Q&A May AD 2012
Our Lady of the Rosary
Why does the priest kiss the paten?
One World Church?
Question: Why does the priest make the sign of the cross with and
kiss the paten? (Sr. C.M.P.)
Answer: The paten is a circular gold plate roughly six inches in
diameter, made of similar material and style as the chalice. Many modern
patens have a foot that fits loosely within the lip of the chalice. with a
linen cloth (purificator) keeping the two from scratching each other. The
paten is thought of as a dish for the priest’s large host, even though the
host sits on the linen corporal rather than on the paten for much of the
In the early Church the paten was much larger—more like a circular tray than
a small dish. At the Entrance Hymn, a particle of the Blessed Sacrament
(called the “sancta”), consecrated at a previous Mass, was displayed
on one of these large patens, and presented for the celebrant of the Mass to
kiss. The sancta was brought to the celebrant after the prayer
following the Lord’s Prayer (“Deliver us, O Lord, from all evils....”) and
dropped into the chalice containing the Precious Blood, as he said “May the
peace of the Lord be always with you.”. This was a symbol of the unity of
each Mass with all other Masses, and ultimately with the Sacrifice of the
Other large patens were used as receiving trays to collect the offerings of
the faithful, which may have included the loaves that would be consecrated
at that Mass. Such loaves would be put on the altar where, at the
appropriate time they would be consecrated and become the Body of our Lord.
The patens were put away after the offertory until the time at which the
loaves were broken to accommodate the Communion of individual recipients.
The patens would be brought out reverently at the fraction of the loaves,
and would serve to catch any small consecrated fragments. That two acolytes
might hold the opposite sides of one paten for the priest or deacon who
broke the loaves will give an idea of the paten’s size.
In a large church, the breaking of the bread might take some time. Pope
Sergius I (r. 687-701) added the Angus Dei to the
Mass as a musical interlude in both Latin and Greek while the process of
breaking the loaves took place.
With the advent of unleavened altar bread and pre-cut circular Communion
wafers (c. 11th century), the ceremony of the breaking of the was reduced
to the token breaking of the priest’s large host into two large and one
small part. With this development, the modern paten, far more convenient to
handle, came into existence. The priest’s host, and perhaps some small ones
for the faithful, are offered on the paten, and then placed on the altar.
Only after the prayer “Deliver us, O Lord ...” is the large host returned to
the paten. This is done after the paten is used to make the sign of the
Cross and is kissed as a sign of reverence for its sacredness as a
Eucharistic vessel. The celebrant then breaks the large host, and deposits
the smaller piece in the chalice in a manner reminiscent of the sancta
deposited in the Precious Blood in years gone by.
At Solemn Mass the paten is taken from the altar by the subdeacon after the
Offertory, as it was in earlier times. The subdeacon holds the paten in his
hands, covered by a white (humeral) veil worn over the shoulders. After the
Lord’s Prayer he brings it to the deacon, who hands it to the celebrant to
be used as described in the previous paragraph.
In summary, the modern paten is used in such a way as to make a token
reenactment of the ceremonies of the early church at the Offertory, the
Sancta, and the breaking of the bread. In the Mass of Pope Saint
Pius V, the prayer “May the peace of the Lord be always with you.”
accompanies the dropping of the small particle into the Precious Blood,
while the Agnus Dei takes place after the fraction of the large host.
Question: What is this I hear about a “One World Church”? Are they
talking about the Catholic Church?
Answer: “Catholic” does, indeed, mean “Universal,” but most of the
talk about a “One World Church” or a “One World Religion” is about something
quite different from Catholicism of all times. Generally, the “one worlders”
are political globalists who want an planetary government under the United
Nations, who are trying to clothe this travesty with a veneer of religious
respectability, and who intend to use their false religion as a means of
exercising control over the inhabitants of the Earth.
The United Religions Initiative (URI) was announced by the Episcopalian
Bishop William Swing of San Francisco on 25 June AD 1995 at an interfaith
service in his cathedral honoring the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of
the UN Charter. Swing was supported by the Novus Ordo Archdiocese of
San Francisco and the Jesuits of the University of San Francisco. In
attendance were such notables as Princess Margaret of England, the Anglican
Archbishop of South Africa Desmond Tutu, the President of Poland and former
Solidarity leader Lech Walesa, and, of course, UN Secretary-General
While, in theory, the URI is not supposed
to be a syncretistic organization—it claims to “respect
the uniqueness of each tradition, and differences of practice or belief”—it
emphasis is rather pantheistic, indeed, Earth centered. This is consistent
with the United Nations’ environmentalist scare tactics aimed at making
serious reductions in the human population of the planet.
We, people of diverse religions, spiritual
expressions and indigenous traditions throughout the world, hereby establish
the United Religions Initiative to promote enduring, daily interfaith
cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence and to create cultures of
peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings.
Who could possibly be against peace,
justice and healing? But something is radically wrong here in placing “the
Earth and all living beings” on equal footing. We love our dogs and our
cats, and may sometimes over-indulge them, but justice for them does not go
much beyond simple humane treatment. Roaches, rats, mosquitos, amoebas, and
viruses are living beings too—but it takes a very unwell mind to create “a
culture of peace, justice, and healing” for them! “The Earth” was listed
before “all living beings”—the same unwell minds might have intended that
the planet be considered more important than its inhabitants. They are
known not to be above the “worship of Earth as the goddess Gaia.
