Rorate Caeli

Secretary Bertone and the Traditionalist Question

Il Giornale reports today that Cardinal Bertone, the new Secretary of State, has some interesting words to say in his interview to the current issue of the magazine 30 Giorni (which is not currently available in their website):

"If, from the Lefebvrist side, there is a sincere will to reenter into full communion with the Holy See, it will not be difficult to find the adequate ways to achieve this result."
The Cardinal remembers his own experience as an aide to Cardinal Ratzinger during the 1988 discussions with Archbishop Lefebvre:

"A very demanding and interesting experience, even if the results were not positive. But the discussion is now reopened, especially after the historic audience granted by Benedict XVI to Bishop Bernard Fellay in the past year."

45 comments:

Iosephus said...

Perhaps it's too early for me to say this - but isn't great to have a man in the Secretary of State's office of whom we can be proud? Or at least look to with some confidence?

How long have we had to wince when we think of the Cardinal Secretaries of State? From Villot, that assasin, through Sodano; not much celebrate.

Former Altar Boy said...

Did anyone notice the Cardinal referred to him as BISHOP Fellay, rather than the usual "Msgr." I've seen in previous interviews from other Vatican sources?

New Catholic said...

No, it was «Monsignor» in the original text, which we usually choose to translate as Bishop, so as to avoid confusion with the title of Monsignor -- title to which all bishops have due right, but which may cause some misunderstandings.

Moretben said...

"If, from the Lefebvrist side, there is a sincere will to reenter into full communion with the Holy See, it will not be difficult to find the adequate ways to achieve this result."

Watch out. This can be understood in quite another way: "If no settlement is reached, it won't be OUR fault". In other words, insistance on discussion of the Council will be sufficient evidence of lack of any "sincere will to reenter into full communion with the Holy See".

When we see deeds, rather than words, we can begin to assume that both sides are speaking the same language. So far - no change from '88, wishful thinking apart.

Long-Skirts said...

Josephus said...
"...isn't great to have a man in the Secretary of State's office of whom we can be proud?"

BLIND FROGGY
Litto froggy cross da pond
Hope some fairy's got a wand
Hit you hard up-side yo head
Shed some light...yo brains is bread.

You ain't got sense, no nuffin'
Brains is made of bran-flake muffin.
Wolfy pop done called you near
Ups you hopped, ran like a deer.

Him brother froggies followed too
And jumped right in wolf poppy's stew.
Then there you be all puffed with pride
And one by one them froggies died.

Then wolfy pop, he called, "My sons?"
And wolfy pop, his meal all dones,
Says, "Litto frog get outa' hea'.
Tomorrow bring yo sistas dea'."

And litto frog, he hop away
'Cause litto frog, he do obey.
And litto froggy hopped, hopped, hop,
Tumbled, tripped into his Pop.

And froggy Pop asked, "What you say?"
Said litto frog, "I do obey,
And all my litto brothers, too,
They helped the wolf make sheepy stew."

Then froggy Pop, him hung him head,
And took him son away and led
Him hoppin' down the woodsy lane
And put in froggy's hand his cane

All shiney white to help him see...
...nuffin'.

Jordan Potter said...

If I understand correctly, in the Catholic Church I believe it is normal in Europe to refer to a bishop as "Msgr." So-and-so. It is not meant to imply that the bishop is not really a bishop.

MacK said...

It all depends on what he means by "full communion" with The Holy See. If it means swallowing wholesale the VC II agenda and its post-conciliar sequel then there are going to be some major points of divergence. SSPX is certainly in full communion with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Those are two valid reasons why the current Holy See appears to be out of "full communion".

Screwtape said...

Bertone, if memory serves me, was one of the chief liars regarding the burying of the "third secret" of Fatima under the aegis of Our Man In Rome.

Knick Knack Paddywack, okay, but I wouldn't give Bertone a bone. Used-car salesmen and lawyers have more integrity.

P.S. Rightyo Mack mate.

Sixtus V said...

Can anyone pick the Protestants out - hmmm - Mack and ngb, perhaps? Yep. Lutherans with a taste for lace.

K Gurries said...

I think others here have previously made the valid point that insofar as the Holy See is indefectible it can never be "out of communion" with Sacred Tradition.

Screwtape said...

