Real Catholic Blog

I admit I’m biased. I’m a Stephen and ever since I was a little boy and learned that the man who becomes pope forgoes his birth name for one entirely new — as a sign of leaving his life behind as did the Apostles and giving it entirely to the Lord, as Jesus renamed Simon to Peter, the Rock upon which He built His Church) — I’ve wanted a pope named Stephen. It was only a boy’s pride, to be sure, and Stephen’s Biblical meaning of “Crowned One” is fairly befitting of the Supreme Pontiff.

We haven’t had a Pope Stephen since the 11th century. That’s confounding since Saint Stephen, the first martyr and the patron saint of deacons, is held in such high regard among the Litany of the Saints.

The last Pope Stephen was Stephen X (also referred to as Stephen IX because a priest elected pope centuries prior took the name Stephen but died before he could be consecrated a bishop, which is required to assume the papal office). Stephen X lived from c. 1020–1058 and was Pope from August 3, 1057 to March 29, 1058, and was widely praised for his reforms.

My first chance at a pope taking the name Stephen was at the death of Paul VI, the only pope of my memory at that point. I anxiously asked my parents if they thought there was a chance the new pope would take the name. I got the enthusiastic response that parents give children who show great interest in such weighty matters — sentiments of we hope so and that would be so nice. Alas, he chose the first double name, John Paul I. When he suddenly died, I knew the new pope would not have much choice but to take the same name.

With John Paul The Great’s long papacy, I never thought much about a new pope ort what his name might be. Nor did I expect his successor — figuring it would be Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — to inclined toward Stephen. But times have changed in the eight short years of Benedict XVI’s pontificate. It’s time for a Stephen. Here’s why.

Choosing a papal name is no esoteric exercise. Joseph Ratzinger chose Benedict for a reason — to signal his intention to re-evangelize Western Europe (and the world) as Saint Benedict instituted Catholicism in Germany and the order he founded spread it around Europe and, eventually, the world. Benedict’s New Evangelization is proof of his intention and the fruit is growing. Now, the Church faces challenges unique to this age (or at least era). We know them and the list need not be enumerated nor debated here. What we do know is that the next pontiff will need all the strength, courage and wisdom that he can summon from the blessings of the Holy Spirit to confront and conquer these challenges. It wouldn’t hurt to have as his patron and intercessor Saint Stephen.

Choosing that name would inspire new vocations and boldly convey to the world The Truth of The Faith in the face of secularism’s twin permeating evils — the culture of death and the dictatorship of relativism — just as Stephen faced those who hated Christ in the first century. For it is written in chapters 6-8 in Acts of the Apostles:

The whole assembly approved of this proposal and elected Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit. …

Stephen was filled with grace and power and began to work miracles and great signs among the people. Then certain people came forward to debate with Stephen, some from Cyrene and Alexandria who were members of the synagogue called the Synagogue of Freedmen, and others from Cilicia and Asia.

They found they could not stand up against him because of his wisdom, and the Spirit that prompted what he said. So they procured some men to say, ‘We heard him using blasphemous language against Moses and against God.’

Having turned the people against him as well as the elders and scribes, they took Stephen by surprise, and arrested him and brought him before the Sanhedrin. There they put up false witnesses to say, ‘This man is always making speeches against this Holy Place and the Law. We have heard him say that Jesus, this Nazarene, is going to destroy this Place and alter the traditions that Moses handed down to us.”

The members of the Sanhedrin all looked intently at Stephen, and his face appeared to them like the face of an angel. …

(Stephen said), “Can you name a single prophet your ancestors never persecuted? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Upright One, and now you have become his betrayers, his murderers. You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears. You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. In spite of being given the Law through angels, you have not kept it.”

They were infuriated when they heard this, and ground their teeth at him. But Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand.

“Look! I can see heaven thrown open,” he said, “and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.”

All the members of the council shouted out and stopped their ears with their hands; then they made a concerted rush at him, thrust him out of the city and stoned him. The witnesses put down their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul.

As they were stoning him, Stephen said in invocation, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Then he knelt down and said aloud, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And with these words he fell asleep.

