Absolutely 100% completely spot-on bull’s eye article.  As they say in church, “Amen!”

Nicely done, Mark.  The new, more accurate translation can’t come fast enough: there are so many clunkers in the current translation, which, while striving for that “dynamic equivalence” translators in the ‘60s and ‘70s were so keen on, fails signally on both in being neither dynamic nor equivalent.  My current favourite (of so very many) is in Eucharistic Prayer I (the best, most traditional of the four Eucharistic prayers), where the phrase “accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas” (“taking also this precious chalice into his sacred and venerable hands”) is translated “he took the cup”!  You don’t need to know Latin to know this isn’t what most people mean by translation.

Freaking brilliant Mark. Thanks.

Well written, Mark.  I’ve been making this point for years to our RCIA participants when we go through the Mass.  I used to get strange looks for bringing up the Latin, but that’s slowly changing.

“God’s word to us at the end of every Mass is “Go!  You are sent!” “

I hate to be pedantic, especially when I agree with the general tenure of the article, but that isn’t actually what ‘ite, missa est’ means. That would be more like, ‘ite, missi estis’. In fact, it is third person, est, not second person, so the verb does not refer to the multitude.

It is rather harder to be sure exactly what it does refer to, but my favourite interpretation is that the feminine form (missA) agrees with a suppressed ‘hostia’, sacrificial victim. In other words, ‘go forth, the victim has been committed to God’.

Of course, it is no surprise that such sacrificial language should have been downplayed in the near-heretical ICEL translations.

I suppose if one wanted to emphasise the sense of missio that you refer to (and I do not disagree that this is the purpose of the ‘ite’), then the suppressed noun would be ‘ecclesia’ - ‘go forth, the Church has been sent out’. Is there any patristic support for this reading?

Athanasius, you’re right. I was just about to post almost the same thing. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) says:

[Ite missa est] is the versicle chanted in the Roman Rite by the deacon at the end of Mass, after the Post-Communions. It is our formula of the old dismissal (apolysis) still contained in all liturgies. It is undoubtedly one of the most ancient Roman formulæ, as may be seen from its archaic and difficult form. All the three oldest Roman Ordines contain it. “Ordo Rom. I” says: “When the prayer [Post-Communion] is over, that one of the deacons appointed by the archdeacon looks towards the pontiff to receive a sign from him and then says to the people: Ite missa est. They answer: Deo gratias (ed. Atchley, London, 1905, p. 144. See also “Ordo Rom. II”, 15; “Ordo Rom. III”, 18). The medieval commentators were much exercised to explain the meaning of the strange expression. Durandus (Rationale, IV, 57) suggests several interpretations. It has been thought that a word is omitted: Ite, missa est finita; or est is taken absolutely, as meaning “exists”, is now an accomplished fact”. The real explanation seems to lie rather in interpreting correctly the word missa. Before it became the technical name of the holy Liturgy in the Roman Rite, it meant simply “dismissal”. The form missa for missio is like that of collecta (for collectio), ascensa (ascensio), etc. So Ite missa est should be translated “Go it is the dismissal.” (See Florus the Deacon, “De expositione Missæ”, P.L., CIX, 72.)

The passage from the very early Ordo, however, makes me think that the original meaning was something like “the [something feminine] has been sent forth” from the Pope, and that it refers to his he has given that the liturgy was ended. Nothing comes to mind at the moment, but I’m sure some ingenious mind has come up with something over the centuries.

The article goes on to say that other ancient/early medieval rites in the Western Church used different formulas of dismissal. The Ambrosian rite in Milan, for instance, had “Procedamus in pace.” R. “In nomine Christi” (Let us go forth in peace. R. In the name of Christ.” In the east, the Antiochene and Byzantine liturgies had “Let us go forth in peace.” R. “In the name of the Lord”.

So “the Mass is ended, go in peace” (or as is said by some “go in peace to love and serve the Lord), as an alternative to the dry, cold and rather confusing original, isn’t without support from ancient liturgical texts. Not that it should have been adopted without permission, if that’s what indeed happened.

In other words, some of the modern phrasings adopted are closer the meaning Mark wants of US being sent forth than the original “ite missa est” that has hung on through the centuries.

