As most readers know, Archbishop Georg Gaenswein, Prefect of the Pontifical Household under Pope Francis and personal secretary to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was recently interviewed by a German television network.
During the interview, Archbishop Gaenswein revealed that Pope Francis sent a copy of his first blockbuster interview (with Rev. Antonio Spadaro, S.J.) to his predecessor along with a request for his critique of the text.
In response, Benedict ended up sending back to Pope Francis four pages of commentary, the contents of which are being kept secret.
In his most recent “Letters” dispatch, Dr. Robert Moynihan had this to say about this revelation:
Evidently — and this is my own interpretation — Francis wished for an intelligent, authoritative opinion on how the complex issues and teachings he had discussed in the Spadaro interview might be spoken about in unambiguous ways, not open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
As far as what conclusions one should draw, Moynihan writes:
Note again — and this is important — this “commentary” or “critique” was not offered spontaneously by Benedict, but specifically sought by Pope Francis himself. So Benedict was responding, quite generously, to a request for assistance. What does this show? It shows that there is more continuity between the pontificates than many in the mainstream media, who continually suggest that Pope Francis is setting a “new course” for the Church and “breaking” with Pope Benedict is [sic] a “revolutionary” way, would like.
First, let’s be clear: The Benedictine Pontificate was a revolution in its own right, in spite of any laudable features it may have had. I’m not nearly as concerned about Francis breaking with Benedict, therefore, as I am about Francis breaking with Catholic tradition, faith and praxis.
That said, I’m not buying Moynihan’s conclusion.
In a healthier age – you know, when there was no such thing as feature length papal interviews or “Popes Emeriti” floating about to the confusion of the faithful – if a reigning pope were to submit such a text to a trusted advisor after its publication, it would surely be met with comments like, “Well done, Holy Father,” or perhaps a simple, “Amen.”
As it is, Benedict found cause to write four pages of notes, and yet this is supposed to be an indication of likemindedness? Nonsense.
Whatever those notes may have contained in the way of advice for speaking “in unambiguous ways, not open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding,” Francis obviously ignored entirely based on the interviews that came afterward.
Who knows? Maybe Benedict’s take on the Spadaro interview was similar to my own.
Following the interview, I offered Ten Takeaways. Now, six months later, let’s see how accurate or inaccurate they appear today based on what we’ve since learned.
1. Pope Francis is very uncomfortable wielding authority. [Unless it involves smacking down those who love the Traditional Mass; e.g., the FFI.]
2. As a result, this is a pope who is determined to seek refuge in the conciliar invention known as “collegiality.” [Dead on, as Evangelii Gaudium, the trial balloons floated by Cardinal Rodriquez Maradiaga, and the pope’s most recent interview makes clear.]
3. Pope Francis’ unwillingness to take up the mantle of Christ’s authority as vested in the Roman Pontiff has a profound, adverse, effect on his ecclesiology. [Note Fr. Lombardi’s explanation on Pope Francis’ remarks concerning civil unions; he left open the door for episcopal conferences to weigh the matter.]
4. Perhaps this is why Pope Francis seems to imagine that a certain dichotomy, or at the very least, a noteworthy tension, exists between orthodoxy and orthopraxy; belief and practice; doctrine and spirituality. [Note the pope’s recent comments on morality and casuistry.]
5. Pope Francis apparently sees a Church that the overwhelming majority of the faithful have never experienced. [Consider the pope’s recent homily: “They disguise themselves, they disguise themselves as good people: they make themselves up like little holy cards, looking up at heaven as they pray, making sure they are seen—they believe they are more righteous than others, they despise others.” Who the heck is he talking about?]
6. This pope, like his immediate predecessors, is utterly determined not to allow “the facts on the ground” to interfere with his view of the Second Vatican Council. [Note the Holy Father’s expression of “gratitude for the profound and wide-ranging renewal of liturgical life, made possible by the conciliar Magisterium.” No, really, he actually said this.]
7. Pope Francis’ determination to praise Vatican II, and to treat it as if it alone constitutes the fullness of sure doctrine, has engendered in him an open hostility toward those who dare to embrace the doctrine of the faith as it was taught and lived prior to the confusion that was ushered in by the conciliar innovations, firstly, with regard to liturgy. [Young persons, according to the pope, are attached to the Traditional Mass as if to “a kind of fashion.”]
8. Pope Francis’ hostility toward traditional Catholics also has roots in his compromised ecclesiology. [It has its root somewhere.]
9. Pope Francis appears to believe that Catholic teaching must be adapted to humankind, not vice versa. Likewise, he believes that Church teaching does not form the man; rather, the man forms the teaching. [Note the numerous references to novelty and newness in the Evangelii Gaudium.]
10. Pope Francis is a modernist. [I have seen nothing in the past six months to change my mind, and much to confirm it.]
Modernism, the love for heresy that dares not speak her name,
“5. Pope Francis apparently sees a Church that the overwhelming majority of the faithful have never experienced. [Consider the pope’s recent homily: “They disguise themselves, they disguise themselves as good people: they make themselves up like little holy cards, looking up at heaven as they pray, making sure they are seen—they believe they are more righteous than others, they despise others.” Who the heck is he talking about?]”
Perhaps, he is voicing another opinion or view of traditional Catholics. I read this and thought of the altar boy trying to his hands together as the Holy Father pried them apart. Think of scenes from traditional masses, the faithful kneeling, dressed in “Sunday” best, women with their head covered. It seems he is doing his part to create “the other”, they are not real Catholics, they harbor an inner meanness or judging.
Good piece, Louie. Moynihan, a Gold Card member of the Inner Sanctum Media Society (which helps sell his glossy product to Nervous Ordealers) is entirely dependent upon the benignity of whichever “clan” happens to be running the joint for access and prestige. Whatever upon which he deigns to pontificate is usually worth zilch to anyone grappling with a Vatican and global hierarchy already gone stark-raving mad.
I suspect, it’s now down to a handful of clergy and nuns and even fewer bishops and cardinals – and their respective supplies of spiritual bailing wire and chewing gum – that’s even keeping the entire complex from collapsing altogether.
Bishop of Rome Bergoglio is building the foundation of a new “catholicism” totally contrary to Her 2000 year history. It cannot succeed. It is built on sand. However, we must fight the good fight–many souls will be lost! Why is he doing this? Only God knows! Thank you, Louie, for fighting “the good fight”!
Tragically, Francis is a creation of the ‘conciliar church’, he is their fruit. One by one each ‘Modernist’, ‘innovator’ is going to the grave tasting their bitter fruits. Not one of them have openly said that they regret, that they condemn the errors, the heresy……on the contrary, they have defended their ‘idea’ of a ‘new church’……..as if they were the saviors of humanity. The Loss of Souls!!! Not one of the Popes ever turned to the East, the Altar of God to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Mass of All Times, as all their predecessors have worshiped in most honorable Prayer. They kept being turned to the ‘church of men’. As a result we have generation of the ‘Johannes’s, the ‘Benedictus’s’, the ‘Franciscus’s…….
The ‘wonder’ of all ‘Wonders’………, but not to God
Don’t forget that “Blessed” JP2 made this man a bishop, and an archbishop and Cardinal.
Another indisputable dogmatic fact that JP2 does not deserve the honors of the altar.
Goodness grief! When are we going to get an Italian Pope, like Caffara?
If you want to have some real fun, read La Civiltà Cattolica from 100+yrs ago and see what the Holy Father’s grand uncle Fr. Georg Ratzinger was saying.
It’ll blow your socks off. He was a real RadTrad.
As our Lady of Fatima requested, pray a great deal for the Holy Father.
All on the money, Louie. So what’s in store? dare we ask?
–
“As it is, Benedict found cause to write four pages of notes, and yet this is supposed to be an indication of likemindedness? Nonsense.”
–
Once again it is left to those horrible holy 2-dimensional (?!?) traditionalists to state the obvious. (the hatred this guy has for the Church – imagine if a Chief Rabbi came out with this sort of invective against orthodox or conservative Jews, or if the Archbishop of Canterbury did so against historically unchallenged Anglicans).
–
four paragraphs would have been a lot. Four pages, well. One thing I’ve noticed about this Pope is that he is shown to be wanting some critique, but it seems to wash off him like water of a duck’s back.
–
what I don’t understand is why any Catholic would think a pope capable of such hatred towards his own ‘flesh’, is so admirable.
–
As Andrew said, we must pray a great deal for this modernist and his confreres, that he may indeed convert to not only the Faith, but the Office he willing took on (the primary shepherd of the flock of Our Lord). Lord have mercy.
JPII was a very popular pope and a savvy politician, but a defender of the Faith and a true and steadfast shepherd of the flock he simply was not. No amount of revisionism will change his legacy of religious indifferentism and distaste for traditional Catholicism.
