Rorate Caeli

Bertone speaks:
on the Reform of the Curia and Summorum Pontificum


In an interview on his first year in office to Avvenire, the semi-official news daily of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, shared his thoughts on a possible reform of the Roman Curia and on the first steps in the implementation of Summorum Pontificum.

Excerpts:

[Avvenire:] The possibility of restructuring of the Roman Curia has been often discussed in the past. Is an organic reform for streamlining the Curia truly under consideration?
It is a hypothesis still on the level of studying and verifying the experiences of the application of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, of John Paul II, and I therefore cannot speak more of it.

[Avvenire:] It has been said that the Pope "writes books and gives the impression of having decided not to lead. Even if Bertone seems to have the temptation to do so [lead]...". Do you see yourself in this description?
Absolutely not. The Pope has a great awareness of his role as Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church with all the obligations and duties which this entails. For my part, I am simply his Secretary of State, with the responsibility on the workings of that structure which is at the service of the mission of the Bishop of Rome, and I try to accomplish my duty in perfect communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

[Avvenire:] September 14 signals the coming into force of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. You had hoped, in these columns [of Avvenire], for a serene reception of this document. Did [the serene reception] indeed happen?
Substantially, yes. Moreover, if common sense, and not ideologisms of diverse natures, prevails, I do not believe that there will be problems in the application of Summorum Pontificum. Nonetheless, I notice, when visiting several local Churches, that the knowledge of the Latin language is decreasing ever more, and maybe the occasion for its recovery should not be lost, for the heritage which it has handed down.

55 comments:

Petrus Radii said...

"Substantially" serene??? Is he on drugs? What poppycock!

Anonymous said...

when one considers the past possibility of a split from French bishops against the E.F., then yes, one can consider it serene.

LeonG said...

The American episcopate and many of the western European ones are in de facto schism and he can claim such ridiculous nonsense. Neo-modernists can say anything about anything these days even absolute contradiction is valid according to their version of social reality. Half truth is both true and false simultaneously. This is where Bertone comes from.

alsaticus said...

to leong

I will distinguish strongly the reactions and attitudes of the "American episcopate" from "many of the Western European ones".
Among the Western European episcopates there are also some distinctions though globally, the attitude is negative (very negative in Germany, France, much less negative in Italy where the episcopate is divided).
In Northern America (USA+Canada), it seems the polarisation between pro-motu proprio and contra-motu proprio is real.

poeta said...

The wheat-from-chaff effect among the North American episcopate has truly been amazing. I've hardly seen anything like it.

edg said...

Poeta, perhaps that was one of the Holy Father's intentions. The MP has made these people show their hands the way nothing else has done. They can't coast along keeping a low profile and quietly cultivating the Special American Church anymore. And there are some bishops and pastors in the US who are now perilously close to rebellion against Rome, IMHO.

I think a lot is going to depend on the reaction of the Commission and of the Pope. If they let these bishops get away with it, the bishops will be emboldened. If they stop the bishops right now and call them to account, there's some chance of the US making it through until this generation of bishops retires and is replaced by actual Catholic bishops.

Alex Benziger.G said...

Sir,
We submit a petition to the Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore for the TLMass.Thereafter nothing happened.Please anybody can help us to receive the Mass.
Here is the Petition:
... ... ... ...
From July 16, 2007

1. G. Alex Benziger, Advocate,
St. Francis Xavier’s Church, Broadway Parish.
2. Michael Amalraj Edward, Advocate,
Our Lady of Good Health Church, Little Mount Parish.
3. S. Parisutham, Advocate,
St. Mark’s Church, Adambakkam Parish.
4. Dr. S. Leonard Vasanth, Advocate,
St. Fatima Church, Kodambakkam Parish
5. A. Arokiadoss, Advocate,
Holy Cross Church, T. Nagar Parish
6. D.Irudhaya Nathan, Advocate,
St. Francis Xavier’s Church, Broadway Parish.
7. Conscious Fernando, Advocate,
St. Luke’s Church, Anna Nagar Parish,
8. A. Amalraj, Advocate,
St. Andrew’s Church, Choolai Parish.
9. Antony Jesu Rajan, Advocate,
St. Anne’s Church, Nesappakkam Parish.
(All of us are Roman Catholic Advocates, Practising in the Madras High Court, Madras, South India)

To

HIS GRACE Dr.A.M. CHINNAPPA. D.D.,
Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore,
Archbishop’s House,
Santhome, Madras-600 004.