In the third paragraph I meant to say “it refers to the signal he has given” (which I swear is what I originally typed!)

Lori, Lori, Lori, how dare you disrupt our comfortable narrative with your so-called book-larnin’?

Sorry! But I think most discussion of the liturgy would be greatly improved by a little actual understanding of liturgical history.

I am old enough (just barely) to remember the pre-Vatican II Mass, and I remember the words “ite missa est’ being translated in the missal as “Go, the Mass is ended.” I think the original vernacular Masses before 1969 had the same. And I always did find it strange that we were thanking God that the Mass was over! So the translation Mark is railing at was certainly not the invention of ICEL. In reality, it is due the Latin words being more or less meaningless outside of the original liturgical context, which was changed through the centuries.

I’m curious, does anyone know what Fortescue had to say about this?  I should think if anyone treats of it he would.  Perhaps Guardini might, but I don’t rightly know.

FWIW, my grandmother’s 1959 Missal translates it as “Go, you are dismissed” as does my Angelus Press 1962 Missal (printed in 2004).  Then-Msgr. Peter J. Elliot describes it as “a command (‘Ite!’) to go forth and share in the mission of Christ in the world.”

Really?  Wow, and to think some folks thought “things” were lost with the Novus Ordo?

Of course your “But in the world, we laypeople preside because it is our task to teach, sanctify and govern the world with the authority and power of Christ.”  belies your Protestant roots….

We are sent to spread, not “teach”, the word {remember St Francis?}.  We dont sanctify anything, God sanctifies.  And we dont “govern” the world with the “authority and power”, we are stewards of the world through whom on occasion God will act.

But you’re getting there Mark….

HCSKnight

[sarcasm]Oh, of course, HCSKnight. I mean, it’s not like we’re a kingdom of priests or anything.[/sarcasm]

There’s no way Mark thinks _we_ do the sanctifying. Ironically, your false dichotomy between our work of sanctifying the world and God’s work of sanctifying the world is pretty hard-core Protestant.

Re: the signal—

The translation would be something like, “The order has been sent. March!”

(Lots of people have noted the military tone of bits of the Latin Rite Mass, and of course military and ex-military Christians were common in catacomb burials.)

I was taught thar th “Ite Missa Est” was translated properly ” Go, The Mass is ended ”  The meaning of which was to carry the fruits of the Mass out into the world. I think that agrees greatly with what Anathasius posted.

Jon W
“Ironically, your false dichotomy between our work of sanctifying the world and God’s work of sanctifying the world is pretty hard-core Protestant.”

No Jon, you’re wrong.  I said “through” man.  That’ not “hard-core” Protestant theology, at all.

To HCSKnight:  Having Protestant roots usually inoculates the possessor from ignoring Scripture.  In many ways I wish more cradle Catholics had Protestant roots.  It would make it easier for them to smell a rotten apple.  American Catholics have swallowed the rotten apples of Roman Catholic theologians who would foist Protestant and gnostic heresies upon them.  Without the filter of Scripture, you’ll buy anything.  Re teaching:  Christ commanded all of his followers, not just the apostles, to teach what he had taught them.  Note the scene in that scripture:  the 12 and a whole bunch of other people on the shore heard Christ command this.  And, indeed, the verb is “teach”.  In our Church, an elaborate effort is currently being undertaken to make sure laypeople have the skill and training to catechize.  Harder to do with people who have no Protestant roots.  With the spread of education to all classes, it is often the case that laypeople are better educated than priests.  Universal literacy has its advantages—advantages that were not there in the Church of 300 years ago.  We’ve moved on.  Re sanctifying:  Why the 3rd commandment?  “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day”  (Ex. 20:8).  Why would God ask us to do something we can’t do?  Sanctifying is an action of discriminating, of setting aside something apart from ordinary things.  It’s the setting apart that makes things special.  This is the root of the verb to sanctify.  And it is commanded of ordinary mortals like us.  Re governing:  I agree.  At least in the US, we do not govern with authority and power.  We’ re out of office!  Time to get back in!  Finally:  Stewards who sit around waiting for God’s occasional action, when He has commanded our action, will have little to show when the Master returns.  If you had Protestant roots you’d know what I’m talking about.

