Rorate Caeli

Ratzinger in Bamberg - 40 years

Pope Benedict will visit his native Bavaria in early September -- so perhaps it is an appropriate time to remember some of his words to Catholics assembled in Bavaria some 40 years ago.

Since 1848, the Katholikentag has been the main periodical assembly of lay Catholics in Germany, under the guidance of the hierarchy. Its original intent was to establish a sort of "cultural solidarity" among German Catholics. After the last Council, it became a hotbed of dissent, epitomized by the scandalous Katholikentag of Essen, in 1968.

The previous edition of the event had taken place in the city of the great Saint Otto, Bamberg, in July 1966. There, amidst the growing turbulence of the post-Conciliar age, with a Traditional liturgy which remained in the books but which was being destroyed in practice -- with no little help from the unmanageable changes proposed or imposed by the new liturgical bureaucracy in Rome, including the almost limitless experimentation allowed by the instruction Inter Œcumenici -- a man raised his voice to question the liturgical revolution.

Naturally, he was not the only one to question the novelties, but he was the one who would become Pope. Father Ratzinger had some interesting things to say at the dawn of the liturgical disaster, three years before the Mass of Pope Paul VI:

...
Among theologians, there is a certain archaism with the wish to restore the classical form of the Roman liturgy as it was before the additions of the Carolingian age and of the Middle Ages. One does not ask oneself, "What should the liturgy be like?"; but, rather, "What was it like once?"

While the past gives us an indispensable aid to solve the problems of our age, it is not the criterion on which one should found the reform purely and simply.

Knowing how Gregory the Great proceeded [to do] is good, but it does not force one to do the same. With such archaisms, the road towards legitimacy [in liturgical reform] has often been destroyed.
...

Must every Mass be truly celebrated turned towards the people? Is it that important to be able to see the face of the priest? Isn't it often good to think of him as a Christian with the others and that, consequently, he has all reasons to turn with them towards God and by this act say Our Father with them?

The tabernacle is detached from the High Altar, and there may be good reasons for that. But one should feel uncomfortable by seeing its place taken by the chair of the celebrant, expressing thus in the liturgy a clericalism which is much worse than that of before.

43 comments:

Al Trovato said...

Where's Father Ratzinger when we need him?

Jordan Potter said...

Thanks for sharing that. It does seem that, although in some ways Father Ratzinger's views were more in the Modernist direction back in the 1960s than they would become later on, nevertheless his views on liturgy have remained remarkably consistent.

Thinking on the lamentable, unnecessary and even pernicious effects of liturgical "reform," just the other day I was looking at some old photos of one of the churches in the city where our bishop has his see. The church at one time was one of the most stunningly beautiful you could imagine: the arches, the pillars, the side altars, the sanctuary with the arch bearing the inscription "This is the House of God and the Gate of Heaven", and the exquisite baldachino.

Then just before Christmas in 1966 a horrible fire gutted the church, destroying almost everything inside, causing the roof and one of its four cupolas to cave in, but leaving the four walls intact. That meant it was possible to repair the damage.

You know what happened next: the church was never repaired, but was completely remodeled on the inside "in conformity with the new liturgical standards." The pillars and side altars and arches were removed. The baldachino and original altar were only damaged a little in the fire, but too bad, it had to go and what looked like a cloth covered table was installed. No more altar rails, no more religious statuary, no more identifiable tabernacle, no large crucifix (not sure where they put the crucifix -- in the photos, I couldn't see one anywhere in the sanctuary), plain and undecorated whitewashed walls, and a huge sloppily-done Sixties-style mural of Jesus and the disciples at the Last Supper where the baldachino used to be. Above the mural was what looked like a huge chess-and-checker board, or maybe it was a 50 ft. by 50 ft. quilt -- I don't know what it was. And of course the priests' chairs were placed at the back wall of the sanctuary where the baldachino and altar once were.

It was also interesting to see the photos of the rededication of the church: two teenage boys or young men are standing in the sanctuary, dressed for a typical day at high school: casual shirts and slacks and sneakers. I think they were the altar boys but I'm not sure.