Careful Sixtus V:

I have pins and dolls and will travel.

Screwtape said...

P.S. Sixtus V:

The only Luther 'round heah is the sheriff's dirty old egg suckin' blood hound - Luther can even tie knots with his teeth and he never takes prisoners. Even his fleas kill.

If you call me Protestant (very nasty for a self-rightous nincompoop) I'll find ya. And then I'll let Luther's fleas loose.

To make such an accusation is positively cretinous.

Remember my motto: nemo me impune lacessit!

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Call me naive, but I think Cardinal Bertone yet will do much good.

He did say that the statment of the CDF on Fatima were "not infallible".

He is a salesian, and I wonder if Don Bosco's dream about the Pope who chains the Barque of Peter to the pillars of the Eucharits and of Our Lady Auxiliatrix, will yet be fufilled in him.

Screwtape said...

Br. AB:

I wouldn't call you naïve, but I think you are overly optimistic, else he wouldn't have been appointed.

The statement of the CDF may not be "infallible," however I believe it represents the sentiments in the Vatican and the direction they intend to take.

I suppose anyone would be an improvement over Sodano.

But even if he's an improvement, how could he hope to overcome OMIR (Our Man In Rome)?

MacK said...

Soon all NOites in Rome will have to clean the heresy (indeed, heresy not "hearsay" which predominates much NO fear of & vitriol against traditionalists) and schism from their own backyards but at present they dare not as it could leave them with less than half the current number of bishops. Sounds rather like the depopulation disaster currently occurring in NO seminaries & convents, n'est-ce pas?

What was that Our Blessed Saviour warned us about barren fig trees?

Jordan Potter said...

"SSPX is certainly in full communion with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture."

I wish that were true, but one of the most important teachings of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is full communion and obedience to the Holy See. By that rule of faith, not only the SSPX but even many bishops, priests, and laity of the Catholic Church are not in full communion with or in obedience to the Holy See.

"Those are two valid reasons why the current Holy See appears to be out of 'full communion'."

Out of communion with what or with whom? The rule of faith in Catholicism is that all must be in full communion with the Holy See. The Holy See cannot be cut off from communion with itself -- that's just gibberish.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Well, I for one wish the Holy Father were in full communion with Scripture and Tradition.

As Cardinal he said in a lecture, which he later published, that the Bible is only inerrant in matters of faith and morals; and that it could have historical errors!

As Cardinal he made an intervention prior to the release of the current Catechism, in which he said that this new Cathechism is an improvement because it frees the faith from the terminology of a past age, which is too burdensome for modern men to accept, and which would be wrong to require men of today to accept, since it is impossible for men of today to think in categories of a past age!

I am not saying what he said is heresy, because the former is just a blasphemy and contrary to fide pia, and the latter is downright contemporary cultural centrism, and arrogance, and pride, not to mention inanity of reasoningn.

But neither put you in full commuion with Fatih and Scripture, because the Church and every Catholic has always believed that the Bible contains no error of any kind, not even historical error, and that all the terminology of past ages employed by catholic writers is just as acceptible by all the terminoly used by catholic theologians of modern times, because the Faith, which unites us across the centureis is the Same Faith, and makes both sets of terminology intelligible.

So if he would shed his greast predjudices which are so anti-catholic in their spirit, it would be easy to see that some Traditionalists have no need of communion with him, because he would be in communion with them, and end the game of calling them out of communion and forcing them to operate in non-juridical fashion.

MacK said...

Brother Alexis,

It is the actual arrogance of newchurch & its hierarchy to imagine that everything they contrive is supposed to be an "improvement". JP II claimed he was "improving" recitation of The Most Holy Rosary of The Blessed Virgin Mary by adding inappropriately another set of so-called "mysteries"; Bugnini and his pope thought they were "improving" the Mass with their protestant service; Sacred Scriptures are "improved" by new translations and so it continues.

Such are these self-confessed "improvements" that NO catholics know less about their faith than before, their conceptual understanding is more limited (transubstantiation & the true nature of the Magisterium are typical examples) and they fail to recognise the ineptitude of continual changes since VC II which have emptied out churches, seminaries and convents by the tens of thousands. What an "improvement"!

What was it Our Blessed Lord stated about rotten fruits?

Jordan Potter said...

