Jesus' Wife Papyrus? Yeah, That's a Fake

An announcement that's sure to bum out progressives everywhere is that the much ballyhooed ancient papyrus which PROOOOOOOOOOVED that Jesus had a wife isn't actually...uhm...real.

You might recall that two years ago, Harvard professor Karen King announced that an ancient papyrus mentioned that Jesus had a wife. Hey, it was written in some old type language on a piece on a piece of dirty cloth and it said something that many people wanted to believe so therefore it had to be true.

Another piece of text stated that Mary (presumably Magdalen) was "worthy."

Hmmm. Kinda' interesting that an ancient scribbler seemed very concerned with clarifying issues that 21st century progressives cared so much about.

Continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>>

*subhead*Too good to be true.*subhead*


  1. Sadly it appears that the Faithful will have to defy the Bishops.

  2. Some may have to. Thankfully mine is a faithful, orthodox, holy man who I would follow to the ends of the earth, but not everybody has been so blessed.

    As always, the Church is a mixture of good'uns and bad'uns.

  3. Pack it in.

    There's enough talking heads on the internet and there's no reason to report another rainy day during the deluge. Spend time w/ your family, enjoy your sector of life and simplify. Get back to basics of family, God, nature - doing things the old fashioned way with your hands and including others. Do your part when God puts someone in your life - speaking the truth in charity.

    The internet is a pathetic wasteland where anonymity breeds the worse kind of wicked forked tongues no less among Catholics than the pagan. It breeds division among brothers and the uncharitable thought finds a voice without actually speaking.

    All the best to you and yours!

  4. Deacon, I am happy for you. I live in what has been classified as a missionary diocese. Very few attend Mass and most of the priests are progressive and encourage liberal Catholic thought. If there should be a schism in the Church, I worry about where I could attend Mass. I believe most will be on the other side.

  5. But why wasn't that group a majority, or at least a significant minority?

    As to what came down the pike, the liturgical changes we saw after Vatican II went far beyond the changes in the Missal itself. Crappy folk music, the abandonment of the propers, the placement of choirs up fron and even in the sanctuary, the destruction and stripping of the sanctuaries, the near-complete disappearance of Latin, the uglification of religious art and church interiors, the abandonment of popular devotions .. these changes were not in the missal, were not promulgated by the Pope. Yet they were foisted on parishes all the same.

  6. This has been a recent serious struggle for me. Almost all the music at my parish is "me me me, us us us, we we we." I've learned to live with musical styles that aren't to my taste, I've learned to live with banality, but this constant chorus of praise for us and focus on us in hymns that are meant to glorify God is more than I can stomach.

  7. That is true, Pius XII offers this as a path for people to participate despite difficulty connecting to the liturgy of the mass. (It would be an interesting discussion as to whether this sort of participation is what Vatican II was addressing with its call for actual participation. I honestly don't know.)

    That all people have difficulty connecting to the liturgy some of the time and some people have trouble connecting to the liturgy all of the time just seems normal to me.

    But if a significant portion of the people have difficulty connecting to the liturgy a significant portion of the time, then I think that is evidence of something gone awry. Something is wrong with the formation of the laity, or something is wrong with the execution of the liturgy, or something is wrong with the liturgy itself. Or, the laity are being poorly catechized about the practice itself .. and based on discussions I've had with more than a few traditionalists who believe that praying the rosary was not an option of mercy but actually the preferred practice called for by the Church, I think this may be the dominant problem.

  8. The traditional gift for the 10th birthday in many catholic homes was the St Joseph Daily Missal with the Latin on the Left page and the English on the right. Mass notations in red. Everyone in my eighth grade class was ising the missal effectively for at least 3 years. We were traoned by the nuns to use the missal and most of us did so. We were abandoned by Rome. Thank god for the internet. Some of us would go to Novus Ordo then come home, take the missal and follow theTridentine Mass on line. Then cry knowing it was not available to us in any other way.

  9. Blondel is saying no more than Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was) when he said "Our situation is defined in part by the fact that this movement of dogmatic construction has already taken place, with ourselves as the gainers. Yet at the same time we are not exonerated from all further effort. Language has broadened its compass in the continuous explicative endeavours of the human spirit. Because of this, the presuppositions for the understanding of dogma are different now. And so we are obliged to penetrate anew, in language and concept, what the patristic dogmas truly signify" [Die Bedeutung der Vater im Aufbau des Glaubens]

    No, all is not well with the Church; the great work begun by Cardinals de Lubac, Congar and Daniélou, by Joseph Maréchal, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Claude Mondésert and Louis Bouyer (and I would add Benedict XVI) is still far from complete.