The overall effect of looking at the before/after photos of the interior of the church left one feeling rather appalled: beauty and intricacy and piety was replaced with dullness, blandness, banality and casual slackness, an apparent disregard for the holiness of God. It was easy to see the 1966 fire as a metaphor for the ravages inflicted on churches everywhere, and on the liturgy, in the aftermath of Vatican II.

Iosephus said...

Very interesting that he was saying that even before the official promulgation of the new Mass. He's had these same views throughout. I hope that this fall brings some action in these matters . . . .

Jon said...

Jordan,

They didn't see a little guy wearing a pointy hat sneaking around before that conflagration by any chance?

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Legion of Mary said...

Bugnolo,

Can you please specifically cite the writings of Joseph Ratzinger where exhibits hatred towards the scholastic philosophy & theology? Can you also point to either his writings or speeches where specifically ostracizes those who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively?

Thanks in advance.

Gillibrand said...

I am not the excellent Br. Alexis but there are often references to the dryness of scholastic theology (sometimes in contrast to his own Augustinianism) in the Pope's writings. It is too late at night here in Brussels to find them, but I will try and get back with some of them. There is a bit here
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1249 from an admitedly unfortunate souce.

Screwtape said...

Vat I vant to know iss did ve take Poland and vas it in 14 or 16 days?

Dat's all I vant to know. Do not elaborate, or it's de bunker for you!

Pyrogrunt said...

An interesting thing happened at my parish-- We received permission to have the Latin Mass at 1030 on Sundays. The "table" was put back to its original position and now every N.O. Mass the priest has his back turned toward the pews. I think the next baby step by the priests may be "old Mass" said in english. Waiting for a visit from the bishop

Pyro

Screwtape said...

A play on a traditional haiku:

There are many steps back to Tradition
He'll make them all but one.

And that, to paraphrase Frost, will make all the difference. With God, it's all or none.

Janice said...

Gillibrand,

You DO cite an unfortunate source. If is Fr. Joseph Komonchak, who characterizes himself as a "Thomist," but who has spent his life as a "Transcendental Thomist," which is hardly the same thing. Transcedental Thomism is pure subjectivity, with nary a trace of objective Truth to be found. Its progenitors are Bernard Lonergan, Karl Rahner, et al.

Moreover, Komonchak's article was hardly objective toward Pope Benedict and, in many respects, it was factually incorrect. While Joseph Ratzinger disliked Suarezian scholastic theology (a corruption of Thomas, he has quoted Aquinas in various books and articles he has written. Komonchak "pointedly" notes that Ratzinger, after having studied Augustine, went on to study St. Bonaventura, "once again avoiding Aquinas." This is a tendentious statement. There are other theologians besides Aquinas and one of them, a great one, is St. Bonaventura, who does not get nearly the respect and study he deserves (Komonchak makes a great display of Bonaventura's late anti-intellectualism, without mentioning that Joseph Ratzinger also recognized this in his own writings).

Komonchak further identifies the neo-Thomist stream of Vatican II as those figures who wanted a "positive" interaction with the modern world. Again, a tendentious statement, which I would characterize as naive, if not dissembling. They wanted to throw over the past, in their haste to initiate a "rapprochement" with the modern world. Don't forget: these people were Thomists. The ressourcement figures, some of whom, but not all, were Thomists (Danielou, de Lubac) were also informed by Augustinianism, which is inherently more suspicious of the attractions of "this world." Don't forget: Ratzinger was most critical of Gaudium et spes.

Komonchak's point in this article is to position Pope Benedict as an intransigent, reactionary. Komonchak writes: "Through various stages, philosophy abandoned the ontological and metaphysical attitude that once marked it." Well, yes, and one of the reasons that happened was that those Thomists who rushed out to meet the world were part of the reason. It was not simply the Enlightenment. That circumstance presented a challenge to the Church. The collapse of the Church came from within and Komonchak's fellow travellers can claim the credit for this.

Komonchak's perspective is on display most succinctly in his analysis of the Pope's installation homily. He does not seem to recognize Benedict's Augustinian allusions (or chooses not to). This leads him to write: "The net of the gospel pulls us out of the waters of death and brings us into the splendor of God's light, into true life." Beautiful as is the description of what the gospel has to offer, is it the case that apart from Christ the world is only a desert, or "salt waters of suffering and death," "darkness without light"? This is an extraordinary statement. It is a relativistic statement. It is the kind of statement one makes after a rapprochement with the world.