"As Cardinal he said in a lecture, which he later published, that the Bible is only inerrant in matters of faith and morals; and that it could have historical errors!"

Do you have a source citation, or something to identity and contextualise this alleged statement?

"As Cardinal he made an intervention prior to the release of the current Catechism, in which he said that this new Cathecism is an improvement because it frees the faith from the terminology of a past age, which is too burdensome for modern men to accept, and which would be wrong to require men of today to accept, since it is impossible for men of today to think in categories of a past age!"

Sounds like the primary pastoral aim of the Most Holy General Council known as Vatican II, and also seems to be in keeping with St. Paul's "becoming all things to all, that I might by any means save some."

"end the game of calling them out of communion and forcing them to operate in non-juridical fashion."

No one is forcing them to not be in full communion with the Catholic Church. It's by their own choice, because in their consciences they sincerely and firmly believe they are right and the Catholic Church is wrong. Hopefully we'll be able to patch things up with the SSPX soon -- they have received special gifts that the Church will greatly benefit from (and personally I would get a kick out of certain bishops gnashing their teeth and groaning when they think that the SSPX is once more a full-fledged and legitimate part of the Church, operating with the blessing of the Holy Father).

*****

"Furthermore, the very 'Holy See' they obey, disobeys Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition."

If it weren't for the Holy See, you wouldn't even be able to talk about Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, Mack.

It's pretty hard not to notice that you make a big deal about Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, but when it comes to the Sacred Magisterium you seem to have only malice and calumny and half-truths or falsehoods. Of course this you must do, since in your religion the Sacred Magisterium has been replaced by yourself. It's very telling that you accuse the Catholic Church of being virtually Protestant. As our Lord said, those who accuse do the same things -- the primary Protestant principle of private judgment is what undergirds your version of the Catholic faith.

"I would not want to be before Almighty God and have to admit to encouraging such blatant disrespect for His Will"

Well what else is it you're doing when you categorically reject a General Council and heap abuse on the Holy Father? It's one thing to deplore the problems in the Church today and all the nonsense that has been perpetrated in the name of Vatican II. It's one thing to point out that the Council has not been properly implemented. These days you just can't be a faithful, orthodox Catholic and not do that, it seems to me. But it's just impossible to reject a valid, binding Council -- not if one wishes to be a Catholic anyway. So, if you're really concerned about Judgment Day, put your own house in order. Then, if you still have time, you can see if you've been given the authority to decide for everyone else what the Holy Catholic Faith is and isn't.

As for your reference to Jesus' words about rotten trees and rotten fruit, He was talking about false prophets, spurious or disqualified religious leaders -- individuals, not whole churches. It's contrary to the Catholic faith to take His words as a litmus test for whether or not the Catholic Church's Magisterium is still the Catholic Church's Magisterium. If that's what He meant, well, the Church must have defected many times in her history: just look at the horrible mess in the Church that led to the Protestant Reformation, or consider the Arian crisis, or the Avignon Papacy. By their fruits you shall know them, right? The leaders of the Catholic Church produced some pretty rotten fruit in days gone by, so that proves they weren't legitimate leaders of the Church at all, right?

Screwtape said...

JP:

One thing I've learned about Br. AB is that, although I've had mild disagreements with him from time to time on inessential matters, when it comes to what he's talking about he knows what he's talking about. So does Mr. Mack.

You're takin' on the wrong dudes in the middle of this here street. Better make sure that toy hangin' from your belt is loaded with more than silly caps and that you're damn fast on a hair trigger. I'd wish you luck, except you ain't got any an' you daid wrong.

Regarding the point you're struggling to make, you were shot through the center of your eyes before you started, and just too stubborn mulish to recognize it and fall down - onto your knees, and preferably in a Traditional Mass.

MacK said...

It no longer amazes me how NO newchurchers hang on to their misunderstandings and mistaken notions of Roman Catholicism. They entangle themselves in doctrinal snares made for them by their modernist, liberal and phenomenological hierarchs.

On the question of "full communion" with Rome, the case is publicly made by Cardinal William Kasper in his address to the "House of Bishops" of the "Church of England" on June 5, 2006, concerning its debate over whether to "ordain" women "bishops". This is already a reality in the American and Canadian branches of the "Anglican Communion", if some members here are not already aware.