–
Catholic reality check:
–
http://sspx.org/en/santo-subito-problems-canonization
–
also read the PDF at the right of page, ‘Doubts about his beatification’.
It is a danger to souls when decisions and opinions are formed based on ignorance. Ignorance is a vice for which we are accountable.
One of the reasons ignorance is seen as a mere fault, rather than vice, is partly the result of the destruction before the Pontificate of JP II. However, John Paul II, it is crucial to objectively recognize, was all about the false glorification of the so-called “dignity of the human person.”
That said,
those who make statements such as – “the Society of St. Pius X is in schism,” do not even know what the status is of the Priestly Fraternity. Furthermore, there is no such thing as full or partial communion. There is communion or not.
The SSPX is in Communion and is within Holy Mother Church. One fulfills one’s Sunday obligation there and more— which is to long to post here. cont’d—
In an effort to charitably respond to those who make statements such as those mentioned above, based upon ignorance for which they may or may not be culpable, {Catholics do not judge culpability,}
I offer the following:
Those who are willing in true humility {not false, mind you–which is rampant in the current Pontificate–if I may say,} may want to listen
not the least of reasons for doing so is that Mr. Verrecchio is featured and expounds with knowledge and erudition on both VII & SSPX herein. con’t.–
“They disguise themselves, they disguise themselves as good people: they make themselves up like little holy cards, looking up at heaven as they pray, making sure they are seen—they believe they are more righteous than others, they despise others.”
Seriously creepy.
So, the link here is an audio produced prior to the conclusion of the most recent meaningful talks involving the Vatican & SSPX. Listening is only the beginning to overcome ignorance on the Society and related events and issues, but it is a good beginning, offered by Catholics who are experts on the matter{s.} I have posted this link more than once before here.
Peace be to you.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/up-close/2012/04/17/the-sspx-and-rome
On the subject of Modernism, all clergy – especially the Pope – have a moral duty to tell us how much of the Magisterial teaching on Scripture they actually accept as true.
Watch the progression of the following examples (emphases added):
1) When Pope Benedict XV reminds us –
“[Christ] refers without any discrimination of sources to the stories of Jonas and the Ninivites, of the Queen of Sheba and Solomon”(Spiritus Paraclitus),
Francis says –
“[T]he Book of Jonah! It is short, but it is a very instructive parable“
(Address, September 27, 2013);
2) When Pope John XXIII writes –
“[Christ], seeing the hungry crowd of His followers,… was moved to exclaim: ‘I have compassion on the multitude.’ And these were no empty words of our divine Redeemer. Time and again He proved them by His actions, as when He miraculously multiplied bread to alleviate the hunger of the crowds“
(Mater et Magistra),
Francis says –
“This is the miracle [of the loaves]: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer”
(Homily, June 2, 2013);
3) When the Holy Office condemns the following proposition –
“The narrations of John are not properly history, but the mystical contemplation of the Gospel; the discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations on the mystery of salvation, devoid of historical truth”
(“Lamentabili”, Decree, July 3rd, 1907),
Francis writes –
“The letters of Saint Paul and the Gospel of Saint John…are founded in fact upon the messianic ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, which reaches its culmination in the Pasch of his death and resurrection. It is necessary, therefore, to look at Jesus from the point of view of the actual circumstances of his existence, as narrated by the oldest of the Gospels, Saint Mark”
(“Letter to a Non-Believer”, September 11, 2013); and,
4) When Pope Benedict XVI says,
“[L]et us remember that the tradition of the ancient Church agrees in attributing to Matthew the paternity of the First Gospel”
(General Audience, August 30, 2006),
Francis writes (to repeat) –
“the oldest of the Gospels, Saint Mark“.
Is it any wonder, in this environment of “free thinking” that we can read this statement:
“Questions have been raised about statements in the book, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery, by Thomas L. Brodie, O.P. The Irish Dominicans take seriously the contents of the book, notably that the author’s conclusion that ‘Jesus did not exist as a historical figure’. This, Father Brodie sees as flowing necessarily from his tracing the literary background to the New Testament .
The Irish Dominicans are following the process within the Order’s Constitutions for handling disputed teaching. This involves a committee of scholars examining the book and reporting on it. In their examination and in their report the author has a right to present his views. This process is still ongoing, and remains confidential until it has concluded.
The Irish Dominicans intend, in coming months, to publish reviews and assessments of Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus in their magazine Doctrine & Life.”
Apparently certain posters have adopted new names. Or the same poster with multiple names has adopted multiple different names.
dear Rich,
heh heh heh —true.
off topic;
“the Neo-Catholic Nomenklatura,”—ya gotta love it.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/423-traditional-catholicism-and-the-revival-of-the-neo-catholic-nomenklatura
Sarah – did you know that Paul VI liturgy man even wanted to remove the sign of the cross from the Mass. Paul VI stopped him saying if they did that their would be an uprising. We have become apathetic Catholics with a new age sensibility of the fluffy box of faith. it’s a sham. Archbishop Lefebvre suffered as a fierce defender of the Faith.
–
Ceclia – on the last page back I put a couple of Catholic Truth alert links in.
–
ever hear of a Rogerian Psychology? it has poisoned the Catholic conscience and bumpercropped the new age like a Mason’s dream.
–
please become informed before throwing out the baby with the bath water.
–
@Linda – well said. sometimes it feels like you can only find one or two people spiritually capable of standing with Our Lady and Our Lord, and no getting swept away in the hype of catholic trends.
@Linda – not off topic at all – in fact right on.
Sarah….dumber words were never spoken. It is impossible to remain in full communion with any pope if he speaks, or even intimates, heretical thought. Even a dumb farmer is smart enough to know that 1+1 does not equal 3…..so please stop already. Jews and atheists DO NOT GO TO HEAVEN unless they have converted before death. END OF STORY. When your clown popes (and that’s what they are) say otherwise, they speak heresy. Any person who choses to believe that nonsense and preach it deserves the punishment that is coming their way.
Why you are here (under your God-knows-how-many different name) on a site like this is mind boggling. Jump on the Catholics for Choice site, or one of the many other anti-Catholic sites out there and spread your modernist garbage over them, as those hell-bound fools might actually listen. BTW….this will be my first and last response to “sarah”. Id wish you a good day but as lying is a sin I wont. Unlike most of the good people on this site, I have no regard or care for people like you. Its something I do need to work on.
@dumb-ox thanks for the Francis Fibs check to.
–
I’ve been watching the John Vennari, Certitude of the Catholic Faith series. brilliant. at one point he states that everyone wants and expects Truth – when we are lied to that is a grave breach of Trust.-
–
well, JPII lied. Francis lies – in preaching and practice – and it sucks.
Sarah and Celia and ilk, give this series of talks a go – it’s solid catechesis:
–
http://m.youtube.com/#/playlist?list=PLwu7KtvwcHJbNGlYAGKTffGpEAgi7ZB2g
what Becca requoted: the mind that truly believes this about sincere worshipers of Our Dear Lord is what’s seriously creepy. the holy card was obviously his creepy and ‘clever’ way of calling devotion 2-dimensional. think about that.
–
Jesus wept.
@Rich – do you get the feeling that the catholic ‘mormons’ have come crowding round Louie’s door preaching the latest josephsmith pope? I think someone wants him to shut up, and not just Mr Voris.
Every time I hear Cardinal Burke speak I find myself wishing he was the Pope.
“According to the ancient wisdom of the Church, the law of worship is essentially connected to the law of belief and the law of practice. Christ comes into our midst through the Sacred Liturgy, especially the Sacraments of the Most Holy Eucharist and of Penance, to cleanse our hearts of sin and to inflame our hearts with His own love through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Only when we have a strong sense of the reality of the encounter with Christ in the Sacred Liturgy will we understand the truths of the faith and the moral life, and what they mean for our daily living. This sense is fostered by a manner of celebrating the Sacred Liturgy with our eyes fixed on Christ and not on ourselves. It should not surprise us that the period of post-Conciliar experimentation with the Sacred Liturgy, a period which was marked by so many liturgical abuses, was accompanied by a loss of faith and by moral decline. If the Sacred Liturgy is seen as a purely human activity, an invention of man, it will no longer be true communion with God and, therefore, will no longer nourish the faith and its practice in everyday living.”
My Sunday Missal from around 1940 has this to say: Cathechism review:
I believe that it cannot be a matter of indifference to which church I belong.
I believe that since Christ established one Church, I am not free to belong to any other.
I believe that I cannot conscientiously say that one religion is as good as another.
I believe that, nevertheless, all those outside the Church through no fault of their own, will be saved if they follow their conscience and do not die in mortal sin.
I believe that “those who labor under ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance be invincible, are not before the eyes of God burdened with the guilt for this thing”
I believe that those will be lost who are convinced that the Catholic religion is the true religion, and yet refuse to embrace it.