Komonchak's outlook and evaluation of Pope Benedict is an illustration of the problems of the Church today. This is why I continually question, not always Thomas himself, but some of his "collaborators." Some are wolves in sheeps clothing.

Janice said...

By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I was once a student of Fr. Komonchak. I took two classes from him as part of my doctoral program. I should say he's not the best teacher I ever had (he's more about anecdotes than teaching). He also took every opportunity to criticize then-Cardinal Ratzinger, although now I understand he now takes every opportunity to say he "has worked" with Benedict XVI, which to my knowledge he never has.

By the way, Br. Alexis: why are you ALWAYS so disrespectful of the Holy Father? Many times, he has offered the Tridentine Mass. He is a deeply holy man and he has always been very involved with and supportive of the restoration of the Tridentine Mass (as have his friends Cardinals Medina and Castrillon Hoyos). I thought one of the rules of the blog was not to disrespect the Pope, yet you continue to do so.

ClemensMaria said...

Janice wrote:

Don't forget: Ratzinger was most critical of Gaudium et spes.


I hope he wasn't critical of it on this blog because he would be in danger of being excommunicated by the self-appointed guardians of the faith here. Or at least he would be labeled schismatic. And not only that but we would all be forced to agree that he is terribly disrespectful of the pope. Oh and I almost forgot that we would all have to condemn him for not being completely submissive to the doctrinally binding documents of the Second Vatican Council.

If he keeps this up we may be forced to start calling him a neo-Nazi.

Sixtus V said...

Brother is disrespectful of the Holy Father because he is a crypto-protestant (who happens to like Latin and high altars). Lacking the support of any modern princes, he is forced to share his table talk with us. Father Luther could, however, be funny.

Sixtus V

Sixtus V said...

Sorry Clemensmaria we have to turn you over to the secular authority, for temporal punishment. Now where is that wood we were keeping for Brother?

Sixtus V

old jack said...

I believe it's in Salt of the Earth, his first book of interviews with Peter Seewalt, that Cardinal Ratzinger said that he didn't like scholasticism because it made everything so cut and dried, or words pretty much to the same effect.

Now what does this mean, if not that theology and philosophy are something besides assimilating a previously existing truth? And what else can they be besides, except either (1) trying to relate to, or catch up, or make your peace with an ever-changing truth, or (2) making up your own truth as you go along? And can you find for me in scripture, tradition or the magisterium before 1962, anything in support of (1) and (2)? Didn't think so, which may explain Brother Alexis' "disrespect." It's hard to respect a man who is at best deluding himself.

Janice said...

Those of you who think Pope Benedict has only an "aethetic" appreciation for Latin and high altars would do well to read three of his books: "The Spirit of the Liturgy"; "On the Way to Jesus Christ"; and "Principles of Catholic Theology." I think many of your misconceptions would be laid to rest and you could get on to criticizing other people.

By the way, I understand some of your like Cardinal Jorge Medina. He has written some good books as well. He also celebrates the Tridentine rite.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Janice,

Here are some links to Ratzinger's Published views:

Against Scholasticism:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_018_RatzingerScholasticism.htm

That the Church should destroy those things of the past which protected the Faith:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_029_RatzingerRazeBastions.htm

That he fears men, more than God:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A118rcRatzingerCommunionSchtz.htm

Some of Ratzingers' positions, are quite shocking:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m007rpRatzingerTrueColors_May05.shtml

That he approvingly rejects the Syllabus of Errors:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_031_RatzingerCouterSyllabus.htm

You can find many more articles, at the same website, which mention Ratzinger, and give you photocopies of the articles in which he makes his statements.

BTW, it is not disrespectful to say the truth: I have the greatest respect for the Holy Father, as Pope; but as a theologian, I do not think he is an honest man.

Legion of Mary said...

Bugnolo,

Your claims that the Holy Father "hates scholasticism" are totally unfounded. Those links to Tradition in Action give absolutely no basis for "hatred" of scholastic theology much less an "ostracizing" of those who prefer the TLM exclusively. Retract you false accusations immediately. You quote St Alphonsus and St Francis De Sales but I cannot imagine that either of these two Doctors of the Church would tolerate your criticism of your immediate superior -- much less the Bishop of Rome.