May it please your Grace,

Sub: Our request for the grant of Indult for celebrating Tridentine Latin Mass on Sundays in St. Mary’s Church, Co-Cathedral, Parrys, Madras-600 001- Regarding.
*****
Greeting in our Lord Jesus Christ

May we place before Your Grace a kind request of permission of Indult for providing us the Tridentine Latin Mass in the Parish Church St.Mary’s Co-Catherdral Shrine at Parrys, Madras-600 001 on every Sunday at 5.30 P.M.

1. The Liturgy of Mass is the greatest ‘Action’ where Our Lord Jesus Christ is brought down on earth in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, by the anointed hands of the specially consecrated persons of priesthood. It is certainly an extension of incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Our Savior and His Crucifixion, manifested for the redemption of our Soul of all the sacraments of the Church. The Sacrament of Eucharistic Liturgy is the heart-beat and the richest wealth of the Holy Mother Church.

2. Tridentine Latin Mass has been too evident a testimony to the sacrificial basis of the Roman Catholic Church, based on the great “Action of Christ” for centuries where the consecrated priest becomes “Alter Christus”. This Mass has, no doubt produced all the Holy Saints and Martyrs in the Church.

3. With the vernacular presentation of the Mass and with no one rubric, each priest has his own style of celebrating the Mass. No two priest celebrate the Mass in the same manner, so much so, the general comment of the faithful is always that ‘Fr. ‘X’s’ Mass is much better than Fr.Y’s’ Mass or is not as good as the other.

4. Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical, ‘Dominicae Cenae’ dated 24.02.1980 states as,
“I would like to ask forgiveness in my own name and in the name of all of your venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through at the time partial, one-side and erroneous application of the directives of Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray to Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people”.

5. As rightly pointed out by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger-the present Pope Benedict XVI-on 24.10.1998 to the 3000 traditionalist faithful in the Eternal City who are coming from as far away as Australia and New Zealand has said,
“the differences in the liturgy according to the new rite, as it is actually practiced in many places, are often greater than the difference between the new and the old liturgy, when both are celebrated according to the prescribed liturgical books” (the journal-“Inside the Vatican”, December 1998 issue).

6. Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical, “Dominicae Cenae” dated 24.02.1980 further states
“Nevertheless, there are also those people who, having been educated on the basis of the old liturgy in Latin, experience the lack of this “one language”, which in all the world was an expression of the Unity of the Church and through its dignified character elicited a profound sense of the Eucharistic Mystery. It is therefore necessary to show not only understanding but also full respect towards these sentiments and desires are to be accommodated, as is moreover provided for in the new dispositions. The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself”.

7. Further Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical “Ecclesia Dei” dated 02.07.1988 states as….
“To all the Catholic Faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church”……… “moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962”.

8. Further we wish to state that the Holy Father Benedict XVI in his “Post Synodal, Apostolic Exhortation” “Sacramentum Caritatis” dated 22.02.2007 states as follows:
“…………… I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, that, with the exception of the readings the homily and the prayer of the faithful, such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better known prayers of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian Chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the Liturgy to Gregorian chant”.

9. There is a great depth of reasoning in having the dead language in the liturgy, so that the words are not misconstrued, misinterpreted or mistranslated with all exaggerations to suit the individuals and consequently, they are not being misconceived by the congregation. This should be the main reason why the other religions too, Hinduism, Islamism, Buddhism etc., have their religious prayers of worship and chantings in the dead language.

10. Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” be considered as “established and decreed” by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on 07.07.2007 and to be observed from September 14, 2007 is as follows:-
“Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the “ Lex orandi’ (Law of Prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of the same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
“It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl.John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church”.
and some norms of law, issued in this regard and we are eagerly awaiting your Grace’s necessary directions.

Under these circumstances, we, the undersigned Catholics and on behalf of quite a good section of Catholics, in the City of Madras humbly make our submission to Your Grace and request your Grace to grant necessary Indult for providing us the Sacred Tridentine Latin Mass in St. Mary’s Co-cathedral Shrine on every Sunday evening 5.30 p.m. which will go a long way for the salvation of our souls in search of our Eternal life in the Kingdom of God.
Thank you and pray for your Grace’s Blessings.

Yours most Obedient Children in
Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Copy to :-His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillon HoyosPresident Commission Ecclesia Dei, Plaza del Sant’ Uffizio 11,00120 Vatican City, Italy, Europe. All Communication and Correspondence to G. Alex Benziger, Advocate, 18, Pidariyar Koil Lane, Chennai -600 001.e.mail:- alexbenziger@yahoo.com Name & Address of the Catholics 1. G. Alex Benziger, 2. Michael Amalraj Edward, 3. S. Parisutham, 4. Dr. S. Leonard Vasanth, 5. A. Arokiadoss, 6. D.Irudhaya Nathan, 7. Conscious Fernando, 8. A. Amalraj, 9. Antony Jesu Rajan,

irulats said...

alex: May God give you all strength. I note the following in your letter to the bishop, "Under these circumstances, we, the undersigned Catholics ... humbly make our submission to Your Grace and request your Grace to grant --necessary Indult-- for providing us the Sacred Tridentine Latin Mass in ... Thank you and pray for your Grace’s Blessings."

As far as I understand it, no Indult is needed now at all. The Motu Proprio completely replaces the previous law.

If you have a willing pastor, the Mass may take place as described.

God Bless

humboldt said...

When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger acccepted the post of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he set one condition to JPII: "allow me to continue to write books or I will not accept". He told this story in his book the Ratzinger Report, and he clearly was very proud of having done this because even recognizes, in that interview-book that he was surprised that JPII accepted his demand. In fact he set a second condition as to the time of his arrival at the Vatican.

In fact he had previously not accepted the first post that JPII offered Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education. I wonder if Ratzinger also set a condition to the cardinal electors when accepting becomming Pope.

Ratzinger clearly has only one master: Joseph Ratzinger, not Holy Mother Church, nor anybody else.

humboldt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
humboldt said...

And I think that if anybody starts trying to curtail his "religious freedom" he would rather resign the job as Pope than to abandon his writing career. Joseph Ratzinger comes first.

Anonymous said...

Humboldt,

It is one thing to critique or condemn certain actions of the Holy Father that are contrary to tradition. It is quite another to speculate that the Holy Father would rather continue to write than govern the Universal Church. It is the height of presumption for you, the Holy Father's inferior (in the true sense of that word) to claim that to him, "Joseph Ratzinger comes first." Had you merely stated that the Holy Father ought to be focusing his attention on governing rather than on writing books, then fine. But to judge the personal disposition of a superior is never permitted to an inferior.

Anonymous said...

humboldt,

That is truly the dumbest thing I've read this month.

And I read a lot, actually.

Aspen

humboldt said...

I am going to quote literary from the book “The Ratzinger Report” (by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Vittorio Messori), first chapter:

The Shadow of the Holy Office

. . . When I asked (here is Messori writing) Ratzinger if it was very difficult for him to go from being a theologian (of whom Rome did not lose sight of), to become the controller of the labor of theologians, he did not "hesitate" to answer:

“"I would have never accepted" to render this ecclesiastic service if my task would have been, above else, to exercise a control. With the reform (he is talking about Paul VI’s reform of the Holy Office), our Congregation has, yes, kept some decision and intervention tasks, but Paul VI’s motu propio assigns it as its main priority objective the constructive role to “promote the healthy doctrine with the end of rendering new energies to the messengers of the Gospel.”