Who wouldn’t like to see the elimination
of violence in the world? But religion as a cause of violence has long been
a shibboleth of the anti-clericals who try to portray the clash between
error and truth as the fault of true religion, and the victimization of
those attached to falsity. There can be no peace without the Prince of
Peace! Dethroning Christ the King is a sure route to war!
Hans Küng, one of the “usual suspects,”
tells us that “The global ethic ‘must center on both man and the universe so
that humanistic and religious precepts are included.’” One “Robert Muller
explains, ‘Each generation must decide what is right and wrong. We need a
science [not a religion] to define what is good and bad. We need ethics in
time: What is right today may not be right tomorrow.’”
Muller’s biography is telling.
One might be inclined to laugh at Swing
and his URI, but the consequences of a planetary takeover, the institution
of world government, and the attempt to replace Christianity with pop
ecology are no laughing matter. Of particular concern is the willing
participation of Catholics in this pernicious enterprise. About eighty
years ago our Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, clearly condemned Catholic
involvement in in the activities of “pan-Christians,” and à fortiori
in the activities of pantheists:
8. [I]t is clear that the Apostolic See
cannot on any terms take part in their [the “interfaith” people] assemblies,
nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such
enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false
Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ....
... How so great a variety of opinions can
make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity
can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith
of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the
neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it.
Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic
truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying
necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind,
since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being
accommodated to human life....
... the union of Christians can only be
promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those
who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To
the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is
to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He
Violating the First Commandment at Assisi
(Before the Earthquake)
Pope Pius referred to “those, who ... hold
that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with
the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of
the mind.” This is precisely the error of the Marx-Hegelian “dialectic” and
the Modernist “dialogue.” It is Muller’s “What is right today may not be
right tomorrow” and Hans Küng’s “consensus.”
Incredibly, a number of highly placed
Catholics have been involved in a companion organization to the WRI, the
World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP).
The Pittsburgh Press, Saturday, 10 October AD 1970 lists among the
founding participants: John Cardinal Wright, former Bishop of Pittsburg;
and Most Reverend Angelo Fernandes, Bishop of Calcutta.
In 1994 the Vatican hosted a general assembly of WCRP with many non-Catholic
speakers and such Catholic notables as Pope John Paul II, Hans Küng (former
theologian), Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini (Archbishop of Milan), Roger Marie
Élie Cardinal Etchegaray (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace), Francis
Arinze (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue), and Gustavo
Gutierrez (of “liberation” theology fame).
The assembly continued at Riva del Garda in Italy. In its concluding
declaration we find:
Many peoples enjoy greater economic,
social and political freedoms. But gross inequities still exist and even
multiply. Development and technological advances hold out many promises, but
too often further separate the rich from the poor and degrade the
environment. Never before has there been such an urgent need for an ethics
to govern scientific advances, to harness their potential for the greatest
I.e. we need more government and global
government to tell the producers of the world what to produce, to whom they
may sell it, and at what price.
A vision of a world community with rights
and responsibilities is taking shape. The human rights of the most
vulnerable and marginalized members of our society-women, children and
minorities-are increasingly recognized. Yet discrimination persists in our
world, indeed even in our religious communities. The sacredness of the earth
and our unity with it are deeply felt in many places, and remind us of our
responsibility to act as stewards of this fragile ecosystem which nurtures
and sustains us. Yet the natural environment is being devastated at
“The sacredness of the earth....” Marxism
often tends toward pantheism, the notion that the sum total of the universe
is divine—a sort of materialistic god—Hegel wrote of a “world soul.” The
One World Religion, of necessity, will be pantheistic.
On the threshold of the fiftieth
anniversary of the United Nations, we honor its accomplishments and note the
challenges it faces. Since 1990, it has drawn and will draw together world
leaders to discuss children, the environment, human rights, population and
development, social development and women. The U.N. has and will draw
attention, through yearlong emphases on indigenous people, the family and
The work of healing and building peace and
security in a fractured world presents new challenges to the U.N. and other
international bodies, which are stretched beyond their capacities. We
support the work of these organizations and affirm the renewed commitment of
Religions for Peace to the U.N. as it advances a more comprehensive
understanding of global security through sustainable human development.
Human security, which acknowledges the universalism of life, is embedded in
the notion of solidarity among people. It acknowledges our interdependence
and our broad-ranging needs for security: economic security, food security,
health security, environmental security, personal security and political
security. Meeting the challenge of human security is essential to
Ah, yes! The U.N. The mother of all
global socialist schemes! The guarantor of all security. The arbiter of
“sustainable human development—deciding how much a given human population
must be scaled back to ensure the wellbeing of the Earth’s other
life-forms. The arbiter of who may be a parent, and what parents may teach
and require of their children. The U.N., “the obligatory path of modern
civilization and of world peace ... the last hope of concord and peace” to quote the man who let the “smoke of Satan”
into the Catholic Church.
And, now these fools want to make the U.N. the arbiter of what men and women
may believe about God?