Apologia: The Fullness of Christian Truth

``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church'' Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D

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 of Vatican 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

active participation

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.

That's 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 the head.


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 ordained.



the Body of Christ


"Catholics and Christians"

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 Christ.'"

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.

Civilization of Love

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:

  • Traditional 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 frying.

  • Modernist 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.
  • Conservative 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!

community (or "faith community")

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 "Church" above).


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 faces.


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:

Modernist 1:

"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."

Modernist 2:

"Kewl! As long as you obeyed your conscience..."

Traditional Catholic:

"My informed conscience and years of prayerful study tell me that what's been going on in the human element of the Church lately is evil."


"Integrist! Reactionary! Trad! Lidless-eyed Freak!"

Conspiracy Theory

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 evil ends.

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 anti-Zionists).

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!

Creator, Redeemer,
and Sanctifier

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 Church.

diocesan pastoral center

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 "equality."

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 elite few.



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 Christ.


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.

Entrance song

that part of the Mass that is rightfully called the Introit

Eucharistic Meal

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.

Eucharistic Minister

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 Eucharist.

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!


faith tradition


Fr. Bob

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.



see "assembly"

gathering space

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 "offertory."


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"), etc.

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 out, man.



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:

  • American 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 Shepherd...")
  • "Supernatural" refers to God, not any spooky thing that happens. Phenomena pertaining to the good angels, the demonic, etc., are referred to as "preternatural."
  • 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 propaganda.
  • 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 of grace.
  • 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 man"


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, David. Puh-leaze!


Well, if we die from AIDS, it will be his fault then!

Holy Spirit

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 anything.


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 priest.


"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 all propaganda.

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! Peace out!


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...

human dignity

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.


image (and "re-image")

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."

It's 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."


Jesus Movement

"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:

Whenever 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.


Kingdom, the

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.



Holy Sacrifice 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 ~

b) an 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 Eucharist

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

Living 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

Mary Magdalen

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 Leonardo's feminine-looking "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 unload.


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 rise.


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.

mission statement

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.)

Modern Man

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 offspring.

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.


Original Sin

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 obedience.


Parish Life Coordinator

Lay pretend-pastor. See "pastor".

Paschal Theology

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!

pastor, pastoral

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

Penitential Rite

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)

Pro multis

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.

Reconciliation Room

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.

religious education

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, etc.).

religious liberty

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 knowledge."


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."

reproductive rights

the "right" to kill babies

Reservation Chapel

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?"

Risen Christ Crosses

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 "Resurrecifixes."



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"

Sacramental Minister

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

"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 Sacraments.

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, abortion.


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 II

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 a clean-up.

spiritual growth

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 deep denial.


"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 once were.
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.

Considering this makes some people really uncomfortable. Something else to make them sweat:

"The true 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.
Vatican "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 drunk.

Vatican II

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 kittens.


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 "dialogue."



the Precious Blood

worship service

the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

worship space

particular church, i.e., a parish church

Back to For Catholics