Our friends at the Rorate Caeli blog have had a bad week, or perhaps better stated, a revealing one.
On May 23, they dutifully published the Holy See Press Office Communiqué denying the recent declaration of Professor Ingo Dollinger wherein he confirmed precisely what had been attributed to him many years ago by Fr. Nicholas Gruner and others; namely, Cardinal Ratzinger, after the “official” publication of the Third Secret of Fatima, had confided to him that the publication was not complete, and the still hidden text warns of “a bad council and a bad Mass.” (I wrote about this HERE.)
But they did more than report the denial; they bought it hook-line-and-sinker, editorializing:
As you may have noticed, we avoided mentioning this matter here, as it also seemed (due to several details of the story) peremptorily non-credible. It is to be hoped that the Pope Emeritus’ unusually strong denials should put this episode to rest.
Is this a case of genuine naiveté, or do the publishers at Rorate Caeli harbor a pro-Ratzinger bias so substantial that no amount of contrary testimony will ever suffice for them to admit that the current “Pope Emeritus” (whatever in the Hell that is) has been duplicitous in the matter?
On May 27, we drew a bit closer to an answer as they posted a new article about “the explosive revelation by Abp. Georg Gänswein on how he (and presumably Benedict XVI) sees the current dual status of the papacy,” written by Father Pio Pace – the pen name of a man described by the publisher as “a very wise, knowledgeable, and highly influential cleric.”
I must admit that, for a number of reasons, I had high hopes for this article.
For one, the revelation (more of a confirmation, really) by Archbishop Gänswein is indeed an explosion of seismic proportions.
Surely, a “very wise, knowledgeable” cleric writing under the shield of anonymity will spare no effort in addressing the implications head on, I thought, perhaps revealing a bit of my own naiveté.
Upon reading the piece, however, it immediately became obvious that I expected too much.
Right out of the gate, Fr. Pace stated:
It is not doubtful that the document we will consider as the most important one in the Pontificate of Francis will be the exhortation Amoris Laetitia, just as Summorum Pontificum is already for that of Benedict XVI.
The Pontificate of Francis?
Apparently, the explosiveness of Gänswein’s confirmation as to Benedict’s intent and the implications thereof are lost on don Pio; either that or he simply won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.
After parroting the same old blather about the problematic “interpretations” to which Amoris Laetitia may give rise, he continued:
The opposition, despite its attempts of resistance during the two last assemblies of the Synod of Bishops, does not truly manage to find its standing, to find an appropriate response.
Come now, if don Pio was truly wise he’d know that it’s not so much the case that “the opposition” can’t find an “appropriate response;” rather, they lack either the faith, the fortitude, or some combination of each to respond appropriately – namely, by condemning the document in its entirety, in no uncertain terms, by virtue of the blasphemy and heresy that it contains.
Moving on to Archbishop Gänswein’s remarks, don Pio says of the “two pope” proposition, “Theologically, this makes no sense whatsoever!”
God love him for that, but just when it appeared that he might actually be on the verge of addressing the matter plainly, he writes, “One is forced, therefore, to find a ‘political’ meaning.”
Let us hope that the publishers of Rorate Caeli have overstated don Pio’s credentials and he is, in reality, not influential in the least.
No, the faithful Catholic is never forced, when presented with theological nonsense, to “find meaning” in it, political or otherwise; rather, he is called to reject it in favor of what the Church has always believed, taught, and practiced. Period.
From there, he is called to face the implications of said nonsense head on, like a true soldier for Christ; that the truth may be well-defended.
Clearly, don Pio is either unable or unwilling to do either.
In light of the fact that “there is no ambition [among churchmen] willing to face the Bergoglian establishment head on” (no kidding!), don Pio states:
… Georg Gänswein, who receives everyday the cries and lamentations of the Ratzingerians, builds up …the statue of his Pope [Benedict] as an accusing statue of against the Commander, as a ‘contemplative Pope’. And, by the very fact of doing so, he weakens even more the legitimacy of the ‘active Pope’, in the spirit of his nostalgic friends.
He then asks rhetorically:
Are they merely nostalgic? This is the entire question. In reality, they are abandoned. They are in expectation of a strong symbolic stand, which the current situation demands.
This is beyond pathetic.
The “entire question” need not be couched in innuendo; rather, it merits being asked directly:
Was the so-called “resignation” of Benedict a valid act, or is the alleged pontificate of Francis truly nothing more than a dangerous illusion that, ultimately, was hatched in the disoriented mind of a man who thought himself empowered to “expand” and “transform” the Petrine ministry as established by Christ?
These are questions that far too few in Catholic media appear willing to address.
In reality, the “current situation” does not call for “a strong symbolic stand” at all, but rather does it call for all who truly love the Church to condemn grave error by name, and to speak the truth plainly.