Jordan Potter said...

Brother Alexis, I just read the first link, on the Holy Father's alleged rejection of medieval Scholasticism. However, the quote at that webpage says nothing of medieval Scholasticism, but instead refers to Neo-Scholasticism, which, as I recall, is a 19th. century approach to Catholic theology. For all the strengths and logical rigor of Neo-Scholasticism, it's hard to disagree with Pope Ratzinger's observations that if one attempted to preach the Gospel today using Neo-Scholastic forms and arguments, one would not be particularly successful. However, Pope Ratzinger obviously has not rejected Neo-Scholasticism out of hand. So I'm afraid that website has misinterpreted what the Pope (then Cardinal) said. But then it appears they were just poring over his statements on a hunt for prooftexts that he is a heretic, so it's unsurprising that they'd not try to understand what he said and would cast his words in a bad light.

Jordan Potter said...

The folks at "Tradition In Action" seem to me to read Pope Benedict's utterances the way fundamentalist Protestants read the Bible. I've had personal experience with that way of "reading," having been a fundamentalist for many years before converting to Catholicism.

ClemensMaria said...

Mr. Potter,

Are the "razing the bastions" and "counter-syllabus" quotes mere fundamentalist prooftexts? If the quotes on TIA are not enough to make you blink or even entertain the most fleeting doubt, would thousands of raped boys and hundreds of closed churches cause you any consternation about the direction in which we are being lead by our popes and bishops? If so, why do you quibble with TIA? According to Canon Law (1983) the laity are allowed to make known their concerns about the governance of the Church (I don't recall the section nor the exact wording). As far as I can tell TIA and Br. Bugnulo are not undermining the faith or the authority of the pope and bishops but rather they are making known their concerns about the governance of the Church. This criticism presupposes the legitimacy of the governors (popes and bishops). I don't know what your purpose in commenting here is but if you intend to persuade, you undermine your efforts when you demonize (protestentize?) people who have obviously put far more effort into their arguments than you have.


Legion,

I cannot imagine that Frank Duff would tolerate your impudence in addressing a religious brother by his surname only. Don't you have a herd of pigs to haunt?

Janice said...

Clemensmaria,

Clerical pedophilia, etc., occurred long before Vatican II. You cannot lay every sin since Adam on the shoulders of the 21st ecumenical council. Sin has been around always. We only know more about the particulars.

Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, Thomas Aquinas' theology has been corrupted many times over the centuries, most notably by the Suarezian theologians (this is analogous to the way Origen's theology was corrupted by the Origenists, which resulted in the condemnation of Origen himself in 553). They selected a certain way of proclaiming the faith, which grew sterile over time (if it was not so even at its inception) and was completely ineffective even before the mid-twentieth century. Both clerics and laity, moreover, had grown acquiescent in the faith, merely assenting to it, but not really committing to heart. THAT'S why it was so easy for them to fall away from it, once the transcendental Thomists, the "existential" Thomists, and the Aristotelian Thomists ran with Gaudium et spes and proclaimed to the world that the Church and the world were at one (obviously, they all did this in slightly different ways). These hermeneutics were no improvement on Suarezian scholasticism, but only a way to "nuance" an abandonment of Church teaching. Authentic Thomism would never countenance these three approaches, nor, however, would it countenance the Suarezians.

Janice said...

Jordan Potter,

You should be careful about criticizing prooftexting (TIA, fundamentalists). The Fathers of the Church also used prooftexts, but they were not fundamentalists. So did the medieval exegetes.

Rafael said...

Janice said:
"Clerical pedophilia, etc., occurred long before Vatican II. You cannot lay every sin since Adam on the shoulders of the 21st ecumenical council. Sin has been around always. We only know more about the particulars."

Janice you're right - and yet not right. Of course there was clerical pedophilia long before Vatican II but it happened on a very very minute scale compared to what's happening today. At least for Germany I know that in the 1930s the Nazis attempted to bring up any "clerical pedophilia" dirt they could find in their fight against the Catholic Church. They tried hard, they dug deep (and they had the resources of the German State at their disposal!) but eventually they had to give up because they simply couldn't come up with anything useful.