I believe this is what I mean when I say: “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.”
@JamestheLesser
thanks for the Cardinal Burke quote. These days it can be quite a surprise to hear something encouraging Faith out of the mouth of a shepherd.
I read the whole interview with Cardinal Burke (send via SSPX)……indeed, this is what the faithful long to hear. Such ‘truth’ is what the world needs to hear, lest millions will perish. Enough with the ‘lukewarm’, wishy-washy Catholicism that only serves the interests of the Devil……..
One can only wonder how the erroneous trends (Protestantism, Judaism, Freemasonry, homo-mafia)……..have gained so much momentum, infiltrating into all levels of Church life……….these evils do NOT GIVE GLORY TO GOD! It is a POISON, that has blinded so many, who for decades have turned into enemies of the true Catholicism. Just listen to the comments of these poor victims of the ‘church of men’! Can one ever doubt, that there’s no worse enemy, then enemy WITHIN! And the chief conspirator is Satan himself!
Modernists are unhappy with regular or traditional prayer, their attention span is short, jumping from one novelty to another, usually ‘quite worldly’ in their own behavior……but they speak frequently and ardently of their love for the poor and minorities………Their liberal ideal was and is: ‘if possible, get photographed with Mother Teresa of Calcutta.’
We know that while, Our Lord was most gentle and soft-mannered, sometimes He used strong critical words to refute the enemy…….’You hypocrites”, and “You brood of vipers’…….Yes, these are actual words out of the mouth of Our Divine Saviour.
Truths, taught by Our Savior, Jesus Christ, have fallen like dominoes……yet the hierarchy, seems ‘unwilling’ to rectify the situation…..Ave Maria!
Pope John Paul ll failed in his solemn duty to pass on the Deposit of Faith as he should have. Perhpas he did die in a state of grace, but since he was a pope and not a layperson, there is a more rigorous criteria that must be used to determine if he should be canonized.
To Sarah – yes, part of the duty of a pope is to establish unity, and to bring back those who have strayed. But it is not a sign of disunity for a layperson to criticize a pope if he does or says something which goes against the Catholic faith. You will not find it said anywhere in authoritative Church teaching that laypersons must keep quiet when a pope fails in his duty. Those of you who have an emotional attachment to Pope John Paul ll are not seeing the great harm that he did to the body of Christ. And Pope Francis is even worse.
Soon the Modernists will be canonizing one of their own. But this does not mean that Modernism has won – not as long as faithful Catholics refuse to deny the true teachings of the Church.
The weapons of the papacy
—
For those like Savonarola and others who thought they were “more Catholic than the pope” were typically interdict and excommunication. I hope His Holiness starts to use these weapons against the anti-papal sedevacantists and schismatics who have no business calling themselves Roman Catholic.
Fat chance, seeing he called an heretical layman posing as a Bishop “my brother bishop”!! I’d rather see the enforcement of Catholic teaching no one outside the Church can be saved, instead of this interreligious nonsense which started with Paul VI!
QuoVadisPetre………true.
Fear not!………. these Protestant so-called Catholics! They bow to ‘every stripe’ of heretic, and persecute Catholics………Miserere!
Saluto
As a relative newcomer to this site I really don’t know what it was like in the past. In the very short time I’ve been here however I have been surprised at how many posters, who are obviously not down with the program, post here. Its hard to say if these posters are sincere in their ignorance or just looking to get a rise out of people.
Please, go to Rorate Caeli and watch this beautiful video.
‘Tradition and the Young: Christ makes all things new’
Omnia Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
Viva Cristo Rey!
….from “Christ Denied” by Rev. Paul A. Wickens (Tan books)
“The one thing that they (the Modernists) are certain of is this: they do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches…..this is the root of all the nonsense in the liturgy today!’
….they say: ‘it really does not matter too much if the liturgy is in English or in Latin. Some say it does not really matter if the priest uses the Tridentine Ordo of Pius V or the Novus Ordo of Paul VI. As long as the priest understands the underlying doctrine in a ‘Catholic’ way, and the people understand the doctrine in a ‘Catholic’ way, no great harm is done (one might suppose).
But on the other hand it will make not one bit of difference on how well the liturgy is written if the priest—and everybody with whom he went to the seminary, and all his friends in the priesthood, all the people he goes out to dinner with, all the nuns who go to those miserable summer schools and study weeks—if all of these people ‘reject’ the idea that Jesus Christ sacrificed His Life on Calvary to redeem us from our sins.’
In vain will you have discussions about ecumenism and Christian unity and our separated brethren—because our real separated brethren are not the Rockefellers in their Riverside Church or those Liberal Protestants who do not believe in anything. Our separated brethren are those ‘Catholics’ who deny that the Mass is the same sacrifice that took place on Calvary.
Actually, universal Catholicism has always professed, unequivocally, that Christ died for our sins—but wait until you read the Modernistic authors, like Hans Kung, and Karl Rahner and Teilhard de Chardin! In the hands of these people, belief in the Mass has ‘vanished’. And the compounded disaster of putting the Mass into the vernacular has served to make it easier for the Modernist priest to innovate and eliminate connotations of ‘Sacrifice,” and make up anything he pleases. We must question, and quite fairly too, whether these Masses which take place in many parish churches, can be called Masses.
As a corollary, this Modernist unbelief can be equally applied to the necessity and administration of all the Sacraments, including Baptism and Holy Orders. In the hands of the Modernist, are the Sacraments valid? Are they doubtfully valid? Suppose the priest who baptizes does not believe in Original Sin, nor does he believe in the Church itself?
They like the concept of Jesus ‘as teacher’, but ‘not as Saviour’. They like the ‘pulpit’, but ‘not the confessional.’ They like ‘Communion’, but ‘not Sacrifice’. Now and then they will hold Benediction, not out of personal conviction but rather to appease a segment of the parishioners who are good contributors……..
Teilhard de Chardin……”I have got some friends in good strategic positions that I feel quite safe about the future.” (letter, Sept. 24, 1947.)
Thanks for the quotes, Halina. The traitors are not bothering to be stealth exactly are they? guess they feel that emboldened.
–
As for the recently huge number of commenters on this blog that want dearly to contradict Louie, how ’bout wanting to contradict the world, or satan for once? huh, might be a nice change.
–
p.s. and contradict the Bishop of Rome who is a faithful modernist and worldling (caveat alert: it would seem by his words and actions); and in doing so siding with Christ Our Saviour and King. The Church wins, we all know that because she is supernatural and founded by Christ; but Churchophobic popes are just Churchophobic popes – I think someone must have assualted Jorge with a holy card when he was a lad, then choked him with a rosary, then racked him on a pew with gold embroided stoles and then crushed him under a few hundred ’55 missals. He is clearly suffering PTS.
p.s.s. or, alternatively, he’s just a treacherous modernist.
AHhhhhhhhhh, ha ha ha ha ha !
you forgot having a book re: pelagianism thrown at him by a nun while in convent school .
very good, my dear Saluto.
Saluto……I cannot sleep, so I got up…….only to read your comment……and it was worth it……..you made me laugh, I almost woke up my household……Ave Maria!
Linda – I knew, something was missing.
–
@Halina, night night – if you really can’t sleep look up something on youtube from the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williamson, you’ll be snoozing in no-time.
Saluto,
–
LOL!! Thanks for the witty humorous comment about our beloved “Bishop of Rome” Frankie Humblestone. I think we should nominate you for official satirist at Louis’ blog ; )
–
God Bless.
I second the nomination.
….I am right behind you Linda…..
Ganganelli, you’ve really got to start using that noggin the Lord blessed you with at least a LITTLE bit.
–
It is actually comical to focus on the Society of St. Pius X’th canonical issues in the spirit of the New Orientation we are living in: In this new spirit, just a couple months ago the Vicar of Christ referred to a man from a heretical sect as a “Brother Bishop”. A man from a Protestant “prosperity gospel” church no less (they teach that holy people are blessed with material riches!), a man who is not even a valid priest, of course, who has no connection to the Apostles or the true Church in any way.
–
Vatican II has made the true Church meaningless – you haven’t noticed? False religions are praised, and the New Orientation declares that there is no need whatsoever for non-Catholics – even non-Christians – to enter the True Church. Cardinal Kasper, who heads-up this dept, has declared so on many, many occasions, just as Pope Francis does in some specific cases (the Jews) and in general with his words & actions.
–
So, your position is just a nonsensical contradiction in terms. I mean, I can tell you hate sede vacantists (and, indeed, they are in error) and others you will label with the completely meaningless “not in full communion”, but, the Pope is smart enough to know that if he were to start excommunicating these people, he’d look very silly indeed.