Magistra Bona,

You really do read into a statement your perceptions, attitudes and definitions or words, dont you.  Most of your assertions have absolutely nothing to do with my points and were mere tangents of your projections.

Since you provide no reference to your “teach” assertion, I’ll have to wait.

For example, I firmly believe there have been many Catholics led astray by, in my opinion, heretical ideas and theology laced with grave errors from Catholic theologians.

Just so you know where Im coming from, Im a theologically conservative Catholic.  Not a “pre-Vatican II sedevacant”.  And I think some of the “protestant” spirit was very good for the Church.

Im sorry but you sound like a rather frustrated Protestant convert who feels like “cradle Catholics” look down upon you, and who thinks Vatican II established a change in some of the theology of Catholicism.  Both would be very wrong.  And I do hope I am wrong on both my perceptions.

Knight

To HCSKnight:  Uh…it’s right there in Mark’s article.  Uh.  And so are the verbs.  Christ says:  teach them all I have taught you.  One of those things is “to teach”.  [Greek, matheteusate; later, didaskontes.]  So, the apostles are encouraged to hand on teaching to all those whom they teach.  That includes laypeople, ‘cuz that’s who the apostles taught.  The taught go on to teach.  Also, as a soon-to-be-beatified convert points out, the Church’s teaching does not change or evolve so much as develop.  I do not regard Vatican-II as a break with Catholic theology or official teaching.  It was a “development”.  The Church is constantly teaching us, bringing out new treasures and old.  Finally, you’re the one who brought up Protestant roots.  Those Protestant roots are so pesky!!

From the other side of the pond its interesting to see that our American cousins are also having problems with the translation of the Mass, and feel dissatisfied with what they have.  I have always thought that the version of the Mass presently in use here is banal, and await with trepidation the one coming shortly.  It feels to me that the Mass is becoming more and more like the Anglican Communion Service (derived from the Mass), the major difference being they don’t have the Consecration.  I know its good to have Mass in one’s native tongue, but it seems to have lost its beauty and hallowedness in translation.  I feel some members of the hierachy have a problem with Latin, perhaps feeling it too elitist.  I grew up with the Latin Mass and feel it should still have a place in our worship and not be abandoned - for the continuity of centuries of worhsip if for nothing else, and should still be celebrated on certain occasions.  In my diocese in southern England the Bishop has so far refused permission for the celebration of the version of the Latin Mass recently sanctioned by Pope Benedict. But lets have a translation closer to it in truth and spirit.

PS to my earlier post - the Latin Mass is also good for its universality.  No matter which county you are in and what the native language, you can follow a Mass in Latin and feel at home.  Some European countries have Latin mass in major tourist centres - and those that don’t should.

Magistra Bona

Hmmm, I’ll ignore your “uh” condescensions.

“Finally, you’re the one who brought up Protestant roots. Those Protestant roots are so pesky!!”
- Yes I did.  And did so because there were Protestant theologians involved as “experts” in Vatican II discussions, which lead to some errors in application by some who were more, to use a term, “radical” in the desired outcome of Vatican II.

“Uh…it’s right there in Mark’s article. Uh. And so are the
verbs. Christ says: teach them all I have taught you. One of those things is “to teach”. [Greek, matheteusate; later, didaskontes.]”
- Well, you didn’t provide a verse of translation reference.  Or do you choose to stand upon a a “Sola Scriptura” mentality, where there is but your gospel…. Provide the verse & translation you are using and then we can discuss the point I am making.  {P.S. your replies are making my point}

“So, the apostles are encouraged to hand on teaching to all those whom they teach.”
- Interesting sentence, a self-referring and defining argument; a form of begging the question.

“That includes laypeople, ‘cuz that’s who the apostles taught. The taught go on to teach.”
- Hmmm, interesting assumption of my point.  Totally off the mark from my point, and of the mission.  Close though.  I think the distinction I implied will be too nuanced and humble for your acceptance.

“Also, as a soon-to-be-beatified convert points out, the Church’s teaching does not change or evolve so much as develop.”
- Well, I agree with what I think you are trying to say.  Revealed is the word I think you are looking for, ii.e. “more fully revealed”.  To say “so much as develop” means a teaching has changed.  Which of course is impossible for a taught truth.