The same is true with many other problems we face today in the Catholic Church: Of course they didn't simply come out of the blue in 1965 but at least before Vatican II they were kept well in check.

Janice said...

Raphael,

I take your point. But you're using Vatican II as a substitute for society in general. Unfortunately, Vatican II coincided with the breakdown in society. And since the priests who were recruited came from the same people who were now "liberated" from societal strictures, it's no wonder that they did not feel they had to conform to anything approximating decent behavior.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Regarding the Link I posted on Ratzinger and Scholasticism, I gave the wrong link, presuming incorrectly that the link I was giving was to the article which I read a year ago. It was not.

Here is the correct reference and quote:

-----------

From the Chapter "Contradiçoes so Libreo "Infalivel" de Hans Kung" by Joseph Ratzinger, which appeared in the book, O Problema da Infallibilidad (Sao Paolo, Edicioes Loyola, 1974, on p. 110): this is the Official Portuguese translation of Zum Problem Unfehlbarkeit, (Karl Rahner editor, 1971), in which Ratzinger's chapter appeared.

Joseph Ratzinger wrote there:

"I want to emphasize again that I decidedly agree with [Hans] Kung when he makes a clear distinction between Roman theology (taught in the schools of Rome) and the Catholic Faith. To free itself from the constraining fetters of Roman Scholastic Theology represents a duty upon which, in my humble opinion, the possibility of the survival of Catholicism seems to depend"

Now if by Roman Scholastic Theology he means Neo-Scholasticism, I would like to see proof of that. Because as far as I am aware, such fine scholastic theologians (not Neo Scholastics) such as Garrigou Lagrane were teaching in Rome during Fr. Ratzinger's days there (JPII studied under the former).

Without such proof, one must presume that he is speaking simply, and condemns Scholasticism per se.

As for Ratzinger and Bonaventure, I do not see anything at all in the former's writings which in any way authentically represents the thought of the Latter: and I have read some of both. The former is a hegelian, and has like the Ontologists before him, read into Bonaventure what he wanted to find there. Sts. Bonaventure and Thomas are so close in their theology as to be intellectual brothers of the highest degree. No true appreciator of St. Bonaventure, would in my opinion hold the view that such terms as "transubstantiation" are impossible for modern men to comprehend or accept. A view which the Holy Father holds dear, since he has appointed to the CDF a sucessor who holds the same view (do a search on the web for references and testimony).

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

As for hating Scholasticism, my remark is accurate, inasmuch as if you consider Scholasticism a threat to the Truth Faith, without which men cannot be saved, you must hate it. Of course if he does not believe Catholicism is the Truth Faith, then he may just have said what he said, like the aestete says that he thinks that Bach is a threat to the very existence of Romanticism.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
With Peter said...

Jordan Potter said- "But then it appears they were just poring over his statements on a hunt for prooftexts that he is a heretic, so it's unsurprising that they'd not try to understand what he said and would cast his words in a bad light."

Isn't this an all too typical approach? One reason I respect the central leadership of SSPX (in distinction to many of their apologizers and the various other traditionalist groups who lean toward sedevacantist) is the careful, serious, limited, consistent criticism of the Council and post-conciliar magisterium. While I believe these criticisms are wrong and dangerous to faith, I respect the honesty, clarity and charity that they demonstrate.

With Peter said...

Dear Brother Brugnolo, you write: "I only pity [the pope], for his lack of fidelity and piety and sincerity."

As I gloss your posts, it seems regular for you to make judgments of the Holy Father's internal personal disposition. Don't you believe this is rather presumptuous? I can know that a person's words are wrong, but I cannot claim to judge the internal causes within one's mind and soul.

Even if you judging the sincerity and piety of someone less than the Holy Father, I would object to this approach. Whether it proceeds from your ignorance or malice--I can't see inside your heart--but what you are doing is uncharitable and uncatholic. God is your Father and judge and mine also. As your brother, I simply wish to offer fraternal correction.

Legion of Mary said...

Bro Bugnolo states:

"Why does he insist to ostracize those who wish to retain this rite exclusively?"

I have not seen any proof for such an accusation. In fact, Cdl Ratzinger states in "Salt of the Earth":

"I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that."