–
Then again, by the logic put into practice, Bishop Fellay of the SSPX would get a much *warmer* welcome from the pontiff if he were not a Catholic (he’s an exemplary Catholic, incidentally). At least if he started preaching open heresy, anyway.
“Pope Francis is a modernist.”
Modernism denies Jesus is God and all external Divine revelation as well as many other things. The only modernist tendency I have seen is the reduction in liturgical pomp. Second, I don’t think it’s prudent to accuse the Holy Father of a heresy.
It is more accurate to say that he may have neo-Modernists tendencies – that is, leanings or his theology and writings/writing style is influenced by it.
A Catholic Thinker,
–
His Holiness rightly excommunicated left wing dissenter Greg Reynolds(a move I’m sure you agree with)so I can definitely see him excommunicating right wing dissenters as well. Pope Pius XI famously excommunicated the right wing dissenter Charles Maurras of Action Francais so this is nothing new in the Church.
There is a canonical irregularity concerning the SSPX. Period.
There is full communion. There is no such thing as partial communion. It is or it isn’t. Period.
There are other groups in union with Rome, {as is SSPX, } who have existing canonical irregularities as well. They are just not as hated as the SSPX, for varied reasons. Thus the attacks upon them are not as vehement.
There is no such thing as a traditionalist Catholic. We are all Catholic. Those Catholics to whom others refer as “traditionalists” are simply Catholics who practice the Faith as it was , sans novelty, prior to 1955.
I would add that a large number of us aged who are labelled “traditionalists” are touched in the most poignant way by heartbreak for the brethren who have never had the lived experience of the way Catholic life was in the Pius XII years, and how parish life was then also.
If I may say it is our deepest desire to convey and pass on this experiential knowledge to the youth , many of whom already love what is, in a way sadly, referred to as “tradition,” which is actually, again, the Faith without novelty.
With regard the heresy of modernism. It is first necessary to read Pascendi and then find someone intelligent who can explain, before being able to determine who is and who is not a modernist. Modernism is a synthesis, and requires great discernment to even detect.
With regard Catholic Answers –a deeply flawed level of programming, steeped in neoCathspeak, listening to which is harmful to the Faith. It is poison. Therein one can gleefully be exposed to everything form modern psychology to 12 step programs to embolden your “faith.”
With regard to the “level” of comments, commentors here. To an extent, we have developed a friendship here. We are not always speaking with erudition, and we are often informal , sarcastic and try to uplift one another for the battle via wry humor. We are also welcoming to anyone at all of GOOD WILL.
Here we have nothing to prove. This is not a trad clique by any means.
And if I may say, the SSPX only rejects 3 parts of VII–anyone who says otherwise is ignorant. It is very possible that full regularity will be forthcoming , albeit maybe not in our lifetime, that the canoncial irregularity will be overcome when the SSPX has a standing that what they hold is a position legitimate for Catholics to hold, as has happened with other past.
Objectively speaking, and also speaking as an outsider with no disrespect meant, apparent in his report it would appear that Pete Vere has his own problems, which he brought to the SSPX, as if often the case, not vice versa.
dear Lewis,
You are right. I provided almost zero theological arguments etc. Insofar as it was, is, not my desire to provide them nor refute. That said, you took it as a “rant”, or maybe even an “affront?” It was not meant so.
——-
Learned refutations are out there, including those directly aimed at CAL’s most recent attempt to denigrate certain faithful, as are theological expositions to all to which you point. I’d say it’s impossible for you to not have been exposed to them.
Is it your desire to convince? Well, I’d say that’s legitimate.
———
I caution to avoid CAL and here’s {just one reason } why. For the moment placing the trad issue aside, if you don’t mind that—-
when responding to callers, orthodox Catholic direction is never offered. Granting them leeway in that it is difficult, to say the least, in a fast paced venue, but it can be done. For example, if a person calls for counsel re: “dryness” in prayer, it’s safe to predict they’ll get sympathy plus suggestion to seek help for possible clinical depression, not a 90 second impact of Chrysostom. I see this basically overall approach, well-as I said-Lewis, poison.
—
I, like you, am not at all interested in Vere’s pastoral issues. As can be gleened from what I said above, his, from what I can see, theological and other problems vis a vie SSPX are not new nor particularly insightful. I won’t go over them one by one.
dear Lewis,
Correction on my previous post–heh,heh LESS than zero theologian in me, that’s for sure. I’ve seen all that, but in the event your link is new, repost it bc it doesn’t work.
Totally agree with you re: lack of dispassionate folk out there, but if you stick around, you’ll find much erudition here-to be at your level of theological discussion {Not in me, pathetically.}
—–
Mildy surprising that you do not find fault with the fact that CA never identifies the radtrads. Who are they, whom they wish to denegrate? The SSPX’ers ?, the FSSP’ers,? liturgy fashionistas ? cranky oldsters drunk on nostalgia ?
girls who wear veils? girls who wear skirts ? Who? Well, we can guess. Let’s see, probably not FSSP bc they are supposedly , here we go, “in full communion.” OK–if they mean SSPX-why do/did they not say so.
—-
If you’ll permit me to go off topic a bit, Lewis, you mention Fr. Cekada–he was cut off that day. That is what Coffin does. Beyond that, yes, Fr. Cekada is one splendid theologian and quite a civil gentleman. I hope I’m not giving the sedevacantist-allergic hives by saying that.
——
If you are not sede-allergic, Bp. Sanborn {another excellent theologian who in person is more gentlemanly, as is Fr. Cekada, than one who is allergic would assume-BTW, as I’m sure you know,} is the absolute first person I’ve heard -literally in decades -mention Blondell in recent Restoration broadcast. He did this within context of addressing the Blondell -infused errors of modernism within the current Pontiff’s expositions.
——-
Peace be to you.
Hi Lewis [Part 1],
First, while I do not particularly agree with you, I sincerely thank you for your thoughtfulness and propriety in how you are conducting yourself. As you may have seen, the critics that come to this site tend to be filled with thoughtless vitriol disrespectful tirades.
I will post several points for your consideration and response pertaining to Dignitatis Humane and problems traditionally minded Catholics tend to have with it. I have extensively read Fr. Brian Harrison’s work on the subject. No, I admit I do not find it persuasive. In fact, early on, I was favorably disposed to what he was saying, but, upon more study, found that it did not hold up well to scrutiny. In fact, if you study the fullness of what he’s been saying for some 25 years, his rationale for his position seems to have shifted around once or twice.
I will be using Pope Benedict XVI, the most relatively conservative pope we have had in the past 40 years to try to make my point.
First one for your consideration: Fr. Chad Ripperger, a staunch, fully regularized, legitimate traditional Catholic priest, who has nothing to do with SSPX, who was with FSSP,and now, I believe, is with the Tulsa diocese has said in public homily, [audio available on his website] that when Pope Bendedict XVI [obviously from a few years ago now that Francis is pope] talks about healthy secularity and that separation of Church and State is a proud achievement of Christianity, what the pope says does not appear to be reconcilable with official Catholic doctrine, namely that separation of Church and State is a condemned eviln [which, Lewis, is clearly spelled out by multiple popes in the 1830-1930 era and essentially in line with what the Church, at least implicitly has always held since it has been involved with the subject]. Fr. Ripperger goes on to say that we can conclude that Pope Benedict XVI may well be wrong here, we set aside what he says on this topic, and we follow tradition.
So, Lewis, is Fr. Ripperger a protestant-like reprobate for holding this view? Is he separating himself from the Chair of Peter? Who is holding to the Catholic faith more closely on this subject, Fr. Ripperger or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI?
Hi Lewis [Part 2],
The following is an excerpt from Joseph Ratiznger’s late 1960s work, “Theological Highlights of Vatican II”. Let us remember that he attended the council, went on to become our chief dogmatist for over 20 years, and was our supreme pontiff for over 7 years. He has never changed his view on the subject of religious liberty. And if anybody has some standing to make important comments about the subject, one would think it ideally should be him.
—
“Dignitatis Humanae attempts to emphasize continuity in the statements of the official Church on this issue. It also says that it “leaves intact the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and communities toward the true religion and the only Church of Christ” (n. 1). The term “duty” here has doubtful application to communities in their relation to the Church. Later on in the Declaration, the text itself corrects and modifies these earlier statements, offering something new, something that is quite different from what is found, for example, in the statements of Pius XI and Pius XII. It would have been better to omit these compromising formulas or to reformulate them in line with the later text. Thus the introduction changes nothing in the text’s content; therefore, we need not regard it as anything more than a minor flaw.”
—
So let’s look at what he has said. He himself says DH is ‘something new’, ‘something that is quite different’ from the teaching of Popes Pius XII and Pius XI, and we can presume all of their papal predecessors. So why are we to believe that we have continuity, when the text does not clearly show that, and Fr. Ratzinger’s own comments here fully admit it, among others who were at the council as well?
