Real Catholic Blog

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.

Remember the game show To Tell The Truth? A panel of celebrity judges had to determine, by asking each certain questions, which of three contestants was the real person and which two were the impostors. When they made their determinations, they explained which answers tipped them to pick one over the other two. After that, the host would ask for the “real” person to step forward and, after several fits and starts among the three, the real person would step forward.

Thursday night, the leaders of the three major parties in Great Britain held the second of an unprecedented series of debates in advance of the country’s parliamentary elections. The prime minister is not elected directly by the people — the P.M. is the party leader of the party that captures a majority of seats in the House of Commons — so these debates are causing quite a buzz not only within the UK but internationally as well because they are, in effect, nationalizing the election around these individual men. It’s also caused a stir because the leader of the long-time third party, the Liberal Democrats (acknowledged to be further to the left than even the Labour Party), was acknowledged to have won the debate. Coupled with the quickly falling poll numbers of the front-running, and main opposition, Conservative Party, incumbent Labour is back in the hunt in a nearly three way tie.

Background as prologue done, please see the video below from the debate last Thursday. The replies are in response to a question from a voter who supports homosexual unions, abortion, and condom distribution, who wants Pope Benedict’s fall visit to Great Britain cancelled. (It is expected he will beatify 19th century English Cardinal John Henry Newman during the visit.) Then, try to identify the “Conservative Party” candidate. It’s well nigh impossible.

To Tell The Truth: Will the real conservative, if there really is one, please stand up?

If the Conservative Party is on the same plank as the two leftist parties, is there hope in the UK? No wonder it’s an island of moral irrelevence where the dictatorship of relativism rules. (Who needs an election, then?)

If you think this is amazingly sad, I wish I could find a video with the complete discussion — there was a follow up in which all three lauded Britain’s homosexual union law with the “Conservative Party” candidate even saying, “the Pope needs to get with the times,” which prototypically misunderstands the point. A man, The Pope, does not make Church doctrine. No man can. The Pope defends Church teaching which is the teaching of our Creator, our Heavenly God.

One of the three, as you heard, even said he was “not a man of faith,” which may make him the first such Western leader. All three gladly said they were in agreement on disagreeing with the Pope. 

But I guess we should be thankful that they at least will welcome His Holiness to their country. Or will he even attend now? Because, as the Brits like to say, there is a twist to the tale.

Apart from the debate, but at about the same time, a memo by a government official about the historic first-ever Papal visit to Britain became public. In it, he wrote such vile as that the Pope might, during the visit, launch Papal-branded condoms, bless homosexual marriages and open an abortion ward (see American Catholic blog).

If this insult was made about a Muslim leader, the official would have been fired immediately. Instead, this man is allowed to stay in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government. Or, as Gerald Warner of the Daily Telegraph wrote:

Wear a cross to work and you are sacked; insult the Pope and you are “transferred to other duties.”

The Vatican, however, showing the humility of Christ, stated the visit is still on, despite forceful letters of protest by Scottish and English Catholic bishops (The Scotsman). No doubt, this will put whoever wins the election and has the great honor of receiving Pope Benedict, in a more humble position in lieu of their adamantly arrogant ”disagreements with the Pope.” Maybe they will learn a lesson in humility from him. 

To Tell The Truth identities. Oh yeah, in case you are wondering: The man on the left, the first to answer the question, is David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader; the man who admits he is of no faith is Nick Clegg, of the third party Liberal Democrats; and the third candidate is incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party. 

The Vatican continues to send signals, clearer all the time, that normal Sunday Mass may be celebrated in the “Extraordinary” or Tridentine (Latin) form. In November, it sent priests instructional videos on presiding over such a Mass. According to CathNews Asia, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei made the recent ruling ”that parishes may replace a normal Sunday Mass with one celebrated in the ‘Extraordinary’ or Tridentine form,” in response to questions from the Polish Diocese of Rzeszow.

Here is the summary of the Vatican’s responses promulgated to the Diocese of Rzeszow, and which are applicable universally:

1. If there is no other possibility, because for instance in all churches of a diocese the liturgies of the Sacred Triduum are already being celebrated in the Ordinary Form, the liturgies of the Sacred Triduum may, in the same church in which they are already celebrated in the Ordinary Form, be additionally celebrated in the Extraordinary Form, if the local ordinary allows.

2. A Mass in the usus antiquior may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the Ordinary Form. The question contextualizes that in many churches Sunday Masses are more or less scheduled continually, leaving free only very inconvenient mid afternoon slots, but this is merely context, the question posed being general. The answer leaves the matter to the prudent judgement of the parish priest, and emphasises the right of a stable group to assist at Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

3. A parish priest may schedule a public Mass in the Extraordinary Form on his own accord (i.e. without the request of a group of faithful) for the benefit of the faithful including those unfamiliar with the usus antiquior. The response of the Commission here is identical to no. 2.

4. The calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Missale Romanum may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Missale Romanum in Masses in the Extraordinary Form.

5. While the liturgical readings (Epistle and Gospel) themselves have to be read by the priest (or deacon/subdeacon) as foreseen by the rubrics, a translation to the vernacular may afterwards be read also by a layman.

Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano is touting a new source of stem cells that it calls “the future of medicine” (see Catholic Online). The stem cells are taken from amniotic fluid to create a retinal regeneration therapy. The Biocell Center of Busto Arsizio in Milan is leading the research in the field and the Vatican, as per proxy in LR, is encouraging it.

Our faith teaches us that this type of  stem cell research is moral because it does not destroy human embryos. The fact is, despite the demagoguery of those who advance the embryonic stem cell argument, not one significant medical breakthrough has resulted from the millions of dollars and years of research that have gone into it. Meanwhile, hundreds of breakthroughs have occurred in adult stem cell research, such as from chord blood (see Family Foundation Blog).

Another fact: Even though research shows that adult stem cells can be manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells, thus eliminating the need for the destruction of embryos, the abortion lobby and allied groups  remain adamantly against defunding embryonic stem cell research. It exposes their real aim of encouraging abortion because if all they were concerned about was the research, then the “mimicking” process would be the “common ground” so-called “pro-choicers” always claim they seek (see telling video at Family Foundation Blog).

In addition to the Biocell Center of Busto Arsizio, Harvard Medical School’s Department of Opthalmology, the IRCCS Foundation and three Italian hospitals are among the institutions that have joined in the research. See Catholic Online via Catholic News Agency for the entire report.

From CTV/The Vatican YouTube Channel:

Pope Benedict reminds the faithful of the great missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius, and exhorts the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.