Rorate Caeli

A tiny Editorial Note

Some readers have questioned our reading of the recent Panorama article by Ignazio Ingrao on several aspects of the Benedictine pontificate. The problem is... we never offered any "interpretation" of the article. Quite the opposite, in fact: as we usually do here, one of our contributors merely translated a small portion of the Panorama article.

So, what is the main theme of the article? Is it the resistance of the Curia? Or is it the acquiescence of the Pontiff?

Is it not evident, in a monarchical system such as that established by the Divine Constitution of the Church, that every resistance which is not caused by an extra-ecclesiastical authority (such as the civil authorities) is a resistance which does not have power in itself except that which is granted to it, willingly, by the acquiescent authority who wields the real power?

21 comments:

jhughesdunphy said...

"Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia est" The whole problem with the Church since Vatican II is just this simple point: the acquiescence of episcopal authority to the Chair of Peter, a phenomenon now current with the French bishops resisting our dear Pope Benedict XVI in his soon to be released "motu proprio" ruling, which is long overdue. This is why we have such division today in the Church with two priesthoods, two masses, two lectionaries, two catechisms, two faiths, and two religions; all within one ecclesial body as a result of all this vituperative division over papal authority since Vatican II. When will this end and the answers.....
http://theorthodoxromancatholic.com

John L said...

There is a partial defence that can be made of the Pope in such circumstances, which is that it can in practice be difficult to exercise the papal authority, if only because the Pope is one man and must depend on a lot of people for the execution of his orders. Witness the difficulties even reforming popes like Adrian VI experienced, due to the total corruption of everyone around them - a corruption greater today than then. The real charge against the present Pope is that he doesn't seem to be doing what undoubtedly is in his power, such as trying to name better bishops, removing uncooperative curial officials, uttering the promised motu proprio, etc.

MacK said...

Above, we have a characteristically oversimplified bipolar perspective on the modern church. It is far more complex than this. On a continuum, we have sede-vacantists on one side who resemble those "charismatic" and other protestant-type "catholics" who think that there is no real pope with authority at the moment. The latter further imagine that we do not need him anyway since we have any version of The Bible & a very flexible & adaptable "holy" spirit to interpret the church as we wish. Now, we could argue the extent to which one or other group is actually excommunicated or not from The Church but the fact of the matter is they are there and attract significant numbers of "catholics" into membership with them. Their membership includes clergy, excommunicated or otherwise.

At the other end of the continuum there are the NO'ites who believe in the post-conciliar revisionist perspective on "papal infallibility" wherein anything forthcoming from the papal mouth is to be obeyed implicitly and explicitly. Watch out for the effect of Pope Benedict's book on Jesus Christ. I have heard modern catholics claim John Paul (RIP) II's "Beyond The Threshold.." was infallible. However, many of these routinely disobey the Holy Father with apparent impunity, as I have amply demonstrated on occasion. Some extremists who pretend obedience to the Holy Father go as far as to say we can have abortion, women priests and anything else, in time.

Within these two complex extremes, there are the traditionalists who owe filial devotion to the pope but who reserve the authentic Catholic right to defend The Faith against false teachings and suspect novelties which do objectively quantifiable damage to The Catholic Faith. And there are traditionalists who are more easily persuaded to accept "indults" and as yet unfulfilled promises of transient "motu proprius" which hold out some distant hope of liturgical & doctrinal normality in The Church.

Then there are a variety of groups such as Neo-Catechumenalites, Focolarites, Opus Deites, charismatics and others who all apparently love the Holy Father but seem to be following their own particular interpretation of what it is to be "catholic".

There are also many catholics who struggle on and do the best they can without being too involved with any particular group affiliation.

This could be elaborated on as a contemporary model but it serves to illustrate a human side to a church which has lost its way, somewhat, amidst a plethora of interpretations, group-interests and trends in an atmosphere of indiscipline, the anarchy of religious liberty and cultural relativisation.

In addition, we must bear in mind the current fact of untypical collegial government and the real dilution of papal authority in which Fr Ratzinger had at least a minor hand in the 1960s. If we couple the foregoing with confusing, contradictory and frequently un-Catholic teachings since the mid-1960s it is a testimony to the reliability & validity Our Blessed Saviour's promise to St Peter that His Church will stand any test that Satan wishes to throw against Her.

Deo Gratias!

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely one thing clear: the Pope is the sole responsible for whatever decision is taken by the Holy See. He alone bears the responsability, first to God and second to history.

Simon-Peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Simon-Peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Augustine said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Augustine said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
New Catholic said...

Ironic corrections will also be deleted.