Bro Bugnolo -- if you think that Cld Ratzinger ostracizes people who prefer the TLM...why did you write him? Particularly when your situation had nothing to do with his responsibility with the CDF?

As far as scholastic theology is concerned, it is going to take a little more than one obscure paragraph from 35 years ago to build a case that the Pope "hates the medieval synthesis of the faith exemplified in scholastic theology." Nowhere in his writings will you find the rejection of St Thomas or a recommendation to ignore his writings.

Please retract your false accusations as they are unbecoming of a brother of St Francis.

MacK said...

So, His Holiness objects to the clericalism in the liturgy which is worse than before. Obviously, he implies he did not like the liturgy before as there were abundant good priests to actually celebrate Holy Mass in a truly holy, catholic & harmonious manner without feeling the need to endlessly perform and entertain and try to bring in the crowds. This was unnecessary since the faithful loved going to Holy Mass and derived immense spiritual sustinence from it. It produced a countless number of great theologians, saints, popes, bishops and priests. Also, there were no extraneous "add-ons" or "takeaways" and no infinite novelties such as Hindu scriptures as we find being read in some NO services in India or protestant antics in western new churches or pagan dancing round the table in the same places and elsewhere. Roman Catholic churches were warm lieus of Real Presence and reverential prayer unlike the modern ones representing pluralist bewilderment, minimalist emptiness and brutalist despair which frequently have nowhere to kneel these days.

And the consequences? emptying churches and seminaries; doctrinal confusion and continual unnecessary changes - the dechritianisation of christendom which horrifies even yourself, Holy Father.

Indeed, Your Holiness, bring back the pre-conciliar "clericalism" which you did not like and which you worked through VC II with Rahner, von Balthasar, Lubacs and minority company to raze bastions for a reform which is now, as you admit, in dire need of reform. Perhaps it would be simpler than you contemplate - a simple admission that you and your reformist friends were wrong as the evidence cries out and attests. We actually do need well-trained priests and a christocentric liturgy led by priests. They should be male. They should be on a sanctuary facing God, not the laity who themselves should return to the main body of the church where they belong, except for well-trained male altar servers. It should be unambiguously sacrificial in nature and, as Padre Pio did every time he celebrated Mass, it should lead us to Calvary to be with Our Blessed Lord and Saviour.

Perhaps, too, the currently dying Sacrament of Confession (beautifully referred to recently on this website) would revive and the church could expel Freud and Jung forever [and their blame everyone else except myself norm] since they do not offer abundant graces of repentance, true contrition for sin, the fruit of forgiveness and the grace of penance to repay sin-debt. You do remember sin, don't you?

Janice said...

MacK,

The Holy Father was the one who criticized Gaudium et spes for not addressing sufficiently the presence of sin in the world.

You yourself are viewing the pre-Vatican II Church through rose-colored glasses. It was not as golden as you think. Many times, people just went through the motions, including the priests and bishops. Theology was dead. It was reduced to propositions and no new insights were produced. People, in general, did not have a personal relationship with God, they merely went to Church because it was something they had been raised to do. It is better, I think, that people go to Church because they desire to do so, rather than because it is something their familiy does out of habit.

Pope Benedict has said many times that the Church may find itself in the position of small communities of convinced Catholics out of which the Church will be reborn. I think we are already there. How else do you attribute the quick collapse of the practice of the faith after Vatican II? Presumably, if there had been all those devoted Pre-Vatican II Catholics, there would not have been such a quick exit from the faith as occurred in the 1960s? Why didn't they stay?

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Legion of Mary,

It is you who falsely accuse me, because as is clear from what I said initially, I am speaking about actions, not words.

Even a crocodile can weep.

If you think a man is sincere by his words alone, you dissent from Our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, who said, judge a man by his deeds, not his words.

Thus it is I who am being a faithful franciscan, in saying that this teaching of Our Lord applies to all, even the pope, whereas you show yourself erring from the faith, indefending him for his actionless words.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

To one and all,

This blog comment section is supposed to be a discussion about the text New Catholic and his coeditors publish.

So often however, many object to my right to speak the truth according to the facts and the Faith, and makes this comment section a discussion about me rather than the post.