Let's consider a quote from this severe sufferer from post-conciliar "ecumenia nervosa" at said so-called "House of Bishops". What a thus-nominated "Roman Catholic" Cardinal was doing there in the first place can only be explained by JP II's significant but very embarassing public embrace of the Anglican leader's ring some years ago.

He stated, "Ecumenical dialogue in the true sense of the word has as its goal the restoration of full Church communion. That has been the presupposition of our dialogue until now. That presupposition would realistically no longer exist following the introduction of the ordination of women to episcopal office."

Considering the implications of this particular part of his ecumenical "full communion" theme we can state the following. It implies that there could actually be "full Church communion" between the Anglican Church, a human organization founded by the multiple adulterer & murderer Henry VIII that preaches a "gospel" full of heresy and immorality (with approved sodomite & divorced pastors), and the Catholic Church, founded by God Incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Of course, Kasper would say Christ's Church only "subsists" in the Roman Catholic Church. That in itself reveals the extent of his scriptural & doctrinal ignorance.

Also, what he said implies the ordination of women as priests is not really an obstacle to "full Church communion," when the clear unscriptural nature of women priests in and through itself precludes any possibility of "communion" between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican "Church".

Finally, here, "full Church communion" as a statement (and by a high ranking newchurch hierarch to boot) implicitly denies the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, amply and clearly confirmed in "Dominus Iesus", that Protestant sects, including the "Church" of England, are not churches at all, since they lack Holy Orders, as Pope Leo XIII infallibly declared in "Apostolicae Curiae", and a valid Holy Eucharist. Hence there is only one way for Anglicans to achieve "full Church communion" with Catholics: by leaving the Anglican schismatic sect and becoming members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

So, what is this nonsense about Traditonalists not being in "full communion" with The Holy Roman Catholic Church? Kasper has reaffirmed the possibility of "full communion" for the dying Anglican sect if only it will not ordain women bishops. It can keep its sodomite pastors, its Henrician protestantism, its women "priests", its multiple heresies, its cranmerian service and all the other invalid "sacramentals" and it is still possible to be in "full communion" with newchurch. Only do not ordain women bishops.

There we have it for the world to see - the post-conciliar official line on "full communion".

Our Blessed Lord called the Jewish Church leadership hypocrits and not without some justification.

MacK said...

Ah yes, the Sacred Magisterium which guaranteed to all Roman Catholics in perpetuity The Latin Mass of all times and propagated the Traditonal Catechism. And which in post-conciliar times most bishops have attempted by subterfuge to remove from liturgical and catechitical tradition and reduce to the status of "fossils". Was the "fossil" of The Latin Mass supposed to represent a "deposit" of The Faith or were the newchurch hierarchy trying to turn it into an archeological deposit?

Which ever way we look at it, newchurchers treat the Sacred Magisterium like most other parts of the Sacred Tradition of The Roman Catholic Church - mutable, adaptable, subjective and always capable of being moulded round novel meanings like "universal salvation" and any genre of ecumenical and interfaith enterprise some of which contradict the above said Catechism. Moreover, note the example above by Cardinal Kasper which only a phenomenologist can explain away.

What was it G. Bush jnr said about the French not having a word for "entrepreneur"? But Newchurchers certainly have an expression they use to cover the quasi-authority of all types of pastoral and neo-doctrinal concepts, "magisterium" which is undoubtedly not a French word. Then they add "sacred" to it in order to give it some form of orthodoxy.

As I said before, when a pope tells me The Latin Mass of all times is the most precious liturgical resource the Roman Catholic Church possesses and he restates the teachings of the Traditional Catechism and that we may use both without fear and without persecution and without fear of error, then he is a Roman Catholic pope. When he says the Sacred Scriptures are without error in any form and we may rely absolutely on them then he is a Roman Catholic pope. When he talks and acts like a protestant [encouraging women on the sanctuary & bear-breated ones too & encouraging silence about paedophile priests] then I have no intention of manifesting false obedience. St Athanasius, St Bridget, St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine, Fra Savonarola and many other fine Catholics have instructed and some even demonstrated what good Roman Catholics should do in the face of such popes, indeed, some to the point of excommunication.