Once one decides that the better course of action is to seek “political meaning” in theological nonsense, I suppose that looking for someone, anyone, to take a “symbolic stand” is about the best one thinks he can expect. Talk about lowering the bar…
Yes, it is true that the Ratzingerians (with whom Rorate Caeli and don Pio appear to be of like mind) “are abandoned,” but let’s be clear:
It is they who first abandoned the effort to measure all things by the light of objective truth in favor of propping up their idol; an aging conciliar modernist whom they are loathe to hold accountable for his assorted contradictions, obfuscations and errors.
If it wasn’t clear already, while Rorate Caeli may have a few more toes in so-called “traditionalism” than most other Catholic blogs, their postings of this past week suggest that ultimately they swim in neo-conservative waters where ideology trumps practically all.
Such are the gifts hidden in both Amoris Laetitia and the confirmation given by Archbishop Gänswein relative to Benedict’s intentions:
As Catholic commentators go about reacting to each of these major contributions to the current crisis, those who are paying close attention will discover exactly who’s who.
“If it wasn’t clear already, while Rorate Caeli may have a few more toes in so-called “traditionalism” than most other Catholic blogs, their postings of this past week suggest that ultimately they swim in neo-conservative waters where ideology trumps practically all.”
Got it in one, Louie – and I find myself cringing when they preface these sycophantic articles with praise heaped upon the priest author. It’s happened more than once recently, and apparently they don’t realize, or don’t care, how foolish it makes them look.
Thank you for calling out Rorate Caeli blog as they truly are – wolves in sheep’s clothing.
YES! It’s precisely this kind of no nonsense analysis that brings me here.
Rotate Caeli has long annoyed me as being watered down and self-congratulatory, not to mention the all too frequent sloppy analysis and writing like that found in this latest Don Pio essay.
As for sloppy writing, I greatly appreciate the obvious care Louie takes in crafting his posts. No sloppy writing from him. It seems he’s studied at least one grammar book like C. Edward Good’s excellent A Grammar Book for You and
I’m glad I don’t read Rorate. Back in the day when the Abbe de Nantes was alive, I spent many hours reading his website. They consistently railed against PPVI and JPII. They also held a grudge against the SSPX that I didn’t know what to make of back then. But go there now and the Abbe’s successor, Brother Bruno, gushes over Pope Francis every chance he gets. It was so bizarre for me to see the 180 degree change when I took a nostalgic peek yesterday.
aka Catholic and the Eponymous Flower get my attention now. The website I really miss is Ars Orandi. It was tragic to see DW quit because he convinced himself that he was being hypocritical. He felt that his deficiencies as a Catholic rendered him ineligible to post about the beauty of the Church.
Usually I just skip over Rorate anymore–between their neo-catholic protect-our- career in the NO POV and their condescending and/or idiotic ‘exclusive’ attempts to protect their ‘status’ in the blogosphere. Wasn’t going to read this article either because of the psuedonym: Fr. “pious peace” or Fr. “godly peace.”
However having done so, most curious to me were 1st & last paragraphs:
(1) “Nobody truly believes in a consequential reform of the Roman Curia, regarding which Pope Francis has never revealed the beginning of a glance…and on which he is not at all interested. ”
(2) “The fourth is Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna, one of the greatest experts on the moral work of Pius XII. In fact, for him it is is Pope Pacelli who is the “contemplative Pope”, the pope of reference who is still present — which is not false, or at least in the process of becoming true… ”
Seems Fr PP is most interested in retaining his job from (1) and from (2) “Pius XII who is still present–which is not false–or at least in the process of BECOMING true…” Could be something has been lost/gained in translation or I am misreading, but sounds like movement to declare all popes since Pius XII invalid (?)
Instead of a rorate bashing segment I hope everyone here takes this opportunity to examine ALL so called traditional blogs. As a sede I need to be honest and say that I have a huge problem with any so-called traditional blog, because I am FULLY convinced that the vatican 2 religion and all of its “popes” (and it is a lot deeper than simply that) are not of the Catholic Church. With that said, I frequent this site for two main reasons: a) though I am at odds with the fundamental idea of traditional Catholicism as it relates to what I fully believe, I also fully believe that the man who runs this site wants to get to Heaven and b) I learn a lot here.
Being the Pope is not a Sacrament, it is an administrative appointment. He may not be a good Pope, but he is still the Pope (most probably Ratzinger) 🙂 And if you want to get to Heaven, you have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
You certainly do have to subject yourself to the Pontiff. This is why I have no problem with what I say about mr bergoglio and his vatican 2 buddies. If I thought for a second that any of them were Popes I wouldnt dare say what I do.
Where there is Sith……..always two……..
“As Catholic commentators go about reacting to each of these major contributions to the current crisis, those who are paying close attention will discover exactly who’s who.”
Yes it will.