It is clear that at the question by Messori Joseph Ratzinger felt compelled to avow his personal faith about what is the role of authority in the clergy: above everything: freedom to say, write and believe whatever you want. Not even the mild task of “control” (we are not talking about repression of heretical theologians), is accepted by Ratzinger as a valid exercise of authority in the Catholic clergy. Moreover, he clearly even felt compelled to “publicly” defy the Vicar of Christ if he would have commanded him (as he has the right of demmanding of any cleric) to exercise “control” over the theology in the Catholic Church. In no other hierarchical society such a taunt and tantrum would have been tolerated, but Joseph Ratzinger is the living oracle of the Church and everything he says and does is above everything or anyone.

At the feeling of a 10,000 watts electricity charge Ratzinger the diplomatic went out the window, and Ratzinger felt that he needed to take a public stand; an unequivocal and insolent stand so that everybody knew where he stands: liberalism. I am sure that for this principle Ratzinger was, and is willing to go to the stake, and a principle which, if required, would have justified rebellion on the part of a cleric faced with an "abusive" superior.

Oaths, vows and creeds (which every priest has to take at ordination, without any coercion) do not mean anything. Freedom, as this public declaration of faith showed, is a supreme value, according to Joseph Ratzinger, a principle which not even the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ, has the right to trespass; no matter what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says or the previous Popes, and Councils have declared for perpetual memory. Principles and beliefs that every priests has vowed to upheld, defend, and promote.

Now regarding the books, I don’t have anything against this practice, as long as it services the Gospel, but in the current post-conciliar church books are a way of making money and engaging in sterile discussions and confusing people, in short words vanity exercises.

Ignorance is the father is dumbness.

humboldt said...

I like the word "some" that Ratzinger uses on the taks of the of the reformed Holy Office.

humboldt said...

By the way I don't think that the name of cleric has been used in official pontifical documents, as the name Joseph Ratzinger has been used. Clearly this pope's successor will not be Saint Peter's succesor, but Benedict XVI's succesor.

Anonymous said...

Which official papal documents use the name Joseph Ratzinger? Finally, you have yet to answer my objection that you are a subject of the Holy Father and your comment that "Joseph Ratzinger comes first" smacks of a judgment on the internal forum which is denied inferiors.

I do not believe that Pope Benedict XVI is necessarily the pontiff who will end the crisis. As Bishop Fellay has pointed out numerous times, the Holy Father correctly diagnoses that there is a crisis, yet fails at some level to diagnose the roots of that crisis. However, there is also no question that Summorum Pontificum was the best document to issue from Rome in over forty years. Perhaps a bit of deference ought to be shown to the Holy Father, at least in gratitude for the Motu Proprio.

Lauren said...

Moreover, he clearly even felt compelled to “publicly” defy the Vicar of Christ if he would have commanded him (as he has the right of demmanding of any cleric) to exercise “control” over the theology in the Catholic Church.

Sir, you are twisting the Holy Father's words to justify your hate of him. It is well known that the then Cardinal Ratzinger didn't feel that he was ready to take the position in Rome because he had only been Archibishop of Munich for a short while. Later on when he had accepted the position at the CDF, he asked John Paul II if he could continue writing books and JP II agreed. This was not a bargaining tactic. If JP II felt that Ratzinger was making him jump through hoops, he wouldn't have stood for it. If the then Cardinal Ratzinger felt that as you say "Joseph Ratzinger comes first," then he would have continued to say no to Pope John Paul and stayed in Germany as a professor. You are just twisting the Holy Father's words to fit your idea of what he is like.

humboldt said...

The JPII's Apostolic Constituion Fidei Depositum, on the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"In 1986, I entrusted a commission of twelve Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with the task of preparing a draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. An editorial committee of seven diocesan Bishops, experts in theology and catechesis, assisted the commission in its work."