—
Also notice that he says that there is a minor flaw with the document. Apparently when it says it leaves untouched the traditional doctrine on society’s obligation to the true faith and Church, he sees this as a traditional flaw that we’re not supposed to really affirm. That’s quite a flaw, isn’t it? He thinks the document is too traditional and should never have had the statement, and that the rest of the document effectively nullifies and overrides it.
—
So, Lewis, why would Fr. Ratzinger among others be so eager to claim error in Second Vatican when it simply tries to affirm continuity with tradition? And if they can make this claim, is it realy outlandish when traditionalists fear there may be error when the documents engage in wholesale novelty that the Church has never heard of before? I trust I’m not being a mindless ranter when I raise these questions, am I?
Hi Lewis [Part 3],
So did Pope Benedict XVI change on this subject? As I alluded to earlier, he apparently has not. In 2011, his New Year’s address states that man has the right to publicly propagate his religious beliefs, apparently regardless of how flawed, wrong, or in error they are. Is this really in keeping with what Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII officially taught in their encyclicals? I think you would have a hard time establishing that.
—–
And here is an excerpt from something he wrote in 2012, the last year of his papacy.
“First, there is the Declaration on Religious Liberty, which was urgently requested, and also drafted, by the American Bishops in particular. With developments in philosophical thought and in ways of understanding the modern State, the doctrine of tolerance, as worked out in detail by Pius XII, no longer seemed sufficient. At stake was the freedom to choose and practise religion and the freedom to change it, as fundamental human rights and freedoms.”
—
Again, let us note that he explicitly says the doctrine of Pope Pius XII, in line with his predecessors, no longer cuts it, and something essentially different is now needed. This is not doctrinal continuity, but appears to be an example of essentially jettisoning what does not comport with modern thinking, and creating something new more in line with modern thinking. How would you have us see this any differently?
Hi Lewis [Part 4],
Since you have mentioned Catholic Answers, let’s bring them into the subject of church-state relations. The following is a link to an article on their website, written by Russell Shaw
—
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/read-all-about-it
—
In this article, which presumably meets with CA approval as it is on their website, the author creates what he claims is a context for the official, authoritative teaching of Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX, one that neither of those popes ever mentioned, nor was it ever mentioned by any subsequent pope prior to Vatican II. Moreoever, the author goes on to refer to the teaching of these popes as an embarassment.
—
So, Lewis, since when does Mr. Russell, Catholic Answers, Karl Keating, or anybody else, have the right to, in effect, publicly affirm that official teaching from two of our traditional venerable popes is an embarassment? If Hans Kung said that about Pope Benedict XVI, I think I know how we would all react, including Mr. Shaw and Mr. Keating. So why is it open season on Gregory XVI and Pius IX on the subject of church-state relations? Can this be an instance, if I may respectfully suggest, of classical Catholic teaching conflicting with modern ideas that a number of Catholic wish to affirm, and therefore leads them to denounce and insult official teaching from the 1800s? Who has the right to make and demand such changes? And if such changes can be made on this subject, why not on a host of other subjects as well?
Hi Lewis [Part 5, last one, I promise],
What are we to make of the following quote:
—
“The Church of our day has become particularly conscious of this truth; and it was in the light of this truth that the Church succeeded, during the Second Vatican Council, in redefining her own nature.”
—
That was from Cardinal Wojtyla, a few years before he became Pope John Paul II. So, can you, or anybody, explain how the Church could ever redefine her own nature? How is that even thinkable, let alone possible, let alone actually happen, as he claims that it did?
dear Lewis,
This is not the case. CA at the outset, nor at any time, come out and say who they place in this category. Not elements, but whom, what group of faithful, and yes, I say it again, do they pitifully attempt to denegrate? They “define,” if you will, in the negative, as do you.
I disagree that all Catholics manifest these views. Most Catholics do not know what is meant by the term “Church Fathers.” I’ve only met one Catholic in my purview in the last 5 years that knows the Holy Mass is Sacrifice. I would be astonished if you would deny “most Catholics” do not know these things, to do so would be to deny that there has been a disaster of catechesis in the past half century.
It seems odd to me that you would accuse another commenter, namely Rodj, os being passionate and led by pride.
Lewis, this is a blog. We are commentors. I would offer that it is impossible to comment dispassionately within this context, and I don’t think that is necessarily even desirable. At first you mentioned your disquietude with vitriol, rudeness ad hominun attacks, etc. I agreed with you then. But now, to me at least, you seem to be ready to offer that which is hastily uncharitable yourself.
Peace be to you.
Lewis, if you want to be taken seriously, you’re going to have to do better than dismissing admissions from cardinald and popes that doctrine has changed simply because such admissions were “not infallible.”
And please, quit posting links to ametures like Staples and demanding we refute the arguments therein. Present said arguments here if they are so airtight. Based on what I’ve heard from him on CAL, he doesn’t have a clue as to the real nature of the crisis, and no intention of addressing anything other than straw men arguments against faithful traditional catholics. Sad but true. He should stick with contra protestant apologetics until he’s ready to put on the big boy pants and grow up.
Mr Lewis,
–
You just shot yourself in the foot!!
“I feel I should add that I don’t know of any scholarly orthodox Catholics who are trying to sugar coat the crisis in the Church.”
LOL!!!
Your scope of knowledge must be VERY limited indeed!!
Hmm, what about “Bishop of Rome” Franky ; ) ?
“the Church has never been in better form and is experiencing a very positive moment”
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/francis-meets-with-priests-of-rome
By yout OWN admission “Bishop of Rome” Francis is NOT an Orthodox
Catholic.
Oh, I know, I know, not an “infalible statement”…
Or perhaps an “error of translation”? ; )
“By their fruits ye shall know them”
I know, I know, the APOSTASY has taken place IN SPITE of the Council…
I just wonder how much WORSE the apostasy would have been WITHOUT the Council RIGHT…??
Oh the beautiful odour (*cough,cough* ehem “stench”) which inundated the Church when J XXIII opened the doors of the Church to the world!
No need to worry about the Church guarded safely inside her impregnable fortress opening wide the gates guarding the deposit of the faith in its love affair with the world to avoid an infestation of impurity, heresy and mass apostasy!
No, the Lord did not give us EARS to HEAR and EYES to SEE!
–
“they [the reprobate] receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: THAT ALL MAY BE JUDGED WHO HAVE NOT BELIEVED THE TRUTH, BUT HAVE CONSENTED TO INIQUITY.”
2 Thessalonians 2:10-11
–
THIS is the ultimate dilemma: we as Catholics have a DUTY, and OBLIGATION to believe the truth, those who prefer the applause of the world and the passing pleasures of this world over the truth are RIGHT NOW being chastised by God with “the operation of error, to believe lying”. People are believing the LIES that the council ushered in the “new springtime”, the “new pentecost”, the “new advent” or whatever other Orwellian speak has been devised that calls evil good.
–
Meanwhile, “Bishop of Rome” Francis fiddles with his intentional photo-ops and shows of fake humility while Rome burns.
–
As an aside, in the film “A Man for all Seasons” the caracter of Tomas Cromwell insists on calling the pope “Bishop of Rome”…
Just saying…
–
BTW – are you a CMTV troll posting here to move readers away from Louis’ blog? ; )
–
“You must be gentle as doves and cunning as snakes”
Our Lord’s warning to the blessed apostles.
…..Bravo…..Bravo…….Bravo……….Dear Linda and Craig V………..!!!
@ Lewis: I have a question for you. While he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Pope Francis participated in a Hanukkah service by wearing a kippah and lighting one of the candles of a menorah. Also while Archbishop, he recounts in a book that he attended a Rosh Hashanah service and prayed at that service. In addition, also while Archbishop, he participated in an Islamic burial rite for a deceased muslim. Further, as Pope, he organized several kosher meals for jewish friends and at one of them was said to have prayed along with the jews in attendance for unity. As serious Catholics, and accepting that the Pope is the proximate rule of faith, should the readers of this blog follow the example set by Pope Francis and do each of these things recounted above if the opportunity presents itself to us? If you do not answer this question I will assume that you reject that we should do these things and also reject that the Pope is the proximate rule of faith.
Lewis,
—
Not quite sure how to respond to the set of comments you have wrote back to me, but let me take a try. You do seem to engage in a fair amount of presumption about me, that I believe DH lies at the heart of false ecumenism, which I don’t, or that I have not studied the subject closely enough, which I believe I have, or if I have I have succumbed to some notion of the traditions of men, which I don’t think I have; if I have, then so has Fr. Ripperger.