It’s time for a Pope Stephen — a name of strength, dignity, intellect, leadership and courage — because of the times. The new Holy Father will need will need the courage to speak to the evils of secularism, despite the great power it wields — not physical death, but its power to ridicule The Faith and poison multitudinous souls in retaliation (or instigation). But not only to speak, but to speak forcefully and irrefutably, and with courage. As John Paul The Great urged us — Do not be afraid. Take courage. Be stout hearted. It was what a brother cardinal reminded Cardinal Ratzinger as he began to fear his inevitable election in 2005.

News reports indicate the College of Cardinals, during the days of its congregation before the start of the conclave, basically mapped out the characteristics it want sto see in the next pope. Where better to find them than the story of Stephen in Acts? And what better name?

Thus read the headline of an excellent commentary from Michael Burleigh in The Telegraph. An exerpt from the must read, which encapsulates the entire sad British (and Western European) attitude toward faith:

Secularism is at the heart of Benedict’s concerns. By this the Pope does not mean the delimitation of Church and State, the sacred and profane — which is intrinsic to Christian culture as well as political society since the Reformation — but the amnesiac eradication of one of the principal roots of Western civilisation and the deliberate marginalisation of all religion to the private sphere. In its stead has come a society that thinks its existential despairs can be ameliorated by limitless consumer goods, or worse, by a state that racks up fathomless amounts of debt so as to throw money at problems that may have no material resolution.

Clink the link above and read the entir piece. Then let us know what you think.

Pope Benedict XVI’s recently concluded visit to Great Britain not only was historic, but a tremendous success. This long awaited trip was about as much as any Catholic could have dreamed. There were many aspects to it, and I will comment on them this week and beyond. Just knowing that the Bishop of Rome, after nearly 30 years, was planning an official visit to the land of villain Henry VIII was gripping.

Not only is Great Britain the country where so much damage was done to Christianity in centuries long past, its unfortunate cultural and moral decay has influenced Western and, specifically, English speaking countries. It bares it share of responsibility for the this era’s moral and cultural decline. Pope Benedict’s visit was a bucket of cold water across the faces of the purveyors of coarse culture and moral relativisim — the thousands of ignorant as well as purposeful protestors who fruitlessly demonstrated during his time there.

If he made them uncomfortable, good. Their anger, then, was less about the Pope than  against their self-installed dictatorship of relativism, an intangible tyrant that tortures their souls. It’s a pain the unfaithful find sufferable in order to experience a false sense of freedom and pleasure, despite the harm to their spiritual health.

Pope Benedict addressed this. He spoke politely, but emphatically — or, as Michael Voris puts it, he was cheeky, giving the Brits more than enough to reflect on.

Oh, Henry! The cheeky pope had a historic and successful mission in the land of Henry VIII .

Here’s a report from the Vatican on Pope Benedict’s Angelus message on the Feast of the Assumption (Catholic Encylopedia). I like to tell people who doubt the Assumption something I heard during a homily a few years ago. It seems that Chamber of Commerce types, local governments and tourism boosters during the era of the Church’s early years (yes, they had them then, too) always were eager to proclaim sights related to saints in their cities and villages. This attracted pilgrims who spent money there. It was good for the local economy.

They would, at the slightest bit of evidence, or at the best guess of evidence (or legend), market sites related to significant figures of the Church: this saint ate here, this saint preached here, that saint died over there. So, there is ample reason to suspect that if the Blessed Mother was not assumed body and soul into Heaven, there would be some landmark, somewhere, marking the spot of her death or burial. There is none. Hmmm.

Also, it is important to know that, as Catholics, we believe Mary, in her complete human body, was assumed into Heaven, because as the Mother of Christ, just as she brought Him into the earthly world with a soul uncorrupted by original sin, so, too, her body left this world uncorrupted.

Pope Benedict XVI calls believers to entrust themselves to Mary, who “assumed into heaven, has not abandoned her mission of intercession and salvation.”

Teresa Shipley at Discovery.com reports that archaeologists believe they have discovered the bones of Saint John The Baptist, who baptised our Lord Jesus Christ (see John Paul II commentary), and infamously beheaded by King Herod at the request of his wife’s daughter, Salome (Catholic-Forum.com). The discovery was made at a 5th century monastary near the Black Sea in Bulgaria.