What strikes me as amazing, is that so little has been said in the past week about Gainswain’s speech. The whole Church should have come to a screeching halt, and everyone should be seeking clarification, but it appears no one in the hierarchy is at all interested. Perhaps it is just because things take time in Rome, I don’t know. But since one of the fundamentals of being a good catholic is union with the pope, I would have thought it of paramount importance to define exactly who that pope is.
Keep sounding the alarm Louie… hopefully someone will notice.
Pius XI who was mentioned in a negative context at Fatima, he and Pius XII introduced financial corruption on a massive scale into the Church. That’s what brought the house down. All you have to do is search, Bernadino Nogara.
It does not really matter, at least fundamentally, if the pope due to his bad moral character or poor decisions introduced corruption and moral decay within the church. That’s terrible news, he will have to clean in hopefully purgatory.
The problem is when the supposed pope teach heresy, leads people to heresy and does not help people to get out of a heresy in order to embrace the True Faith (aka Catholic) .
That is when sedevacantism comes to play, because you can not be seating in the chair of Peter, hold the office of the papacy and teach what leads people to Hell. It is impossible and diametrically opposed to the purpose and means Christ gave to his Church.
Well said, AlphonsusJr.
I completely agree with everything you have said.
The interior life is not what one thinks or imagines. It consists not in having beautiful thoughts, nor in saying beautiful words, nor in remaining in a passive kind of prayer without applying one’s mind, as if one were in lofty heights. All of this is, more often than not, no more than fantasy.
The interior life is found in the solid practice of mortification, in the love of littleness and in total detachment from oneself and from creatures.
May we all seek to love the Lord through this tried and tested manner, whether we feel like it or not.
Mother Mectilde du Saint-Sacrement (1614-1698), foundress of the Benedictines of the Perpetual Adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament
Real devotion to the Blessed Sacrament is only to be gained by hard, grinding work of dry adoration before the Hidden God. But such a treasure cannot be purchased at too great a cost, for once obtained, it makes of this life as near an approach to heaven as we can ever hope for.
“Is this a case of genuine naiveté, or do the publishers at Rorate Caeli harbor a pro-Ratzinger bias so substantial that no amount of contrary testimony will ever suffice for them…?”
I think the answer is simpler (and even less edifying) than that. I think that for New Catholic, it’s not a breaking story if Rorate didn’t break it themselves. Their back-and-forth on Twitter with OnePeterFive’s Steve Skojec is pretty suggestive of this possibility, something that many have long suspected.
“hard, grinding work of dry adoration” -According to Doyle
Ridiculous. What is easier and more relaxing than to ponder Jesus present in the most Blessed Sacrament. Where was the dry, grinding work of St John as he rested his head on Our Lord’s breast at the Last Supper?
Is there no end to your incessant virtue-signaling and concern-trolling?
Prayer of St Padre Pio
Lord Jesus, sometimes, when I am in the State of Spiritual Aridity, I don’t even feel like Praying, and I certainly do not feel Your Presence. I wonder how You, the Bread of Life, could ever Love me, a Miserable Sinner. Help me to Accept my Weak Humanity, and to bow always Humbly before You and Accept the “Medicine” of Your Holy Spirit Who longs to Heal my Heart and Soul
Holy Moley. Who’s at the bishop’s dinner table?
Ever Mindful–Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in the Novus Ordo “church” makes no sense at all. How do you explain adoration of the Blessed Sacrament exposed in the Monstrance, when Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eurcharist is desecrated at EVERY Novus Ordo “mass”. Could some one explain this to me without using doublespeak?
De cetero fratres, quæcumque sunt vera, quæcumque pudica, quæcumque justa, quæcumque sancta, quæcumque amabilia, quæcumque bonæ famæ, siqua virtus, siqua laus disciplinæ, hæc cogitate.
Show me when the human side of the Church got into the usury business (Vatican Bank), and I’ll betcha a nickel that’s when a lot of the trouble/subversion really started. Filthy lucre.
Rushintuit, it is certainly not ridiculous. You’ll remember this at some point, when that which now seems so easy and relaxing to you has become difficult and hard work. The time will come, you’ll see. It always does.
I for one find these comments to be some of the most useful ones here. Thank you, Ever mindful.
Anyone who’s read Benedict XVI’s “Jesus of Nazareth” books knows that the man is a flaming modernist. He gives kudos to heterodox scholars like Bultmann and Meier, while ignoring traditional Catholic Biblical exegesis.
Antics like this are lamentable, but shouldn’t surprise us.
Keep up the great work, Signor V.
Well said Richard. First came RC’s sneering comments about 1P5’s Fatima revelation; then came their deliberate removal of a link back to 1P5 from an article by Roberto de Mattei. But to make matters worse, when called on the latter infraction – despite being initially given the benefit of the doubt – they reacted like an offended clique of teenage girls. And this from a site that often DEMANDS attribution and links back to their work. As Louie said, a bad week indeed.