For HCSKnight, from Christifideles Laici, by noted Protestant theologian Pope John Paul II:

In the wake of the Second Vatican Council(20), at the beginning of my pastoral ministry, my aim was to emphasize forcefully the priestly, prophetic and kingly dignity of the entire People of God in the following words: “He who was born of the Virgin Mary, the carpenter’s Son -as he was thought to be-Son of the living God (confessed by Peter), has come to make us ‘a kingdom of priests’ The Second Vatican Council has reminded us of the mystery of this power and of the fact that the mission of Christ -Priest, Prophet-Teacher, King-continues in the Church. Everyone, the whole People of God, shares in this threefold mission”(21).

With this Exhortation the lay faithful are invited to take up again and reread, meditate on and assimilate with renewed understanding and love, the rich and fruitful teaching of the Council which speaks of their participation in the threefold mission of Christ(22). Here in summary form are the essential elements of this teaching.

The lay faithful are sharers in the priestly mission, for which Jesus offered himself on the cross and continues to be offered in the celebration of the Eucharist for the glory of God and the salvation of humanity. Incorporated in Jesus Christ, the baptized are united to him and to his sacrifice in the offering they make of themselves and their daily activities (cf. Rom 12:1, 2). Speaking of the lay faithful the Council says: “For their work, prayers and apostolic endeavours, their ordinary married and family life, their daily labour, their mental and physical relaxation, if carried out in the Spirit, and even the hardships of life if patiently borne-all of these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Pt 2:5). During the celebration of the Eucharist these sacrifices are most lovingly offered to the Father along with the Lord’s body. Thus as worshipers whose every deed is holy, the lay faithful consecrate the world itself to God”(23).

Through their participation in the prophetic mission of Christ, “who proclaimed the kingdom of his Father by the testimony of his life and by the power of his world”(24), the lay faithful are given the ability and responsibility to accept the gospel in faith and to proclaim it in word and deed, without hesitating to courageously identify and denounce evil. United to Christ, the “great prophet” (Lk 7:16), and in the Spirit made “witnesses” of the Risen Christ, the lay faithful are made sharers in the appreciation of the Church’s supernatural faith, that “cannot err in matters of belief”(25) and sharers as well in the grace of the word (cf. Acts 2:17-18; Rev 19:10). They are also called to allow the newness and the power of the gospel to shine out everyday in their family and social life, as well as to express patiently and courageously in the contradictions of the present age their hope of future glory even “through the framework of their secular life”(26).

Because the lay faithful belong to Christ, Lord and King of the Universe, they share in his kingly mission and are called by him to spread that Kingdom in history. They exercise their kingship as Christians, above all in the spiritual combat in which they seek to overcome in themselves the kingdom of sin (cf. Rom 6:12), and then to make a gift of themselves so as to serve, in justice and in charity, Jesus who is himself present in all his brothers and sisters, above all in the very least (cf. Mt 25:40).

But in particular the lay faithful are called to restore to creation all its original value. In ordering creation to the authentic well-being of humanity in an activity governed by the life of grace, they share in the exercise of the power with which the Risen Christ draws all things to himself and subjects them along with himself to the Father, so that God might be everything to everyone (cf. 1 Cor 15:28; Jn 12:32).

The participation of the lay faithful in the threefold mission of Christ as Priest, Prophet and King finds its source in the anointing of Baptism, its further development in Confirmation and its realization and dynamic sustenance in the Holy Eucharist. It is a participation given to each member of the lay faithful individually, in as much as each is one of the many who form the one Body of the Lord: in fact, Jesus showers his gifts upon the Church which is his Body and his Spouse. In such a way individuals are sharers in the threefold mission of Christ in virtue of their being members of the Church, as St. Peter clearly teaches, when he defines the baptized as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (1 Pt 2:9). Precisely because it derives from Church communion, the sharing of the lay faithful in the threefold mission of Christ requires that it be lived and realized in communion and for the increase of communion itself. Saint Augustine writes: “As we call everyone ‘Christians’ in virtue of a mystical anointing, so we call everyone ‘priests’ because all are members of only one priesthood”(27).