As for Ratzinger's supposed reticences on accepting the post at the Vatican because of his little time at the Archidiocese of Munich, I could ask who was he to second guess the Vicar of Christ on his most suitable place to service the Church, since the Vicar of Christ, Paul VI, appointed him to the chair in Munich? If the Vicar of Christ had asked him to abandon Munich and go preach to the indigenous in the Amazonia, wasn't he bound by oaths as priest, bishop and cardinal to obey the man he has swore allegegiance to? Wasn't he as cardinal bound by an special oath of obedience to the Vicar of Christ? or did he and Church in Germany, placed demands on JPII? Why did he feel he had the right to second guess the Vicar of Christ?

As Archbishop Baganasco well expressed: when the Holy Father calls, one has to answer.

As for Benedict XVI ending the crisis, no way, if not then no more opportunity to write books, congresses and engage in sterile debate.

I can avow one thing, the idea I have of Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), today is very different than the one I had in 1985 when I read the Ratzinger Report.

As for "If JP II felt that Ratzinger was making him jump through hoops, he wouldn't have stood for it." No way that wasn't JPII. JPII was also a liberal, although without the bluntnes of (JR).

¡Hm!

humboldt said...

"Later on when he had accepted the position at the CDF, he asked John Paul II if he could continue writing books and JP II agreed."

JR has publicly declared that he was surpried that JPII accepted to this demand.

Jordan Potter said...

Humboldt, why are you so worried about Joseph Ratzinger's submissiveness (or lack of submissiveness) to John Paul II when you recently announced here that you were leaving the Catholic Church? Don't you think you would do better to put your own spiritual house in order before you start complaining about how bad a Pope the Holy Father is?

LeonG said...

With or without the Summorum Pontificum, many national episcopates do as they please with or without papal approval. The fact that The Vatican remains studiously silent on most liturgical abuses and many other un-Catholic behaviours of bishops and their diocesan administrations, which are superabundant, is testimonial in itself to the state of de facto schism of many of them. The UK and USA are outstanding illustrations.

The neo-modernist church in the west is becoming ever more unholy, un-Catholic and veering towards effective apostasy. Most only pay lip-service to church teachings and "Catholic tradition" is little understood, if at all. In the meantime, the "faithful" are still voting with their feet. Cardinal Bertone either chooses to "serenely" ignore the facts or he lives in an ivory tower.

It is seriously doubtful whether the holy father could do anything about it even if he were more "control" motivated which he most certainly is not, in any case. His career-orientation has been toward decentralisation and collegial consensus. While the SP maybe somewhat off that track there is adequate substance in its framework for bishops to protest their justified involvement in its implementation, or not. Elsewhere, however, it is post-conciliar business as usual as increasing ecclesiastical real estate goes under the hammer or the demolition-ball to fund the decentralisation.

Surely, the good Cardinal means surreal not serene.

Anonymous said...

When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger acccepted the post of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he set one condition to JPII: "allow me to continue to write books or I will not accept".

humboldt,

Do you have the context for this quote?

I was not aware that a member of the CDF needed special permision to write books.

In fact he had previously not accepted the first post that JPII offered Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education. I wonder if Ratzinger also set a condition to the cardinal electors when accepting becomming Pope.

As if Ratzinger was the first person in history to (rightfully) refuse ecclesiastical offices? Are you not aware that there are saints who went through extraordinarily great lengths to beg and get out of being assigned to such offices in the Church?

Ratzinger clearly has only one master: Joseph Ratzinger, not Holy Mother Church, nor anybody else.

Okay, so according to you it follows that because Ratzinger (a) wanted to continue to write books and (b) refused an ecclesiastical office, that he therefore does not serve God nor does he care about the Church?

humboldt said...

Jordan Potter, point taken, still the issue here is not me but JR. As for my membership in the Catholic Church, don't you think that is my problem.

Jay said...

"Substantially" serene??? Is he on drugs? What poppycock!

I am appalled at this sort of language, who are YOU to sum up this way Cardinal of the Catholic Church! It is blasphemy.