Please, read the actual article by Ignazio Ingrao.

Simon-Peter said...

...and when the Great Untouchable Unassailable Actor is whitewashed, er, canonized, to offset Pope St.Pius X, what then?


BVM, help...they just won't stop.

Janice said...

I don't think any of you (and I'm sure that includes me as well) really understand the reality of the Vatican. If it were that easy to get one's way, I'm sure Pope Benedict would have already gotten his. He cannot do everything by himself. He cannot summarily fire everyone, i.e., he cannot be another Tertullian (as much as that would give him, and me, momentary satisfaction). He wants to work colleagially and he wants to give people time to prove themselves. If anything, he's a good, decent, holy man and they seem to finish last.

Simon-Peter said...

There really was something God was trying to tell us about the state of the Church through the final illness of the late Holy Father wasn't there?

Incontinent, diseased and broken down, the body at war within itself, unable to move, unable to speak clearly or speak at all, a pale, pathetic shadow...


Jerusalem, how you have been brought down to the dust.

MacK said...

It is absolutely clear that the post-conciliar church and its adherents do not understand either the VC II or its devastating effects on the faith. No one can define the elusive "spirit of the councils". We are even being sold the equivocal notion of a "reform" of the "reform". There's a good post-conciliarist misnomer, if ever there was one.

However, it is no longer considered beyond reproach which is a move in the correct direction. Modern catholics who have been deceived into accepting it as "dogma" are certainly in no position whatever to comprehend how it has created a novel form of religion which is at once anthropocentric, encourages episcopal tyranny and has made a majority of catholics believe almost anything about anything, as Professor Amerio demonstrates. Disbelief in Transubstantiation, the near-wholesale abandonment of the Sacrament of Confession, the emasculation of the priesthood, abominable behaviour in the holy places, modernist popes who contradict traditional catholic teaching....better to stop there since the list is getting longer every year.

Matt said...

Mack,

your lack of perspective on objective reality is striking. You dismiss "NOite" Catholics as heretics who deny the moral doctrines of the Church. The fact of the matter, which I'm sure causes you pain, is that their is a large number of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo mass faithfully, even daily and are absolutely faithful to the Church. In fact, if we took the numbers, these orthodox NO attenders are greater in number than the traditionals. Also your understanding of the "charismatic" movement is in serious error, many of them (though a little delusional in my opinion) are faithful to the Church. As far as different "ways of being Catholic", this is nothing new, as one can clearly see from the vast array of religious orders, and differences between the various rites of the Catholic Church, even the marriage of clergy.

God Bless,

Matt

MacK said...

There you go again with that post-conciliar train of logic.

Heresy? Sedevacantism? Objectivity?

There would be many more at The Latin Mass but, you did not notice, bishops have done all they can to make it a fossil: bishops everywhere have treated with contempt Pope John Paul (RIP) II's Apostolic Letter. Many have even gone to the extent of threatening excommunication for attendance: in Asia some have done this openly. Recent polls demonstrate that the vast majority of NO'ites do not beleive in transubstantiation (73% according to one recent poll in USA, for example, and think Confession is no longer necessary. They also do not see The Roman Catholic Church as the unique barque of salvation as the church has always taught, that is until we arrive at the modernist papacies with their pathological obsession for ecumenism & interfaithism at any price.

You are also very ignorant about the so-called charismatic movement about which I have a mountain of empirical evidence to demonstrate how a significant number of these end up either as protestants or have an awkward relationship with the idea of a Vicar of Christ on Earth. Some of their prayer meetings many of which I have attended in various places are mostly un-Catholic in their practices and some certainly bordering on paganism. In nearly all cases they were protestant in their norms. This is not to say that some are sincere and follow church teachings. However, it depends which ones they are following.

In the times of the pre-conciliar church all Catholic religious orders were Roman Catholic in the proper sense of the word. However, the movements I refer to are not religious in this sense and are not comparable as such. I have empirically researched the Neo-Catechumenals as well so, you display how little you know here too - objectively speaking. I also come from a parish in a diocese which was disinfected of this poisonous movement. I was actually involved in some of the meetings with diocesan officials. Have you read Kiko Arguello's private handbook?

Time to take off those pink-tinted spectacles, get those feet on the ground and take a real look at what is going on in the modern church. Time also to read some good pre-conciliar encyclicals and other papal documents. The lives and sayings of pre-conciliar saints are quite revealing sometimes, too.

Marriage of clergy? which pope has broached that opinion?

Matt said...

There you go again with that post-conciliar train of logic.

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're referring to here, or is it just a blanket way for you to dismiss criticism? Accuse the critic of being post-concilliar. What hogwash, surely you can do better.