The Lay Faithful and Their Secular Character

15. The newness of the Christian life is the foundation and title for equality among all the baptized in Christ, for all the members of the People of God: “As members, they share a common dignity from their rebirth in Christ, they have the same filial grace and the same vocation to perfection. They possess in common one salvation, one hope and one undivided charity”(28). Because of the one dignity flowing from Baptism, each member of the lay faithful, together with ordained ministers and men and women religious, shares a responsibility for the Church’s mission.

But among the lay faithful this one baptismal dignity takes on a manner of life which sets a person apart, without, however, bringing about a separation from the ministerial priesthood or from men and women religious. The Second Vatican Council has described this manner of life as the “secular character”: “The secular character is properly and particularly that of the lay faithful”(29).

To understand properly the lay faithful’s position in the Church in a complete, adequate and specific manner it is necesary to come to a deeper theological understanding of their secular character in light of God’s plan of salvation and in the context of the mystery of the Church.

Pope Paul VI said the Church “has an authentic secular dimension, inherent to her inner nature and mission, which is deeply rooted in the mystery of the Word Incarnate, and which is realized in different forms through her members”(30).

The Church, in fact, lives in the world, even if she is not of the world (cf. Jn 17:16). She is sent to continue the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, which “by its very nature concerns the salvation of humanity, and also involves the renewal of the whole temporal order”(31).

Certainly all the members of the Church are sharers in this secular dimension but in different ways. In particular the sharing of the lay faithful has its own manner of realization and function, which, according to the Council, is “properly and particularly” theirs. Such a manner is designated with the expression “secular character”(32).

In fact the Council, in describing the lay faithful’s situation in the secular world, points to it above all, as the place in which they receive their call from God: “There they are called by God”(33). This “place” is treated and presented in dynamic terms: the lay faithful “live in the world, that is, in every one of the secular professions and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life, from which the very fabric of their existence is woven”(34). They are persons who live an ordinary life in the world: they study, they work, they form relationships as friends, professionals, members of society, cultures, etc. However, the Council considers their condition not simply an external and environmental framework, but as a reality destined to find in Jesus Christ the fullness of its meaning(35). Indeed it leads to the affirmation that “the Word made flesh willed to share in human fellowship ... He sanctified those human ties, especially family ones, from which social relationships arise, willingly submitting himself to the laws of his country. He chose to lead the life of an ordinary craftsman of his own time and place”(36).

The “world” thus becomes the place and the means for the lay faithful to fulfill their Christian vocation, because the world itself is destined to glorify God the Father in Christ. The Council is able then to indicate the proper and special sense of the divine vocation which is directed to the lay faithful. They are not called to abandon the position that they have in the world. Baptism does not take them from the world at all, as the apostle Paul points out: “So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God” (1 Cor 7:24). On the contrary, he entrusts a vocation to them that properly concerns their situation in the world. The lay faithful, in fact, “are called by God so that they, led by the spirit of the Gospel, might contribute to the sanctification of the world, as from within like leaven, by fulfilling their own particular duties. Thus, especially in this way of life, resplendent in faith, hope and charity they manifest Christ to others”(37).Thus for the lay faithful, to be present and active in the world is not only an anthropological and sociological reality, but in a specific way, a theological and ecclesiological reality as well. In fact, in their situation in the world God manifests his plan and communicates to them their particular vocation of “seeking the Kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God”(38).

****

It is from this, and not from some imaginary residual Protestantism, that I am taking my cues.

Christifideles Laici,

Re Monday, Mar 1, 2010 12:50 AM (EST):

To cut and paste theological teachings, statements, etc., etc., without in any way showing how it relates to the point and discussion at hand only shows one to be blind and deaf.

I suggest you go back to my first post, or maybe one of the others, and help anyone interested in seeing the point[s] you are trying to make by applying some degree of focus.

Honestly, your post is very Protestant in nature; throwing out a shot full of references to scripture…except you’ve added a Catholic theologian shot to the shell.

The effect is still the same.  A double-barreled mess.

Knight

Sorry.  I assumed you could read.  The passage I posted deals with the participation of laity in the offices of prophet, priest, and King by virtue of our baptism and makes it clear that our work as laity is in the world and has a secular character ordered toward teaching, sanctifying and governing the world as we act in accordance with those offices (and, of course, in union with the teaching of Holy Church).  You might want to read the whole document before holding forth so confidently on your skills as a mind-reader or patting people on the head as semi-converted Protestant half-breeds while whining about others being condescending.

