
Lastly, priests are trained to be leaders. He is like a young buck raring to go... it is only normal that a newly ordained takes charge and leads. Naturally, within the role he has been given. If he is under a direct superior who is the pastor of a community he is named to; the newly ordained is to assist the pastor who leads. The newly ordained leads under the leadership of the pastor. Just as the pastor leads under the leadership of his bishop. And the bishop leads in union with his brother bishops with the pope as their head. The pope, surrounded by the bishops, leads under the authority of Jesus Christ. We, all the baptized, make up Jesus' Church, and are subject to His supreme authority. The chain of command begins and ends with Jesus. Anything that is not of Jesus, and what He has given under His authority expressed through the Magisterium, is not binding on one's promise of obedience and respect.
Final Thoughts:
Any authority I have, is based on Jesus' authority. If I refuse to do something, like grant general absolution to those who come for monthly parish penitential services, or enforce something like only using unleavened bread for the Eucharist; it is not because I think I have the license to do whatever I want... it is because I know I do not have the license to do whatever I want.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Time to Think,...

     This reflection was written a while back as an article for a newspaper,..please excuse the spelling and grammatical errors,..For those asking, I will be publishing several posts this week, one of them being a continuation of the SSPX issues,..I wish all of my readers a very happy, Holy and healthy 2013!  Please continue to sustain me in prayer,..

God bless!



     The context of social philosophy can provide an individual with a canvas whereby people can’t paint with different lenses.  These ‘lenses’ are the visuals with which to look out past the obvious, the sensual and the real and straight into the subjective.  Truth, the statement or idea that Pilate questioned Jesus upon relates in so far as much as to theology as it does to every other facet that life can give us.  To define it, in a very Aristotelico Thomist mindset would be ‘that which is in accord with the nature of the thing.  For this particular reflection, we will attempt a look at population control under the radar/microscope as well as post context of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, its reception after the Council and finally break down its rejection and thus its consequences from both a moral position as well as an economic one.  The essay will attempt to be as objective as possible while at the same time showing certain evidences and trends that are now marking the decline of western (Occidental) Civilization while awaiting two new potential ideologies looming and poised to replace the post Christian ‘West.’  One being of rampant secularism, while the other being Islam.  This essay will also attempt to connect the ‘dots’ and show a ‘cause and effect’ chain linking the sexual revolution, contraception, abortion and population demographics, a roadmap to show and articulate how western civilization got from ‘there’ to ‘here,’ being our current political mindset and so-called ‘common good’ approach.

1.1     End of the Era

     The Legalization of Christianity, (Edict of Milan), and fall of the Roman Empire paved the way for a new and bold way of life.  Christianity was trumpeted as a backdrop to institute political structures, education (confessional schools) and ethical norms, and through its canon law built up civilization for most of Europe and the Americas.  By the time Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the Cathedral door at Wittenberg Germany, a subsequent downward spiral was put in motion and is culminating with what we see today.  The subjectivist mindset replacing the objective, births a selfish culture, but one that is ultimately headed for self-destruction with regards to having no exterior concern or consequence.  From the Social Philosophy perspective, the common good gives way for the individual ‘good’ thus in this light, we can begin to see society go backwards.  Can it be safe to assume a connect the ‘dots’ approach and thus attempt to reason our way through the false selfish man centered ideology all the way through to where we now find ourselves?  Feminism, the sexual revolution and a post Vatican II euphoria (ironically having nothing to do with Vatican II itself) usurping man’s means to an end and making it the end itself.  In between Civilizations, a sociological no man’s land whereby the post Christian European identity, (Yes even in the Americas) has now positioned itself for a new civilization to take over and assert itself.  Gone is canon law, while our society cannot maintain a culture of secularism, all the while Islam is on the rise.  

2.  Humane Vitae;

     In the nineteen sixties, specifically July of 1968, in the wake of both the sexual revolution (secular) and the aftermath of the second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical to clear up any misunderstanding or questions with regards to Catholic moral teaching as it pertains to artificial means of contraception.  Catholic moral teaching reserves the sexual act as an act between a man and a woman inside marriage for the propagation of children and of unity.  The Pope, despite internal pressure and amidst a growing secular whirlwind, stood up to re affirm the Church’s clear teaching and thus, Her adhesion to the Natural Law, not to mention conventional cultural growth and progress.  At the time, many Catholics saw this reaffirmation by  Paul VI as a sociological step backwards as theAnglican Communion had already decided that contraception was acceptable as a practice, not being able to distinguish the reality that a marriage breakdown was also at stake, and an acceptance of contraception would only exacerbate the issue at large.  While to be fair, the first real signs of dissent occurred way before Vatican II, the aftermath (aftershock) of post counciliar foolhardiness was used as the Launchpad, and sadly most Canadian Catholics, especially in following the Winnipeg Statement followed their ‘consciences’ to the current crisis that we now face.   The Winnepeg Statement being the all too familiar intervention by Canadian Bishops publically disobeying Rome.  A catastrophic earthquake in light of the sexual revolution was now inevitable yet no one foresaw it, because everyone was too caught up in the idea of ‘free’ love.  ‘Free?’  Nothing is free, and sex divorced from authentic love is but legalized lust. 
     Pope Paul VI, no doubt seeing that society was (and elements inside the Church) was akin to a wild horse sought to reign in the dissidents and heterodox thinkers advancing this modernist approach whereby ‘if it feels good and doesn’t harm anybody, then why not?’ 