The striking contemporary paradox is that newchurch hierarchy accepts almost any form of disobedience from within its own rank and file, nothing said & very little done, but Traditionalists were an easy target for ridicule & persecution 40 years after the VCII. However, now the tide is visibly turning against newchurch it is beginning to demonstrate anxiety symptoms about itself and its thus-ascribed "spirit of the councils". Hence, conferences with Bishop Fellay and candid admissions VC II is not the "sacred cow", nor its sequel, everybody was led to believe. Anyone who openly and honestly reads the accounts of those councils and how Pope John XXIII's three years of preparation were literally thrown into the rubbish bin, cannot help but be arrested by the extent of the liberalist-modernist subterfuges.

Such subterfuges tried to make us believe the unbelievable. It has worked with some of you but not with all of us. Thanks are due to SSPX and all the other traditionalist organisations with a great deal of help by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, defended and propagated by the authentic Sacred Magisterium.

Jordan Potter said...

"Regarding the point you're struggling to make, you were shot through the center of your eyes before you started, and just too stubborn mulish to recognize it and fall down - onto your knees, and preferably in a Traditional Mass."

NGB, I guess we'll just have to wait and see if my arguments against Mack's defense of schism and disobedience can really be so easily demolished as you claim. There's nothing in his two most recent posts that addresses the points I made in anything close to an adequate fashion. The main thing he's done is to severely distort and twist out of all recognition Cardinal Kasper's recent comments regarding Anglicanism's continuing departure from Christian truth. Now, I've got a good deal of problems with Cardinal Kasper, but my problems are with things that he's actually said and done, and he didn't say anything even remotely like what Mack claims he said.

Mack also misstates my own position. I did not say "Traditionalists" are not in full communion. The SSPX is not in full communion, and even Brother Bugnolo has referred to the fact that the SSPX is not operating in juridical fashion. Many traditionalist Catholics are in full communion, but many others are not.

Mind you, I'm not sanguine that any interaction with Mack will be particularly edifying, especially given his grouping the fanatical Savonarola alongside saints. Savonarola is a classic case study in what is the most dreadfully wrong way to respond to the serious problems in the Church today.

Jordan Potter said...

Getting back to the ostensible topic, over at Catholic World News, Phil Lawler has linked to this interesting piece from Vittorio Messori

http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/viewmessaggi.aspx?f=65482&idd=460&p=10

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

As for the citations to the comemnts made by the at that time H.E. Cardinal Ratzinger,

the one about the Catechism was published on the 2 or 3rd wednesday of November, in 1992, in the Italian Edition of the paper.

the one about the bible was in a conference he gave on Scripture; I cannot remember the publisher, or the date, however, if you write Father Fessio S.J. I am sure that he does.

K Gurries said...

Interesting question on the historical accuracy of the bible. Obviously the Gospel accounts must be held as true historical events, however, are we required to hold that the bible is literally inerrant in every other historical detail (e.g., the literal account of the creation, the episode of Jonah and the whale, etc.)?

Screwtape said...

DEAR JORDAN POTTER:

Do not forsake me, oh my darliln' . . . look at that big hand move along, nearin' high noon.

In other words, you can wait and see, but some of us have already seen, and some of us don't need to see in order to know. You believe only what you see?

Meanwhile, don't take your guns to town, son, leave your guns at home, boy, don't take your guns to town.

MacK said...

Recent reports for church attendance in UK indicate about 900,000 attendances at Bugnini service on Saturday/Sundays which represents a fall to about 33% the level of when I was going to The Latin Mass in 1960s as a young chap. Also three holidays of obligation have been removed by the shameless decision of the leader Cardinal Cormack-Murphy (who also admitted earlier to the extinction of "catholicism" in UK). This was done in secret apparently: so much for a loving and open newchurch. In my own diocese when I lived in UK after VC II newchurch lost 5 religious institutions, some chapels closed and most parishes reduced the number of services due to declining attendances everywhere. This trend has since continued. The monastery near my home had 40 monks but now has 14 aged members and is moving from its post-conciliar mausoleum back to its traditional haunt: two of its members have gone back to saying The Latin Mass. There are no proper catholic secondary schools left. Also, the Neo-Catechumenal Way fresh from its public blessing by JP II divided and alienated three parishes with their brand of newchurch, including my own once beautiful and unified family-centred rapidly expanding Traditional parish. Considering other brands of newchurch, like Opus Dei, Focolare, protestant-type "Pentecostal" Charismatics and others who were also officially encouraged regardless of what they seem to believe, it is easy to understand why out of the consequent confusion and destruction new-catholics are caught between denial and a serious but tragic inability to realise the dog that was being sold in the 1960s is a badly deformed pup.