According to the article:

Bulgarian archaeologists excavating under an ancient basilica last week unearthed a reliquary, or a container full of human relics.

Bone fragments of a human skull, hand and tooth were found inside. …

The archaeologists believe that a date inscribed on the alabaster jar, June 24, is a good sign that the reliquary houses John the Baptist’s remains.

June 24 is the day Christian’s celebrate the birth of Jesus’ contemporary.

Seems a bit too coincidental to me. Besides . . . Bulgaria? How and why would John The Baptists’ remains find there way there? Of course, anything is possible. The Vatican is taking a cautious, wait-and-see approach. Fabrizio Bisconti, superintendent of the Vatican Pontifical Commission of Sacred Archaeology, told CNN more information and research is needed before the Holy See will opine on the discovery (see CNN’s Belief Blog for more, including video).

It’s interesting to contemplate, but misidentifications, not to mention forgeries, in ancient and Biblical antiquities are common. We look forward to more information confirming or dismissing what would be a terrific find.

Saint John The Baptist’s remains may have been found. The authenticity of the find, however, impacts little on Catholic faith.

RealCatholicTV.com’s Michael Voris recently released this excellent presentation on the link between contraception, abortion and the decay of culture. He proves that time truly does reveal the truth: Though ridiculed by the emerging moral relativists at the time (and today’s secular progressives), Pope Paul VI was right in his 1968 Humanae Vitae.

Not all bombs are massive, obvious things. Sometimes they are very small and deceptive, but with much bigger impact. This one is quiet, but no less devastating; actually more so. No one speaks about it much, which adds to its insidiousness. That’s why it is up to The Church, especially its bishops, to reinvigorate its role in promulgating the the sanctity of life that is the basis for a truly stable and sustainable culture.

Size can be deceiving: The bomb killing the West is very small indeed.

Here’s a report from CNN on the Shroud of Turin. Even the reporter seems to be enlightened (see video below). Of course there are skeptics, but more and more are coming to believe. (It’s amazing how some people either purposely ignore the evidence or are truly ignorant of it and base their denials on old, outdated assertions.) The report was in advance of Pope Benedict’s visit last month and below that is a video of his adoration of the Shroud. We’ll have more about his visit soon. 

If a reporter can see the light . . . then hope truly is on the rise. 

Pope Benedict XVI praying before the Shroud of Turin. The Church believes the Shroud is a holy article to kindle faith. But many believe in a more definitive declaration.

In his fifth and final part on a special series about progressives and their infiltration of The Church, Michael Voris of Real CatholicTV.com explains how to achieve victory over this element that is polluting The Church. If you missed the first four parts, we highly recommend you view (or review) them. They are excellent and clearly explain the internal threat to The Church — a threat that already has marginalized many protestant denominations — and which won’t stop until it also transforms Catholicism into a secularized social justice appendage of the government. Click here for parts one and two and here for parts three and four.

Victory will come when we each take responsibility to learn more about The Faith and become more engaged in our parishes.

One of the things I have remarked to my own mother, father, and other Catholics, who are part of what I will refer to as the “Bill O’Reilly generation of Catholics,”  is how different my experiences were growing up Catholic as compared to theirs.

Growing up in Richmond, Virginia in the 1970’s, I had what I will call a somewhat  “watered down” Catholic experience as compared to the generation before – and well – frankly, it  has left me feeling somewhat “gypped…”  Let me explain.

This is certainly NOT a testament to the Catholic schools in Richmond, for which I am most thankful to have received an excellent education NOR is it some kind of condemnation of my own parents as good Catholic parents!   It is simply this:  having been born in 1969,  I was coming along after the moral and societal tsunami of the  1960’s.

What does that mean?  For me, after having read my own family history book, Bill O’Reilly’s book, and Tim Russert’s book – I became aware rather quickly of the fact that many of the really beautiful small things talked about by that generation of Catholics –  the really sacred little things were cast aside, or perhaps fell through the cracks as people were being told to “get with the times.”