Heresy? Sedevacantism? Objectivity?

I'm not sure the combinations you exhibit for I don't know your heart, only your opinions, which seem to be a smattering in each.


There would be many more at The Latin Mass but, you did not notice, bishops have done all they can to make it a fossil: bishops everywhere have treated with contempt Pope John Paul (RIP) II's Apostolic Letter. Many have even gone to the extent of threatening excommunication for attendance: in Asia some have done this openly.


These problems are not the actions of the faithful who attend NO mass, as you might be aware, this Church is not a democracy. The faithful I'm referring to attend the mass that the bishop provides them, some eventually see the problems with the liturgy, but some do not, that doesn't bring their orthodoxy into question.

Recent polls demonstrate that the vast majority of NO'ites do not beleive in transubstantiation (73% according to one recent poll in USA, for example, and think Confession is no longer necessary. They also do not see The Roman Catholic Church as the unique barque of salvation as the church has always taught, that is until we arrive at the modernist papacies with their pathological obsession for ecumenism & interfaithism at any price.

There certainly are massive doctrinal problems among those who self-declare to be Catholic. If you hadn't noticed, less than 30% attend mass regularly, so I wouldn't consider them faithful Catholics. Even among regular attendees perhaps a third are orthodox, but that number still dwarfs the attendees at Traditional masses.


You are also very ignorant about the so-called charismatic movement about which I have a mountain of empirical evidence to demonstrate how a significant number of these end up either as protestants or have an awkward relationship with the idea of a Vicar of Christ on Earth. Some of their prayer meetings many of which I have attended in various places are mostly un-Catholic in their practices and some certainly bordering on paganism. In nearly all cases they were protestant in their norms. This is not to say that some are sincere and follow church teachings. However, it depends which ones they are following.


Wow, a traddie like you got mixed up with charismatics? My friends attended school at the charismatic center of the US, Steubanville, I think they would disagree with your anecdotal evidence. I have other friends who are still charismatic, and completely orthodox.

In the times of the pre-conciliar church all Catholic religious orders were Roman Catholic in the proper sense of the word.

What about the ones that were Byzantine or Maronite Catholic? those to?

However, the movements I refer to are not religious in this sense and are not comparable as such.

The point I made, is that there are different ways of being Catholic, and there always have been, so long as one maintains orthodoxy in all matters of dogma and doctrine.

I have empirically researched the Neo-Catechumenals as well so, you display how little you know here too - objectively speaking. I also come from a parish in a diocese which was disinfected of this poisonous movement. I was actually involved in some of the meetings with diocesan officials. Have you read Kiko Arguello's private handbook?

I didn't defend the NC's, I am well aware of their liturgical shenanigans, which are abhorrent and signify deep doctrinal issues. I also recognize there are probably other doctrinal issues with this particular movement.

Time to take off those pink-tinted spectacles, get those feet on the ground and take a real look at what is going on in the modern church. Time also to read some good pre-conciliar encyclicals and other papal documents. The lives and sayings of pre-conciliar saints are quite revealing sometimes, too.

I've read plenty, I am a big fan of St. Pius X and Leo XIII in particular, especially their writings on obedience to the Supreme Pontiff, you might consider re-reading a few of them yourself.

Marriage of clergy? which pope has broached that opinion?

Well, I don't recall but I believe it was at least 200 years ago when the Eastern Catholic churches returned and were allowed to maintain a married clergy. You seem to be incredibly ignorant of anything but the Latin Rite of the Church, you must be American.

God Bless,

Matt

MacK said...

Your ideas are very "foggy" - canonisations are not infallible.
To question the validity of a canonisation is proof of sedevacantism for you. Some "orthodox" catholics have questioned some of the 1,800 of the last pontificate. According to your train of reasoning you consider them sedevacantist, obviously.

Charismatics are "orthodox"? - post-conciliar orthodoxy I suppose. That's very phenomenological of you. Some of the so-called norms and values of charismatics are putatively un-Catholic. It is an essentially protestant emotionalist movement. As a social researcher I get "mixed up" with many different people.

Believing that The Eucharist is anything other than transubstantiated is not "orthodox".

The rest of your comments are mostly subjective, not an answer to my objective observations and the ones about Maronites and Byzantines are irrelevant as I never refer to these as a benchmark for the Latin rite.

Over to the voice of "orthodoxy"!

Simon-Peter said...

Charismatic:

emotive, affected, subjective, rooted in the heretical sects i.e. pentecostalism, holiness and various offshoots and incompatible with Catholicism: it is truly another product of the cogito-immanentist horror. All that will happen to Catholics who continue to drink this poison is that over time they will become less and less Catholic.