What happened in my parish with 4 catholic schools disappearing; two religious communities closing and several chapels closing is but a mere microcosm of the global situation. Judging by what we read about in rapidly protestantising Latin America and what we see on our travels in Asia and Europe, the symptoms are similar. Deny it as much as you wish, the reality continues to divide and destroy. One way or the other, such a condition has a finite limit. As the finances begin to run dry in the many legal suits and in frequent cases of clerical dishonesty the time for reckoning inevitably approaches.

Jordan Potter said...

"the one about the Catechism was published on the 2 or 3rd wednesday of November, in 1992, in the Italian Edition of the paper."

Thank you. But a follow-up question: is that L'Osservatore Romano or La Civilta Cattolica? Not that it would make much difference to me in a practical sense, since I don't know Italian, but I could probably find someone to translate the relevant passage.

"the one about the bible was in a conference he gave on Scripture; I cannot remember the publisher, or the date, however, if you write Father Fessio S.J. I am sure that he does."

Okay, I could probably do that.

Of course, I'm not denying that he said it, or that he could have said it. The Holy Father's approach to Bible interpretation is, in my opinion, vastly superior to, say, that of the late Fr. Raymond Brown's, but I've seen some statements of his regarding biblical interpretation that don't quite sit well with me. Anyway, I've also found that sometimes words are taken out of context or misinterpreted, or mistranslated, so I just want to see the quotes for myself so I can make sure there hasn't been any misunderstanding. Thanks for your help.

Jordan Potter said...

"Meanwhile, don't take your guns to town, son, leave your guns at home, boy, don't take your guns to town."

I'm so scared.

Jordan Potter said...

"Obviously the Gospel accounts must be held as true historical events, however, are we required to hold that the bible is literally inerrant in every other historical detail (e.g., the literal account of the creation, the episode of Jonah and the whale, etc.)?"

On those kinds of questions, I think the old PBC decrees from the beginning of the 20th century are still the proper approach (prescinding from the question of whether or not they are still binding, which I am inclined to believe them to be). The PBC at that time allowed leeway for non-literal interpretations of the days of creation week.

Basically my position is that of the good priests at the Roman Theological Forum. If the sacred writer is writing history, then it is inerrantly true. The story in Jonah is at the very least a substantially historical account, so that means Jonah really did see the inside of a large ocean-dwelling creature.

Jordan Potter said...

"Deny it as much as you wish, the reality continues to divide and destroy. One way or the other, such a condition has a finite limit. As the finances begin to run dry in the many legal suits and in frequent cases of clerical dishonesty the time for reckoning inevitably approaches."

It's not that difficult to notice these serious problems you mention that have been besetting the Church ever since the outbreak of craziness during the 1960s that was and is spuriously justified in the name of the Council. And I agree with you that the craziness is self-defeating and self-destructive, and an end to it is inevitable (though by then we'll face new and different kinds of silliness and error).

But it still doesn't justify disobedience or schism, nor can a faithful Catholic throw overboard an entire Oecumenical Council. We pray and work to end the problems you've mentiom; we don't go and become a part of the problem as the SSPX has done.

Jordan Potter said...

"Mentiom"? Not sure what language that is. It was supposed to be English . . . .

Eek, I'd better shut up. These multiple postings of mine are reminding me of Fr. O'Leary!

With Peter said...

Mack- As I read your posts, I cannot help but wonder what exactly you believe to be the power of Peter's keys. It seems like he can bind and loose nothing more than what he eats for breakfast each morning.

It seems to me that your pontifications leave very little room for the pontiff to pontificate. Which pope was it who said, "Tradition? I am tradition." I think it was Pius IX, but I may be mistaken.

gallicman1 said...

It is great to see Cardinal Bertone extending an olive branch to what he must consider as a schismatic organization, SSPX.

He stated he was with our current pope while they negotiated with Arch bishop Lefebvre. Of course he supported Vatican II and not our Holy Tradition.