  10. If you think the name 'Ratzinger' is somehow magical for Traditionalists, think again. He had as big a hand as any in leading the Church astray, and said so as Pope in the days leading up to his abdication. You are on the wrong side of Christ, Michael. These men you mention unleashed the smoke of Satan in the Church - that is their work. Do you think the Patristic dogmas truly signify homo-priests? Rampant pedophilia? Unbelief in the sacraments, hell as an illusion no one really inhabits? That man can be the final arbiter of his destiny? Your heroes are all Modernists, Michael. Follow them and you follow the road to eternal damnation.

  11. I know exactly where you're coming from. I often wonder if there are people in my parish who see the same. Moral, theological, and liturgical aberrations.

    I hate to bring it up, but, I think it is appropriate in this context.
    St. John Paul II helped to lay a lot of the theological groundwork for this new elusive, hidden-in-plain-sight "cult of man" (from Paul VI, Dec 7 1965, Close of VII Council: "... to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind", from Latin: "hominis sumus cultores" - use any Latin translator, "we are worshipers of man," "we have cult of man")

    Immanentism & syncretism under the auspices of false ecumenism, interpreted through Gaudium et Spes 22 ["For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man."]. Through this, the "dignity of man" was overly glorified (just flip through the JPII CCC) and he saw Christ as immanent within all peoples, making even non-Christians a part of the "Body of Christ" through new, fashionable liberal interpretation of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" through the "light" of Gaudium et Spes 22.

    I ask everyone to read Mortalium Animos. If you don't want to read the whole thing, just read articles #2, #7, #9, and #10.

    Obviously, God has allowed all of this to have taken place. Let us pray that the chastisement be lifted.
    Keep up the great work, Pat.

    God bless.

  12. Because you can't sit in 2014 looking through today's eyes and see the big picture of 1965. It's a common mistake in all aspects of life.

  13. 1964-2000 is not "all of a sudden".

    Many of these men were told that they would be in the same role as the priests of their childhood. They would be in charge of a Parish, forming Catholics, not Psychotherapists fighting the laity for the management of their parishes tooth and nail.
    Accusing every Priest of "sins" with all the pressure they are under, is misguided. It was a hard job before Vatican II and not the same after.
    The power of the laity exploded and personalities can make life miserable for a Priest.

  14. Actually, it was within ten years, I think 66-76, that the priesthood was decimated, esp religious orders.

  15. I generally don't think we can sit in 2014 looking through today's eyes and see the big picture of 2014. I don't entirely trust any of the visions of the Church before Vatican II, but we have to work with what we have. All we can do is be as clear-eyed as possible and watch ourselves for becoming partisan, biased apologists .. a tendency that afflicts us all.

  16. Did you know that there are now paid posters on the internet? You can tell them by the convenient well known talking points. I think I see one in this combox

  17. Perhaps Tim meant to post this instead: "Fr. Villa quotes from a speech Paul VI gave to the U.N. in 1965 in which he said: “The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace”.

    Also, Paul vi referred to "The smoke of Satan..." Oddly enough, none among Paul VI's successors ever declared that the smoke of Satan were gone.
    So this leads me to believe that this diabolical smoke still are in the place, suffocating the minds and the souls as never they did.

  18. Seeing that the original comment was not in any way about the UN, I doubt that.

    And why is it that the "smoke of Satan" remark is the ONLY thing Paul VI said that some people remember? Why not acquaint yourself with his complete magisterium, not just isolated sound bites? Yes, there are dangers in the Church, but why spend all your time looking at the negative side?

  19. "In saying this, We feel We are speaking with the voice of the dead as well as of the living: of the dead who have fallen in the terrible wars of the past, dreaming of concord and world peace; of the living who have survived those wars, bearing in their hearts a condemnation of those who seek to renew them; and of those rightful expectation of a better humanity. And We also make Our own, the voice of the poor, the disinherited, the suffering; of those who long for justice for the dignity of life, for freedom, for well being and for progress.
    THE PEOPLES OF THE EARTH TURN TO THE UNITED NATIONS AS THE LAST HOPE OF CONCORD AND PEACE. We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute to honour and of hope. That is why this moment is a great one for you also. We know that you are fully aware of this. Now for the continuation of Our message. It looks entirely towards the future.
    [The edifice which you have constructed must never collapse; (This is in reference to the man-made, man-centered masonic construct-nothing in reference to any christian ideals)it must be continually perfected and adapted to the needs which the history of the world will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind; from now on retreat is impossible; you must go forward]"
    Here is little doubt what paul 6 is stating. Why is this so difficult for you to understand, unless of course you never read it?
    The negative is overwhelming in comparison. If one is a realist, then one cannot suppress the negative and focus on what little gain, if any , there has been in the last 60 years.


Post a Comment