—
Let’s set the record straight. I actually affirmed DH and all VII documents initially, it was after being confronted by traditionalist criticisms and increasingly finding the defenses to be weak and unpersuasive, that I have adopted my current position. Not out of pride. I had no vested interest in citing VII documents as having error or needing that for some grand explanation of the cosmos or the current crisis in the church. How VII cannot be involved in the current crisis is, frankly, all but unfathomable.
—
You say DH is EASILY reconcilable? I find that hard to believe, to say the least. What would you say about its non-traditionalist critics? A British Dominican priest – non-traditional – has a lengthy DH article that concludes it can only be reconciled with tradition if all current non-Catholic religions are excluded from its scope. Msgr. Gherardini, no intellectual slouch, has written that is is very difficult, if not impossible, to fully reconcile DH with tradition. But you claim not only can it be done but its a cinch. You’ll pardon me if I say that it is you who either doesn’t know what DH says [BTW I assume you do] or you somehow have rationalised what the Church taught, embrace, and witnessed for 1,500 years as a tradition of men that can summarily be shredded to return to what the primitive early church allegedly really stood for all along. No, that’s not going to cut it. Under that guise, all sorts of things can be changed and tossed by alleging that it’s only a return to the authentic impulses of the early Church. And it also makes 1,500 years of Church history, including its august popes and greatest doctors, accessories to oppressive tyrannical barbarity, murder, and abridgement of man’s basic ‘dignity’.
—
Faithful to Peter should mean that we are faiithful to all teachings from all popes, and candidly recognize when a contradition is occuring and seeking to resolve it in as Catholic a manner as possible. I find it astonishing that those [not necessarily you] who assail traditionalists for not showing what is supposed to be due regard for the teaching and law of the most recent popes, all too often have no qualms about ignoring or belittling the teaching and values of some 200-250 popes who reigned before 1956. As I pointed out, calling Pope Gregory XVI and Pius IX’s teaching an embarassment shows just how far we have gone. Do the critics confirm what these popes taught about church-state relations? Do they affirm what Pius V taught about Jews? Or does so-called development of doctrine and Second Vatican springtime now mean that we’re supposed to shred all that?
—
I have encountered some material from Tim Staples, while I do not recall specifics, I do recall in general that I was certainly not very impressed. You really think I need to listen to more from him? Honest question. I have read the Vere article before. Yes, I admit, he has some valid points, though I think there are faults with it as well. Especially the raft of material he omits is extensive and one wonders whether he could present an integrated picture of doctrine as a whole.
—
The analogy to papal infallibility you put forth, I believe, is heavily flawed. While I am sure there were those who supported and or opposed the proposed definition initially, each side, in principle, in light of the traditional magisterium had plausibility. By that, I mean that as sincerely as one could have thought going in that papal infallibility was untrue, this person would still have had to concede that the belief did not contradict the formal teaching, or official stated witness of the magisterium up to that point. The Vatican had never officially said anything to the effect that the pope had no infallibility and then, all of a sudden, did an about-face at First Vatican. Both sides had an initial plausibility, it seems, and neither one could point to authoritative Church doctrine on the subject to claim some major break in tradition would occur if the other’s guy position were formally promulgated. Here, with DH and UR, we are dealing with closed subjects that had been authoritatively pounded upon for centuries on end. No, not traditions of men. Official binding teaching and indefectable values through Roman ecclesial law. If you are claiming that I have the closest of bonds with non-Catholics who are under the direct guidance of satan and are mired in terrible errors, then I welcome your effort to explain such a thing and how no break has occured.
@Clarissa:
You said in response to my question:
“For example, one absolutely stupid comment was asked (I dont remember reading who actually wrote this but someone did) about whether we should follow the actions of the Pope in praying with our Jewish brothers and sisters or kissing a Quran etc. Really? This is what Lewis is talking about when he refers to scandal and pride entering into the equation. I don’t see his observations in this respect baseless or presumptuous but rather made with a ‘righteous’ and ‘just’ judgment as the Bible commands in the Gospel of St. John. So should we kiss a Quran or engage in actions which Popes did wrongly? The answer is that you no more follow a post-concillar Pope who does something imprudent no more then you follow a pre-concillar Pope who did something imprudent. No no more kiss a Quran then you would have a mistress or kill a person or even speak error as a private individual as pre-concillar popes did. You would not more follow any imprudent actions of the current Pontiff then you would follow St. Peter deciding not to eat with Christians who were uncircumcised.”
My question above contained no pejorative, while you called my question “stupid”. By doing so, you sinned against charity but, if you were really a catholic (which I doubt) you would know that.
Regarding your analysis it is faulty for numerous reasons.
1. It makes no sense to call jews our brothers or sisters unless they happen to be our brothers and sisters by blood. We have brothers and sisters by blood, and brothers and sisters by faith. Those who are our brothers and sisters in faith are so because of their shared belief in Christ and shared membership in His Church. A jew does not share my faith and is not a member of the Church so he is not my brother in faith. I ask you a question: do jews teach the gospel of Our Lord and Savior, or do they teach another rival gospel? I ask another question: if the jews are not for Our Lord, how can it be that we share fellowship in faith with them?
2. You downplay the difference between a scandalous action (kissing the Quran by John Paul II) and acts of heresy/apostasy (participating in the rites of a non-catholic religion as done by Pope Francis). A reasonable person could not conclude from John Paul II’s actions that he had defected from the faith, but Pope Francis’s actions certainly raise questions about whether Francis has defected. How so? It is a dogma and part of the papal magisterium that to practice the rites of judaism after Our Lord’s Passion is mortally sinful. Pope Francis is therefore a public mortal sinner for participating in their rites. Further, though, his public actions evidence a belief that practicing the rites of judaism is NOT mortally sinful. He has not taught this explicitly, but his public actions evidence this belief. Even though he is Pope, he is not at liberty to dissent from this teaching. He, like all other Catholics, is bound by prior dogmatic statements. By engaging in public actions that evidence dissent, he raises questions about his continuing membership in the Church.
But his actions are problematic from an even more fundamental viewpoint. Participating in the rites of a non-catholic religion has always been viewed as an act of apostasy by the Church. Why so? The Church assumes that such momentous actions as joining and participating in the rites of a religion are both an act of the will and an exterior display of interior belief. One joins and participates in the rites of a group because he shares the faith of that group. Unity in prayer evidences unity in belief.
It goes without saying that an implicit element of judaism is the denial of the divinity and claims of Christ. By joining in and participating in the rites of judaism, has Francis evidenced that he is one in belief with the jews – that he denies the divinity and claims of Our Lord? You cannot say that he has NOT denied the divinity and claims of Our Lord interiorly because you cannot read his mind. The only evidence you can go by is his exterior actions. The Church assumes unity prayer evidences unity in belief so Francis is an apostate.
There are no good alternatives here: (1) assuming Francis has not defected he may have joined in the rites of the jews only because he wanted to show some solidarity with them given their history of persecution – but since he does not believe what they believe it was a patronizing, meaningless gesture unbefitting a prince of the church that was also mortally sinful; (2) Francis believes that one can offer true worship of the triune God through the rites of judaism and catholicism, and that a modern Catholic can ignore prior dogmatic pronouncements of the Church that declared participating in the rites of judaism mortally sinful; or (3) he has really defected and is a professing jew. All of these alternatives are unbefitting a faithful Catholic so it is actually charitable to declare such actions acts of apostasy since such a person has much to correct in beliefs before it can be said that he holds the faith.
3. You ignore the distinction between wicked popes (whose sins do not encompass heresy or apostasy) and faithless popes (whose sins encompass heresy or apostasy). Why is this important? A merely wicked pope is still a valid pope. As a valid pope, he can command the obedience of faithful catholics to any and all of his just decrees. His personal wickedness is not an excuse for catholics to ignore his teaching and just decrees.
On the other hand, an heretical or apostate pope is an oxymoron. An heretic or apostate is NOT a member of the church. A person who is not a member of the church cannot be Pope. That is a universal teaching of the church. Pope Leo XIII said that it is absurd to believe that one outside the church can command within the church. If Francis is an apostate or heretic what does that mean for a faithful Catholic? You totally disregard his teachings and decrees. You owe no obedience whatsoever to an apostate or heretic. Further, it is nonsensical to even contemplate partially obeying an apostate Pope when he does not teach error because that makes a mockery of both the concept of obedience and the papal office. The faithful are called to reject such a pope in toto and to demand a true faithful pope.
Note, none of this analysis involved the esoterica of VII documents. Nor would anything in the VII documents support the actions of Pope Francis in joining in the rites of the jews and the muslims. By his actions he has placed himself outside the church.