How fitting it must seem to him that he is now extending his hand to bring back lost children into the bosom of Vatican II Church.

How frightening to the SSPX faithful to see the the jaws of the Vatican II church close in on them.

MacK said...

"Jaws" an apt expression for a monster which VCII certainly was & remains. One which has become out of control and, when we read the evidence here and elsewhere, it has undoubtedly eaten its own children who now reside in the belly of its darkness. Not a very nice place to be.

It appears highly unlikely that SSPX would allow itself to be consumed in such a prehistoric manner. It would only lead to even more closed churches and emptying out seminaries & convents. Only newchurcher seem to admire that.

Anyway, back to our celebrations of Our Blessed Lady's Glorious Assumption.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

That's the L'Osservatore Romano, of course.

New Catholic said...

Mr Jordan Potter is a very old acquaintance of this blog's editor: it is good to see you here, Jordan!

K Gurries said...

The following is an interesting extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the inerrancy of sacred scripture and also in connection to matters not strictly belonging to "Faith or Morals."

Catholic Encyclopedia on Hermeneutics

Thus far we have considered the inerrancy of the Bible which can never be lost sight of by the believing interpreter; we come now to the question of authority to which the Catholic exegete owes obedience.

Law of the Church

The Council of Trent (Sess. IV, De edit. et usu ss. II.) forbids that, in "matters of faith and morals belonging to the building-up of Christian doctrine", the Bible be explained against the sense held by the Church, or against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. The Tridentine Confession of Faith and the Vatican Council (Sess. III, Const. de fide cath., cap. ii) enjoin in a positive form that in "matters of faith and morals belonging to the building-up of Christian doctrine", the Scriptures be explained according to the teaching of the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers. In the article EXEGESIS the rules have been laid down which will ensure due conformity of Catholic exegesis with Catholic and patristic teaching; but little had been said about the meaning of the clause "in matters of faith and morals" and about the relation of ecclesiastical authority to hose truths which do not belong to "matters of faith and morals".

Meaning of the "Matter of Faith and Morals"

The phrase "matters of faith and morals" has been compared with St. Thomas's truths revealed on their own account as distinct from truths revealed, accidentally as it were, on account of their connexion with the former (II-II:1:6, ad 1um); matters not of "faith and morals" have been found in the Angelic Doctor's expression, "in his quae de necessitate fidei non sunt" (II Sent., dist. ii, Q. i, a. 3); Vacant extends the words "matters of faith and morals" to the dogmas of faith and the truths pertaining to the custody of the deposit of faith; Granderath identifies "matters of faith and morals" with all religious truths as distinct from merely profane verities: Egger is inclined to comprise under "matters of faith and morals" all revealed truth, and again the whole deposit of faith. in which he includes all Biblical truths; Vinati appears to extend "matters of faith and morals" to all truths that must be believed with Catholic or Divine faith, adding that all Biblical statements fall under these groups; Nisius seems to identify "matters of faith and morals" with the truths contained in the deposit of faith without including all Biblical statements in this collection). Whatever may be thought of the foregoing opinions, it appears to be clear that "matters of faith and morals" contain all truths that must be believed with either Catholic, Divine, or theological faith. The further clause, pertaining to "the building-up of Christian doctrine", includes all the truths necessarily connected with the Christian system of doctrine and morals whether by way of foundation, or necessary proof, or, again, logical inference.

As to Matters not of Faith or Morals

Certain writers have inferred from the fact that the decrees of the councils do not say anything explicitly about the interpreter's subjection to authority in case of Biblical truths not included among "matters of faith and morals", that the Church has left the commentator perfectly free in this part of Biblical exegesis. The laws of logic hardly justify this inference. On the contrary, logic demands that he should not give any explanation which would not be in keeping with the analogy of faith. The most reasonable view of this question maintains that in matters not of faith or morals the teaching of the Church offers no positive guide to the commentator, but that it supplies a negative aid, inasmuch as it tells the Catholic student that any explanation must be false which is not conformable with the spirit of the Catholic Faith. To illustrate the foregoing rules, we may consider the attitude of the Bible towards the movement of the earth as involved in the Galileo question:

If the Bible evidently teaches the stability of the earth, it is not permitted by Biblical inerrancy to say that the earth moves;
if the Biblical teaching needs any explanation with regard to this point, the question arises whether the stability of the earth belongs to the "matters of faith and morals"; this is a question of right;
if the question of right be answered in the affirmative, it is followed by the question of fact: does the teaching of the Church, or the analogy of faith, or again the unanimous consent of the Fathers maintain the stability of the earth? Or even if the second question be answered in the negative, is there any unanimous consent o the Fathers on this point which compels the reverent consideration of the Catholic interpreter?
A careful study of these points will show how the rules of hermeneutics affect the judgment passed on Galileo.