I used to hang out with some of them before I was received into the Church. Such fakes. When I found out this filth had invaded the Catholic Church I was flabbergasted?

Here are some gifts so-called Charismatics don't ask for: wisdom, discerning of spirits...wonder why?

Their behaviour is born of confusion and is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit.

Sad, sad, sad and soooo typical.

MacK said...

To qualify more clearly my statements on the topic of canonisation, it is only from the 12th century to the 1970s we can be confident in the infallibility of such a process since it was a formalized process applied with caution & given plenty of time. Progressively since the 1960s, we arrive at the use of sanctity as a genre of personal gift to places of pontifical pilgrimage and the rushing of processes to get certain people sanctified. The whole process has been reduced significantly to facilitate sanctifying selected candidates. Even the criteria have not been strictly adhered to.
The fact that the present pope has recently ordered the appropriate papal department to be more selective and more rigorous in choosing candidates for sainthood implies that he is not satisfied about some of the saints canonised by his "infallible" predecessor. I won’t go into some of the actual canonisations but many of the 1,800 or so have some serious question marks over them. As for rushing the canonisation of the late pontiff, this haste was a result of the pressures of orchestrated popular acclaim – this is reminiscent of some pre-12th century “canonisations”. How can hurrying assist validity?
The removal of feast days for such saints as Philomena in 1961 and those removed in 2001 is not supposed to be a decanonisation as such but is tantamount to a symbolic demotion. St Philomena is a case in point since I remember reading some time ago excavations in Rome proving her existence and cultus which were doubted in some way at the time of her demotion. Catholics have every reason for doubting the infallibility of certain “saints”. This is certainly not proof of sedevacantism.

That's my last comment on this one.

Matt said...

Your ideas are very "foggy" - canonisations are not infallible.
To question the validity of a canonisation is proof of sedevacantism for you. Some "orthodox" catholics have questioned some of the 1,800 of the last pontificate. According to your train of reasoning you consider them sedevacantist, obviously.

Charismatics are "orthodox"? - post-conciliar orthodoxy I suppose. That's very phenomenological of you. Some of the so-called norms and values of charismatics are putatively un-Catholic. It is an essentially protestant emotionalist movement. As a social researcher I get "mixed up" with many different people.

Believing that The Eucharist is anything other than transubstantiated is not "orthodox".

The rest of your comments are mostly subjective, not an answer to my objective observations and the ones about Maronites and Byzantines are irrelevant as I never refer to these as a benchmark for the Latin rite.

Over to the voice of "orthodoxy"!

25 January, 2007 05:01


Simon-Peter:

emotive, affected, subjective, rooted in the heretical sects i.e. pentecostalism, holiness and various offshoots and incompatible with Catholicism: it is truly another product of the cogito-immanentist horror. All that will happen to Catholics who continue to drink this poison is that over time they will become less and less Catholic.

I used to hang out with some of them before I was received into the Church. Such fakes. When I found out this filth had invaded the Catholic Church I was flabbergasted?

Here are some gifts so-called Charismatics don't ask for: wisdom, discerning of spirits...wonder why?

Their behaviour is born of confusion and is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit.


As I said I agree that the behaviour of charismatics is delusional, and I think you're right that participation can be damaging to faith. As I said, that there are charismatics and former charismatics that I know personally, who do not reject any of the teachings of the Church, and thus can be considered doctrinally orthodox.


To qualify more clearly my statements on the topic of canonisation, it is only from the 12th century to the 1970s we can be confident in the infallibility of such a process


This then is only a personal acceptance of infallible if it requires one to use personal judgement to decide on whether the process was sufficiently thorough. Thus anyone can question the veracity of any canonisation. This defeats the whole purpose of infallibility.


The fact that the present pope has recently ordered the appropriate papal department to be more selective and more rigorous in choosing candidates for sainthood implies that he is not satisfied about some of the saints canonised by his "infallible" predecessor.

Not so, it says only that he is not satisfied with the rigour in choosing candidates for sainthood. Not that he believes any saints declared by Pope John Paul II where not saints. I might point out to you that sainthood merely means that the person is in heaven. Just because a person is in heaven doesn't mean that they should be publicly declared a saint by the Church and allowed a public cult. So even if Benedict does think that some of them should not have been canonised it doesn't necessarily follow that they are not saints.

This is certainly not proof of sedevacantism

I didn't say it was, but feel free to be on the defensive with regard to sedevacantism, it seems to be your strong suit.

God Bless,

Matt

New Catholic said...

Enough.