@Edu – we gotta laugh,eh – because we’d be weeping in out shot glasses otherwise. But he – Bergoglio – reminds me of an elderly relative I have. They had a traumatic encounter with a member of clergy when they were young (nothing you could sue a diocese for), but that one event became conflated in their mind with the entire Church by the time they reached 50 – so that anything Catholic, anything True, beautiful, Christly – didn’t matter – Church = bad. It is, of course, deeply irrational, as anyone growing up could take any bad experience and conflate the moment with a whole movement. Anyway, if Bergoglio is not suffering post-traumatic-stress, he’s just comes across as, vicious and anti-catholic.
@Patrick – if VII is completely consistent with Tradition, why did Joseph Ratzinger call it an anti-syllabus? why did jc Murray’s secularist ‘solutions’, banned only a decade before the council, become its cornerstone? and I have attended NO Masses that are unquestionly invalid. the admixture of falsehood and truth that is the alloy of the post-conciliar church is prone to the worst deformations – it does have the seeds of its own destruction in it.
we must pray for the pope – but no one walks away from praying for such a dangerous person without paying. if you dare to pray for an enemy it’s not a light task. right now he and many ‘leading’ the church are adherents of the ‘syncretism of all heresies’ and so are blatant smiling enemies of Christ.
dear Charissa,
Catholics, I refuse to use the term trad, traditionalist anymore, for reasons already explained, ought not care a fig about being taken seriously. This is a ludicrous, no–actually, a non-issue. It is the Faith that is necessary to be taken seriously, in its entirety, as has been passed down devoid of novelty.
If I may say, the reference to Catholics who follow the Faith as it was prior to 1955, sans the novelties assaulting Holy Mother Church from within and without surrounding but certainly not limited to VII, and introduction of the protestantized liturgy, sometimes referred to as the “Extraordinary Form,”
———–
are not members of a “movement.”
——–
The movement is what we’ve seen attempt to ignore and destroy both Tradition and tradition, if you will, in the last half century. Now THAT is a movement.
———
Paraphrased and extracted from a recent broadcast of The Voice of Catholic Tradition expressed by Mr. Louis Verrecchio, the broadcast to which one can connect via Mr. V.’s right sidebar.
———-
Pray, pray much for the Holy Father.
Archbishop Lefebvre, sound shepherd and obscure missionary, pray for us.
dear Kenneth,
I’m so glad you mentioned Fr. R’s treatises-I think they’re excellent, with regard problems, & all of the talks- and should be returned to by Catholics throughout the year for grounding, if I can put it that way.
I also think that all Catholics would benefit from reviewing, and often, Fr. R.’s site Sensus Traditionis as a whole–the media section I’ve referred to it and suggested it often here.
Within, one can see just a fraction of what has been lost in the last 50 years, granted just barely an introduction, but nevertheless impactful. I wonder if you’d agree?
Charissa & Kenneth,
–
I wonder how Fr Ripperger and other catholic priests can know or suspect there might even be more sexual sin within the traditionalist movement than in novus ordo cricles, when novus ordites are in fact, most well known for their conspicuous dislike of the sacrament of confession? How can one even gauge the level of sin within a group when the people are not even willing to confess their sins? Do you know that in the recent survey on family issues in Germany/Switzerland/Austria (made public, available on the web) it was estimated 90-100% of novus ordites live in sin prior to their marriage, and in fact most consider that this is a responsible decision in order to “prepare” them for the married life?
–
I do not deny for a second that there are serious issues within the trad community that need correcting (impurity no doubt being one); all I’m saying is that if we’re going to put forward arguments they need to be coherent and honest.
–
And attacking the Fatima Apostolate of Fr Gruner? SERIOUSLY? I have honestly never heard a single rude word from Fr Gruner.
Charissa,
Interesting post, thank you for sharing.
—
I believe I did substantively respond to much that Lewis stated. If anything, it seemed that he was not particuarly making strong responses to me. I put forth several items from Pope Benedict XVI that appear to have been evaded with claims of not knowing the ‘context’. I fail to see how that is all that relevant. If I proclaim that butchering little babies [no, I know Benedict has not said this] is hunky dory, nobody should be refraining from passing judgment on my position because they allegedly do not know the context.
—
I do not see why it is so crazy to ask if we should pray with pagans, kiss Qurans, or pray with Jews. Why it is crazy to ask? Is it wrong? Well, how do you know, if I may respectfully try to ask? Pope John Paul II was pope for over 25 years, and had the authority to interpret and implement the Second Vatican Council documents, including Nostra Aetate. Obviously, he believed what he did was perfectly Catholic and in line with our last ecumenical council. If he believed it, why cannot I? It should at least be a serious open question worthy of respectful discussion when a supreme pontiff clearly indicates this is good, proper, Catholic behavior. If somebody wants to point to a pre-1954 pope who might have objected, well, perhaps that person isn’t understanding the alleged subtle continuities of the Ratinzgerian hermeneutic of continuity that we have heard about in recent years. Certainly all popes, including JPII, should be given every benefit of the doubt, shouldn’t they? That seems to be what Lewis was saying, and is the refrain I regularly hear from some non-traditional Catholics. Please excuse any strident tone that may come across in this excerpt of mine, but I am genuinely serious. We can’t have it both ways, claiming the docs themselves cannot come under serious scrutiny and question, while cavilierly condemning the official popes’ interpretation and implementation of the docs. They’re the ones who have the authority to do this, not us.
—
No, I honestly do not believe this situation is like previous ones. I do believe that Pope Leo X was right and Martin Luther was wrong. Not because Leo was pope and Luther was not, but because Leo X stood by the fullness of Catholic faith, while Luther did not. I have never heard that their was serious question or challenge to any official teachings after the fact from Trent or First Vatican. I am sincerely interested. Which teachings are under fire, question, or challenge, and on what possible, plausible basis is the challenge being mounted from? I do want to know. In any event, I have never heard that there were perfectly good preparatory documents prepared from Trent or First Vatican that were tossed out – not for any possible error or imprecision – but because they were too scholastic and insufficiently pastoral. I mean this as honestly and respectfully as I can say it: am I supposed to pass over this in silent acceptance?
—
I know somebody who had attended FSSP seminary. They have shared with me that on a few occassions, an FSSP priest would have a discussion with a few students about a VII document and wind up saying in the end words to the effect “I just don’t see how this works.” Agreed, the priest is being particularly measured and dignified compared to how some traditionalists act. But the view being conveyed is rather telling. If find it amazing that so many others clearly see how these docs work, but even some FSSP priest apparently don’t. I doubt they’re that dumb. What I do think is they are meticulously holding to the fullness of Holy Tradition than any number of others.
—
I would really, honestly, not care to see or hear more from Mr. Staples, but if you are genuinely asking me to do so and respond, I will make the effort. Please let me know.
Sally, what are the rotten fruits of the “Rad Trad” movement, in your opinion?
And for I, for one, do live a chaste life, and I don’t commit moral sins of an impure nature at all. How about you? Do you live a chaste life according to your station in life?
Those anti-trads who have recently been posting seem to like what Fr. Ripperger is saying regarding the sexual sins of trads – as if this confirms all of your views of trads. I would like to point out that Fr. Ripperger is still a traditional priest, despite the problems he sees in the tradional world. Have you anti-trads listened to his other sermons? How about the ones where speaks about the problems with the V2 Council? If you are in agreement with him on the talk he gave on sexual sin, then surely you agree with his other sermons, right?
Herman, just because someone does not struggle with sins of a sexual nature (I do not), doesn’t mean that we don’t struggle in other ways. I certainly struggle with other things. If you’ve ever been to a traditional parish, you’ll notice that there is a long line for confession before Sunday Masses. Trads are aware that they’re sinners. I think that trads are just aware that we need to set the bar higher than what most Novus Ordo parishes do. And btw, I attend a Novus Ordo parish, and it’s a rare thing to see anyone in line for confession when it’s offered. That’s been the case in most NO parishes that I’ve been to in my diocese. Perhaps you live in an unusual circumstance, where NO folks actually go to confession regularly. If so, it’s an anomally. If I’m well-informed, it’s because I’m aware of what the Church had always taught before the Council. There resources for learning what the Church had taught then are out there, and I suggest that you try to study them.
I am still waiting for the answer to the question posed above: in all charity and a spirit of honest query, where are the statistics that show that there is more sin of impurity among more tradition-minded Catholics? Comments made by a few priests and passed on by word of mouth is certainly not proof. Which of these priests have spent hours in the confessionals of both tradition-minded Catholics and the more modern-minded Catholics? I am not understanding from where this comparison arises. In my experience (subjective of course) I have not seen any sharing of confession duties between the two so it seems impossible that any priest could know this. I am glad that those sins are being confessed, of course.
Herman, I already responded to your previous post on this subject. Did you read it? If you ask questions here, then I suggest that you actually read and consider the responses. And it’s really creepy that you are wanting to know details of my personal life. You aren’t my confessor, and it isn’t appropriate for you to ask these things. I have to think that you have allowed your anger towards people here to ge the best of you. I won’t be responding to your posts on this subject further.