So for the viewing pleasure of those who demure, I will no longer visit this blog, as it is clear to me that there is here, either those who already know the truth, and have no need of my comments, and those who have no need of the truth, who don't want to know my comments about it.

The latter I warn in the Lord, you will find others like me throughout your life, and if you seek to squelch them as you have squelched me, you will find yourself eventually without anyone to wake you from the slumber of your own reality.

Be assured of my prayers.

I say this, so that you may understand something about real Charity, which wishes the salvation of the other so much, that it would risk losing the friendship of the other by means of speaking a word of truth which is cutting, precisely because the boil of pride and or ignorance in the other is so swollen, and needs and must be lanced by no other means.

The modern world connotes truth with political correctness, kissing up, sentimentality, feeling the others pain, while wanting to inflict all the more, and being welcoming and sensitive to all whom they seek to dominate with a world of lies.

As Catholics Our Lord wishes us to reject this carnal damnable way of life, and seek the Truth above all.

It is not unchariable to me to have attempted to shake some of you from your slumber or ignorance or malice by stark words.

However, if you do seek the truth, and nevertheless misunderstood my intentions, then please reconsider what I have said over the last few months here, and do some studying, because perhaps I have said something that you did not know, though was false, but is in fact true.

God's peace to one and all, to some who merit it, and to others that they may merit it.

Sixtus V said...

Brother,

When you want to rejoin us in the great challenge of the Restoration with the See of Peter, and with the Peter of our age Benedict, you are most welcome.

Sixtus V

MacK said...

Even more disturbing is the fact that not only has the Tabernacle been removed from its rightful place but the presbyter's chair, table & candles now yield a pseudo-sanctuary resembling a masonic temple. Hardly a coincidence in view of the origins of the Bugnini service.

With Peter said...

Mack, in speaking of the origins of the "Bugnini service," are you referring to (1) the reform of Holy Week during the 1950s or (2) St. Pius X's 1913 Motu Proprio Abhinc Duos Annos?

Or are you suggesting the that a possible closet-free mason has more power to pervert the Church than the Holy Spirit has to protect her?

Screwtape said...

Cher With Peter:

You are so much of a delight to Our Master Below. You help to make His Dishonor's war against the Enemy so much easier.

The so-called "heresy" of Donatism first came up with the eradication of the distinction between man and (ugh!) Church. It is so pleasing to see you help to keep it alive.

And to think that the monstrous Enemy you mentioned would go against Himself and remove free will! Such magnificent blasphemy!

The confusion that you sow aids our cause to such an extent that we know not how to thank you (but we are preparing your "reward").

(For eyes only: great work, Wormwood - but you'd better keep it up or vous êtes pain grillé, and you know what that's like, you fetid, maggot-ridden, unfatted kite!)

Hatefully yours,

Screwtape, Middle-management Fiend Extraordinaire.

With Peter said...

A Donatist believes that God cannot effect sacraments through an unworthy minister. Likewise, he would believe that a pope must be particularly holy or intelligent in order to be God’s chosen instrument in teaching, governing and sanctifying the Church. But you forget, Wormwood, that God opened the demonic’s mouth to bear witness to the Christ, and Caiaphas’ mouth to proclaim that meaning of his sacrifice. God opened the mouth of Balaam’s ass and caused Saul to prophesy.

Whether Peter is saintly or sinful, he is chosen by the Father to be vicar of the Son and guided by the Holy Spirit and that is why I stand

With Peter

With Peter said...

"Screwtape," do you have a point in all this? I've always thought you are very clever, NGB, but do you think you have placed the importance of appearing clever above the importance of being truthful?

Jordan Potter said...

"You should be careful about criticizing prooftexting (TIA, fundamentalists). The Fathers of the Church also used prooftexts, but they were not fundamentalists. So did the medieval exegetes."

"Prooftexting" is not the same thing as quoting passages of the Bible to support or to illustrate a doctrine of the Faith. "Prooftexting" involves latching onto any text that sounds like it would support one's beliefs or opinions, even if it means ripping the text out of context and twisting it all out of shape. It's a shallow way of reading a text. The Fathers and medieval exegetes were not shallow, and they did not as a rule ignore context and the plain sense of the Scriptures texts that they interpreted.