What kinds of little things?    And who cares?  Well,  a lot of things, and frankly I care.  Because I think the “little things” were really reflections of the “big things” – the “BIG IDEAS” that made Catholics, Catholics.

For Instance – here’s something very small (BUT BIG) … my grandfather, Peter Belton, would write “JMJ” atop every piece of paper he touched before writing anything.    My dad remarked that EVERY piece of paper laying around the house growing up  – even down to a scrap paper torn out of a book with a phone number scribbled on it in my grandfather’s handwriting – would have JMJ above it!    Similarly, my dad said, that when he was going to Catholic school, the nuns and Benedictine monks would have them write “Ad maiorem dei gloriam” atop every school assignment they handed to them.   In other words, BEFORE YOU EVEN WRITE YOUR OWN NAME, you write “for the greater glory of God.”  So why is this small thing such a big deal?  Well, in a word, HUMILITY.

I think the subtext of such an exercise (writing JMJ or AMDG) BEFORE your own name – or before anything else —  is to admit, and to plainly glorify the fact that  THERE IS SOMETHING BIGGER THAN YOU.   This practice says by the user, “I am remembering that I am here for the blink of an eye, and that the Glory of God and Christ have been before me, and will come after me.   Whatever I am to write (either in this classroom), or as part of my busy day – I am pausing before I begin to honor God, to remind myself that HE IS BIGGER THAN I AM.”

This, to me, explains a lot about why the generation before me and their parents were so traditional and different from my generation and those coming after mine.   They had those devoted monks, nuns, and other mentors and parents who INGRAINED in them the importance of humility, using these very types of methods.    Through something as simple as the consistent practice of putting what is most important “AT THE TOP”  of your heart and your mind, at all times before beginning even the smallest task.

I was deeply moved by this sentiment, and have been so happy to have had the chance to compile and read stories of my family in this book my father and I completed.   It has enlightened me about so aspects of how the “faith of my fathers”  shaped their lives and made them who they were day to day.

I think the WORST lie of the 60’s (which prevails today politically in my opinion), is this overriding message of:  “this is not my father’s oldsmobile.” The message that basically ANYTHING OLD;  traditional religion, social issues, history, and traditional personal conduct is “so very yesterday.”   This generation of liberals has successfully passed off the idea that –  “if it’s old – it’s outdated – ‘throw it out’ –  it’s NO LONGER OF USE.”   But what if much of what is OLD is Truth?  What if much of what is OLD contains WISDOM?   “ ‘CHANGE’ is not always just intrinsically good.  Is it?”

This example of the old practice of writing JMJ or AMDG symbolically illustrates a worldview, a  mindset, a practice and devotion, that keeps SELF in check.   It is a symbolic recognition that,  WISDOM has come before me.  I am standing on the shoulders of something bigger than myself.   I honor and recognize that.

In my opinion, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.   If these sweet and simple, “old fashioned” methods and practices of remembering those truths have been poo-pooed as outdated and discarded, might we be surprised to find that sometimes the truths that came along with those practices have gotten stripped from their rightful place as well?    FROM THE TOP?

Erin Belton Lilly is a parishioner at St. Bede’s Catholic Church in Williamsburg, Virginia where she resides with her husband, Michael, and two children, Jordan and Jacob.   She attended St. Bridget’s school and parish growing up in Richmond, and was married in downtown historic St. Peter’s Church.  Her father, grandfather and uncles attended Benedictine High School, and her grandmother, mother, and aunts attended St. Gertrude’s High School.  Erin was married by Father Adrian Harmening, who evidently also quite regularly disciplined her mischievious father and uncles at Benedictine High School many years earlier.

In April, we posted the first two videos of Michael Voris’ series on progressives in the Church for RealCatholicTV. Here are parts three and four. Very informative, but very disheartening and disturbing at the same time. However, to reinvigorate the Church, we must first face the certain facts and truths. Please watch and let us know what you think. I’ll post his final installment in this series this week.

If some says he or she is a “progressive Catholic,” he or she is no Catholic at all. 

By the numbers: We, as Catholics, are not doing our job and progressives are the major roadblock.