Sixtus V said...

Nice to have you on board Jordan Potter. You have demonstrated true charity and the force of argument that comes from the Truth and not schism and heresy. One thing can be said about some of these people, at least they are not Cathars.

Jordan Potter said...

"That's the L'Osservatore Romano, of course."

Vielen dank!

"Mr Jordan Potter is a very old acquaintance of this blog's editor: it is good to see you here, Jordan!"

Thanks. We're both battle-scarred veterans of the O'Leary Wars over at Dr. Blosser's weblog, but, as you probably know, those wars are finally coming to an end. Deo gratias.

"Nice to have you on board Jordan Potter. You have demonstrated true charity and the force of argument that comes from the Truth and not schism and heresy. One thing can be said about some of these people, at least they are not Cathars."

LOL! No, they're certainly not Cathars. But thank you for your very kind welcome.

MacK said...

Suppose, dear friend, that Communism is the most visible among the organs of subversion against the Church and the tradition of Divine Revelation. Thus, we will witness the invasion of everything that is spiritual: philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the media, literature, theater, and religion.

I am concerned about the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. The persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that the modification of the Faith, liturgy, theology, and soul of the Church would represent.

I hear around me partisans of novelties who want to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her adornments, and make her remorseful for her historical past. Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that the Church of Peter must affirm her past, or else she will dig her own tomb.

I will fight this battle with the greatest energy both inside and outside the Church, even if the forces of evil may one day take advantage of my person, actions, or writings, as they try today to deform the History of the Church.


(Georges Roche & Philippe Saint Germain, Pie XII devant l'Histoire, Paris: Robert Lafont, 1972, p. 52-53).

Screwtape said...

New Catholic:

I notice you removed my answer to JP - isn't this carrying the "buddy system" just a little too far?

Come to think of it, I guess the poor case needs all the protection he can get.

He must be one of those sad sots who can dish it out but can't take it. Isn't there a saying somewhere about what to do if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen?

Jordan Potter said...

"Come to think of it, I guess the poor case needs all the protection he can get."

Well, I don't know what you said in your reply, Neil, but I think your posts are hilarious. I trust I didn't miss out on another one of your humerous riffs.

Screwtape said...

Mack:

" I will fight this battle with the greatest energy both inside and outside the Church, even if the forces of evil may one day take advantage of my person, actions, or writings, as they try today to deform the History of the Church. "
Me too.

Jordan Potter:

Now that's the way to answer!

Good show. I'm absolutely serious.

If you mean what you say that's dandy, but, actually, if you are being satirical that's even better.

Of course satire can be vicious (see Dean Swift) and should never slip on the banana peel of cheap sarcasm (what's expensive sarcasm, do you know?). At a minimum, the former should always make a germane and serious point.

I mean, we're in a bloody mess and the "exit" sign has gone South. Not to mention that It was Satan who threw down the glove, so at least we have the choice of weapons. Them's the rubrics, I do believe.

Now, honesty compels me to let you in on two dirty little secrets. I'm not sure New Catholic DID erase my comments in response to one of your posts. I am terribly absent minded and often hit the "preview" and then forget to click "publish this comment." If this is the case, all due apologies to NC (but only he really knows, and he probably won't tell.)

The other secret is that I haven't the remotest recall regarding which of yours I was reacting against or, therefore, what witticism you may have missed: either because of your friend's misplaced sense of responsibility or my anamnestic other-abledness.

All I am certain about is that I was right, whatever it was. I learned to be always right via instruction from one of the best at being just that, Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr.

Or I may be related (blood will out) to Jim's Aunt, Miss Prothero, in Dylan Thomas' "Child's Christmas in Wales": "she said the RIGHT thing - always!"

Again, kudos for the way you responded; it was quite refreshing.