Quote:
“Then you can start focusing on others.”
I suggest that you take your own advice.
Herman, are you a member of Opus Dei?
Ha Ha Ha. The novus ordites are actively using the sin of detraction to win an argument! Do you people even know what the sin of detraction is? The sin of detraction is revealing the sins of another without just cause. A typical situation where detraction occurs is where a first person mentions the sin of a second person to gain personal advantage like, e.g., to win an argument. The alleged impurity of rad trads has nothing to do with the issues that are being discussed in this thread. To inject such issues to win an argument is certainly detraction – and even worse if those making the accusation have no personal knowledge of such sins and are making the allegations up out of whole cloth.
Further, how do you know that the Lord isn’t using ridiculous compulsive masturbators who persevere in the truth in hope that the Almighty will deliver them from their affliction to shame you proud novus ordites? After all the scripture says:
“But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong.”
1 Corinthians 1 : 27.
Wow, this comment thread has been taken over by the demonic. I can’t recall all of their different names…Herman, Louis, Ceciliy, Sally, Charissa, Rosie, Sarah, Becca, Tessa…? but all of you are incredibly ignorant of the truth i.e. what happened at the council, modernism and authentic church teaching. The very good news is that you are here…a website where if you go back one year and read all of Louie’s posts, you will have your intellect informed as to the reality of A) what the Deposit of Faith is and what it said prior to V2 B) what happened at V2 and the past 50 years/destruction of the Church C) How Pope JPII, Benedict and Francis have promoted it’s errors etc. cont’d
I see your presence as a spiritual workout for us trads and an opportunity for your intellects to be fed:+) Only truth sets us free:+) The accusation of trads somehow thinking they are “better” than others and accusing them of mortal sins speaks to me of spiritual insecurity and emotionalism. I do not commit the sins of lust you note nor do am I in knowingly mortal sin. This gift of sanctifying grace is not pride it’s a gift that with God’s grace I work on daily to maintain. Only the demonic would attack people trying to attain sanctity as being prideful. All true Catholics are Trads…for Tradition is one of the three legs that uphold the Church…along with the Magisterium and Scripture. cont’d
MMC, I think that some of these commentors are members of Opus Dei – at least Herman seems to be, given the nature of his posts, which line up with bizarre Opus Dei beliefs. I would encourage him to leave that cult ASAP. I’m not surprised that Opus Dei folks would post here, and I hope and pray that they are able to have use of their free will again, and see what is really happening in the Church.
I will pray that all of you here sincerely looking for Truth and loving Christ’s Church find that Truth…allow your intellect and will i.e. Reason to lead you, informed by the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles…not emotion, not rock star popes, not blind obedience. The true head of the Church is Christ…we are to follow Him. Popes will come and go…some will be faithful, others not…but Christ always is:+) Pope John Paul II sat atop worldwide destruction, apostasy, heresy, liturgical abuse, pedophila, homosexual clergy, evil catechisms and no catechism…he sat atop the destruction of the Catholic culture and heritage and developed the “Church of Man” cont’d
He dethroned Christ the King, led countless millions to believe false religions were fine and dandy, and did nothing while the destruction of hundreds of millions of souls under his watch took place. The Church in THREE CONTINENTS is on it’s death bed…all b/c of he emo, watered down, permissive, modernist, chaotic, mess that was Pope John Paul II papacy. So yes, that is why I for one am against his canonization. It was his pontificate that I grew up under…and it was a disaster for the true faith. Do I with him in heaven? With all my heart. But I want people’s faith and souls protected more…and canonizing him would canonize his errors…which were from V2. cont’d
Objective truth. It’s outside our thinking, feeling and desires. I was in your shoes once and it was objective truth that set me free and led me to the Traditional Church (yay!). To help you get there A) let your intellect lead, not your emo B) read Michael Davies three volume set on V2 C) Read Louie’s blog going back a year D) Read Scripture ALOT E) Read as much Church teaching previous to V2 (Penny Catechism/Catechism of St. Pius X). Finally, we are all wired for truth. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know something is “off”. “Peasants” around the world aren’t as stupid as you think…they have brains and the grace of God. We aren’t to follow a Pope if he is leading cont’d
us away from truth. All Catholics are to follow Christ. All Catholics are supposed to be taught the deposit of the faith. THAT is what/who they follow…even Popes. A V2 tendency is to speak to intelligent adult human beings like they are three. Enough. The answer to ignorance isn’t keeping people there it’s teaching and building them up…one of the Natural Laws…informing the intellect/will. Teach people truth and they will recognize it…for it’s built into their DNA. Help them grow in the faith…know, love and serve the Lord…and glorify Him:+) God bless~
Oops…correction: “Do I want him in heaven (PJII)” Yes:+) but not at the cost of canonizing his errors. God bless~
Denise- Hmm…maybe they are Opus Dei? It was tempting to me to want to “belong” to something when I first came back to Christ. He showed me that I already belonged…to Him:+) It’s not easy to be so scattered and alone during this time of crisis…so I don’t blame people for seeking solace in community…which is why I am fine with SSPX (God bless them) and even sorts like Opus Dei. But truth is truth…we are never to be afraid of it…for Truth is Christ Himself. Being alone has actually helped me to focus on my heavenly family more…developing relationships with them…devotions:+) But thanks Denise for the idea…let’s pray for them to be set free:+) God bless~
God has blessed you, Netanel to be able to attend a rite largely ignored by the sticky fingers of VII.
–
as to the proposed canonization of JPII. I don’t think it will happen – I don’t believe this man can legitimately be raised to the altars without reasonably saying once and for all, VII is not Catholic; or, the Faith and Sacrifice of the Saints for 1900s were simply accidents of culture and were not Catholic.
–
if the Church of Rome, officially canonizes JPII, then something has gone seriously wrong. It could be the great apostasy is really upon us. Anyone with a wit of Catholic Conscience must know that to canonize the first basically collegial pope, promoting religious indifferentism in a manner the likes of which the Church had never before seen, who used the resources of the Church for a personal agenda, rather than a Catholic one, who has done more to restore an anachronistic and pagan College of Pontiffs than any other pope sans FI….if this man is declared a canonized saint by the supreme pontiff, then I may as well subscribe to the list of random saints pot lucked by the C of E.
Netanel,
Where exactly has the official classical, authoritative magisterium ever explicitly, directly declared that all canonizations are infallible and what infallible means for a canonization? I’m sincerely asking, as I am aware of no such teaching. And my asking does not mean I am claiming that a canonization of Pope John Paul II is invalid.
That said, one is not an extremist if one believes the papacy of John Paul II had some very serious problems, ones that most papacies in our 2,000 years did not suffer from.
How about a Fr. Michael Creon’s view, for your consideration, Netanel? He isn’t a traditionalist, and he believes JPII held to some genuine errors, but Fr. Creon still affirms the impending canonization as legitimate and infallible.
One other note as an aside. If I understand Eastern Catholicism correctly, Ruthenian is not a rite. Byzantine is the rite, and Ruthenian is a particular church within that rite. So you have Byzantine Ruthenian, Byzantine Ukrainian, Byzantine Melkite, Byzantine Romanian etc. where Byzantine is the rite and the Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite piece is the particular church.
As well as the fact that if you literally do have a confessional in your particular parish, then it’s probably a holdover from when it was more Westernized, since the customary form of confession in the Byzantine rite as I understand it should be standing in front of the iconostasis with the priest alongside the penitent.
Netanel,
Where has the authoritative magisterium declared this, as you claimed several posts ago?
@Dear netanel;
That you, as a Christly seeker have showed up in Louie’s blog speaks VOLUMES. all I know is that the ‘world and ethics’ are one thing and,’faith and morals’, really are something else altogether.
–
p.s. maybe I’m old and intolerant but the ‘new-advent’, seems like anthropology seived through satanology, to me.
–
but anyone who knows that the frog is still a frog, be patient with Mr Verrecchio. unlike other ‘apostolates’, how far do you have to go to associate a random name, like voris, with Christ? takes more than a lazy finger-walking to find authentic apostolates these days.
the possibility of errors in canonization. The articles lay things out quite well. I pray for our beloved Church and hope JPII is in heaven, I just don’t want the errors he supported canonized. This upcoming canonization and October Synod will be a major battle in the Church. Our Lord will prevail per usual in His time and in His Way:+) God bless you~
Netanel,
One can potentially make a case against infallibility on the following basis:
1) It has not been held universally as true in all times and places.
2) Pope Benedict XIV, who had great familiarity with the subject, says that opposition to a canonization would indicate temerity, but he refrained from saying it would be heretical incurring anathema, which would be the case if they were all always infallible.
3) First Vatican Council formally declared papal infallibility in terms of defining doctrine in faith and morals.