And, by the way, since when did a single Scripture reference become “a lot of Scripture”?  And since when did Scripture become a Protestant book, quotation of which marks you as a Protestant?

Weird.

To all:  You see, this is why I love the Church.  Mark Shea and HCKnight are my brothers in the faith.  Only the one, true, catholic and apostolic church could contain us all!  And, each of you has taught me.  Anyone reading these articles and posts is taught.  Clear evidence that the whole Church teaches.  Even when we try not to, it just blurts out all over the blogosphere.  Blessed be Jesus Christ, now and forever.
Peace out, brethren.

Wow, Mark.  I love your articles, but I believe you have stirred the pot unnecessarily.  The “Novus Ordo” as it is so called by many has more than one option for dismissal.  The option that addresses everyone’s concerns here is:  “The Mass is ended, go in peace to love and serve the Lord.”  This is the dismissal I use because of all the reasons everyone expresses above.  I think this expresses more clearly than even the direct Latin translation what you are trying to explain.  Maybe an article seeking to limit the options we have to those that are more appropriate would be prudent than raising such a heated issue.  I understand the concerns about the current liturgy and desires for reform, but I am also concerned that the Church is filled w/ far too many “angry” Catholics on both the right and left.  Catholic media, both right and left, seem to promote such angst often, which is very sinful in my humble view.  Brothers and sisters, try to be more charitable and peace-filled in our deliberations.  Blessings to all.

I thought the ending prayer, was “Now go in peace, TO LOVE AND SERVE THE LORD”. I take that as a call to action. Not a dead end sentence.

“And, each of you has taught me.  Anyone reading these articles and posts is taught.” from Magistra Bona. AMEN to this! I am a cradle Catholic rasied by a Protestant convert to Catholicism when my parents were married. I have learned lots from my Protestant relationships that have sent me back to my Catholic heritage to dig deeper. I am currently in Year 1 of 3 of Lay Formation classes and the more I learn about my faith, the more I realize I don’t yet know. Discussions like the one above keep the spark of curiousity burning so that I dig deeper into what God has planned for me. Thanks for your willingness to share what you have learned (teach) so that others may become more informed (taught) and willing to dig deeper into their faith to find the answers God has for them.

Mark,

Re:Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Mar 1, 2010 1:47 AM (EST):
- I’ll point out, that after observing your blog for some time, you are quite consistently condescending and “mind-reader”.  And the referenced post is consistent with such charity.

I am well aware of what the link regarded.  However, to think that pasting a link to a long document is consistent with your asserted “our work as laity is in the world and has a secular character ordered toward teaching” leaves much to be desired.  Might I suggest you simply post a link to Google with suggested search phrases and tell all to “just read”... 

Re: “semi-converted Protestant half-breeds”
- You’re sensitivity is showing through, and it reveals that it colors your ability to understand the point I was making.

Re: “And, by the way, since when did a single Scripture reference become “a lot of Scripture”?  And since when did Scripture become a Protestant book, quotation of which marks you as a Protestant?

- Funny, I never made such an assertion.  You do project and mind read an awful lot…

Come up with specific points and Im happy to discuss them.  But to watch you act like a smug adolescent in a junior high cafeteria who fancies themselves and their little clique is really quite .... well, Im sure you know.

HCSKnight

I work with a 2nd grade religious ed class preparing them for First Eucharist. I do lots of hands-on activities to facilitate their understanding of “gifts”, “thanks”, “sacrifice”, “peace”, “love”, and “serve”. I spend one whole class focusing on the Last Supper and Jesus’ example to love and serve others by washing the student’s hands (I’m not brave enough to wash 2nd grade feet that have been stuffed in old tennis shoes all day!)and serving a Seder meal. No where in my explanations or examples do I suggest they argue heatedly with one another or belittle another person’s opinion (as are HCSKnight and Mark Shea). I try to teach them how to express their opinions calmly and lovingly while also respecting that other people might be thinking from a different point of view and from differing life experiences. Isn’t that the point of “community”, to live with each other peacefully and lovingly?

A wonderful article about the Holy Mass. A must read for all Catholics.