2.1 Contraception.

     Properly speaking the act of contraception means to willfully interfere and disrupt through natural means, a normal course of action.  In this case it happens to be pregnancy.  The most common and popular form has been the ‘Pill’a medication brought forth in order to de stabilize a woman’s hormonal cycle thus not allowing her to conceive through normal means.  She would become master of her own particular nature and leave the natural law out of the question.  We were told that we were made in God’s image, yet with the inception of the pill, we now dictate the terms to God.  Along with the pill, the condom industry grew and gave birth to a generational gap of open sex whereby it was considered normal for anyone to fulfill their own instinct without regard for consequence.  Unfortunately for the contraception industry, it didn’t always work, and thus another ‘solution’ had to be found.

2.3 Abortion

     Following suit upon a breakdown of thought, and morals comes the ultimate act of selfishness rooted in senseless killing, all in the name of a ‘common’ good.  Planned Parenthood in the 1960s financed a marketing campaign designed at pushing the contraceptive agenda because it would lessen the number of abortions which in their mindset was killing.  Fast forward 35 years later, and the ‘baby’ name in their pamphlet has been changed to ‘fetus’ thereby attempting an abstract vision of something concretely alive, which can be demonstrated not only by Faith, but also within a common sense/ Natural Law framework.  Gone was the argument of whether or not a person is a person when they are in ‘being’ essentially in potential and subject to change.  The only thing which changed was our vocabulary which in following the Roe V Wade abortion ruling in the United States, the fetus became a clump of cells and property of the woman’s body, thus enshrining it as a jewel within feminist causes.  So the marketing strategy as a result, in order to keep the industry (contraception) rolling, because after all it is lucrative, will trumpet the women’s ‘rights’ card advancing a so-called ‘common good’ all the while masking an intrinsic moral evil.

3.  Economics

     According to the law of supply and demand, along with cultural statistics, it has been demonstratively shown that in order for a culture to prosper, or at the very least sustain itself, a birthrate of 2.1 per family is essential.  One child to replace the mother, the other child to replace the father, while the ‘.1’ falls within the statistical anomaly of the case of accidental deaths or handicaps with the children.  The western model has not been following this model and to use Germany as an example (figures stem from 2006) we can show that Germany’s birthrate is staggering, eye-opening 1.3!. The mathematics which follow are only a logical projection all the while showing the inter-relational dimension between the breakdown contraception, abortion and the breakdown of the family culminating with an economic disaster.  Essentially when the current generation wants to retire and benefit from pensions, they will not have enough money subsidized by the next generation of workers because essentially there are so few of them.  This then effects the supply and demand chain.  Essentially contraception is a deception, a perversion of an act attempting to capitalize on man’s carnal desires.  Sex is a natural impulse, however it is also a disordered natural impulse.  This is not a theological affirmation, but a realistic one, whereby our society needs to recognize.  The parameters of marriage provide the necessary natural society whereby a free total giving of oneself can take place between one man and one woman.  The result being the openness to new life, shows that the couple is not closed off while celebrating their complimentarity.  Should children, the natural fruit of this union come into being, they can be educated inside the marriage parameter which has by now transformed itself into a family.  Any deconstructionist vision of this ultimately leads to chaos.
It needs to be noted that along with contraception being the norm, an entirely familiar set of words have now been hijacked and are subject to reinterpretation along the lines of what the majority ‘feel’ is true, and not what necessarily is true.

4 Conclusion

     Within the Christian, specifically Catholic mindset, the sexual act represents man’s co-operation with the Divine in the very act of creation.  We, as human beings and out of love are invited to participate within this notion.   God, the personification of Love Himself, exists as an eternal exchange of relationships.  God who is at once the Lover, the Beloved and the act of Loving always is in a constant free giving of oneself.  The same is true for human beings.  The sexual act is one of constant giving.  When we separate ourselves from this mindset, we enter into a constant taking and thus turn the act inward on itself.  An addiction can thus be formed through chemical cocktails in the brain secreting epinephrine and dopamine secreting from our pituitary gland in the brain.  An example can be shown of an individual addicted to food, how they eat to stimulate the taste buds, instead of as a primary reason for sustaining oneself in ‘being.’  The result is heart disease, fat and high blood pressure/cholesterol.  Within the sexual context, the end result of the addiction is the population decrease, along with sexually transmitted diseases, however because of the chemicals in the brain, a link can also be shown to equate rape cases whereby people cannot control themselves and are past the ‘point’ of no return.  The passion thus rules the 'Will' thereby rendering it no longer free.
     This reflection at best tried to show a ‘connect the dots’ approach to an issue all too familiar to 21st ears and sensibilities.  Every election especially in the United States sees a resurgence of people attempting a full out return to an authentic common good and the establishment of a potential authentic  global ethic.  As has been demonstrated, our contraceptive generation did not give way to ‘free’ sex as was its original intent.  Instead it birthed an entirely different mindset and has set into motion the impending collapse (irreversible) of western civilization.  The results have seen an increase in abortions, a complete breakdown of the family along with a redefinition of traditional marriage, an emasculated masculinity devoid of any semblance regarding traditional roles.  Finally an economic tsunami and market crash brought on by a lack of population ready and able to work so that older people can retire and sustain what our society has always sought to maintain, a culture of growth and prosperity, instead, we are saddled with trauma and potential extinction.   In order for a society to function, it needs people to work, this is what feeds the economy, the age old adage of supply and demand.  The contraception deception at its core is the cause of our current economic breakdown and as has been already stated will usher in a new reality of civilization, especially considering to keep our heads above water we need immigrants and only one religion is populating itself. 

Our Lady of Fatima,.....................................................................Ora pro nobis.