Marty said...

I don't think it's blasphemy, dude. Maybe a little bit irreverent, but defiantly not blasphemy.

New Catholic said...

Serenity is really necessary in this comment box. Please, let us all be charitable in our comments.

--

Respect and love for the Vicar of Christ is necessary for every Catholic.

Anonymous said...

Humboldt,

You have yet to answer the substance of my opposition to your comments which is that as an inferior it is strictly forbidden for you to judge the internal forum of a superior.

Your comment that your relationship with the Catholic Church is your business is foolish. What of the Communion of the Saints? Your comments reflect a skewed ecclesiology both on the nature of the Petrine ministry and your relationship to the Universal Church.

humboldt said...

¿Communion of the Saints? I thought that this referred to the glorified church, no to the militant church.

And communion around what? certainly around the thruth not around the error.

As for charity in judging, yes but not obscuring the thruth. We have a duty to bring forth everything to light, because these are matters of the outmost importance.

The Church is going not only through a crisis, but through a crisis of faith.

JR is not the man to pull the Church out of this mess, because he is in essence a liberal. The most we can expect of him is to be a "transition" pope. To what? let's hope to real catholic pope.

Jordan Potter said...

As for my membership in the Catholic Church, don't you think that is my problem.

Yes, and that's why I direct my comment to you and not to somebody else. My point is that, apart from your putting your soul in peril, it is incongruent for someone to get upset about the catholicity of the Pope when one's relationship with the Catholic Church is broken or impaired. To put it bluntly, if you've left the Church, why do you even care anymore what the Pope does or say?

Anonymous said...

Hubmoldt,

Since your frequent posts have lacked all reference to my comments concerning you, an inferior, rebuking your lawful superior, the Holy Father, I will assume that you have no answer. Thank you for your intellectual honesty.

humboldt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
humboldt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
humboldt said...

"Hubmoldt,

Since your frequent posts have lacked all reference to my comments concerning you, an inferior, rebuking your lawful superior, the Holy Father, I will assume that you have no answer. Thank you for your intellectual honesty."

Anonymous: as a catholic I have never ever taken an oath or made of vow of obedience to any cleric, including the Pope. Neither in my baptismal nor in my confirmation rite, nor in any of the sacraments I as a layman, have participated in, I have never ever being asked by the Catholic Church to make such commitments or pledge obedience to any cleric.

I have every right and duty to criticize any cleric, particularly a pope, who HAVE taken oaths of obedience and fidelity to the hierarchical church and to the depositum of the faith, when I see then going astray.

My catholicity is not defined in terms of the actions, words or decrees of any man, including a Pope.

My catholic faith is not centered around the pope or the cleric order.

So I think it would be most healthful to you to get rid of that totalitarian european mentality and start thinking as a Christian, not as an European pagan.

As for my words and actions on this earth I am responsible to NO ONE but to Jesus Christ, my ONLY Lord and Savior. I will meet him on judgment day and to him only I will give account of my actions on this earth, not to any man on this earth, particulary of a man who is not living up to the oaths and vows he took, which are of public knowledge.

What I cannot abide is those persons who have taken oaths of faiths and made vows of obedience and disregard them. I just cannot stand a dishonest person. If you don't believe in something then get out, particularly if you have taken oaths and made vows, which is the case of every cleric.

I as a layman have rigths that clerics do not, because I have not taken any oaths or made any vows of obedience.

Liberalism, like the one of JR in 1985 clearly disregards the value of oaths and vows of clerics. This is the esence of liberalism in the Catholic Church, where the "universal call to holiness" has been changed to an "universal call to sinfulness".

I just cannot stand this, and I will face head on with a hatchet, any where I find this poisonous weed, so as to uproot it.

¡Hm!

Jordan Potter said...

If you don't believe in something then get out,

Is that why you got out, then? And since you got out, why are you still complaining about the problems in the Church?

Or have you come back? I certainly hope you have -- or maybe you never left? Because if you're not in the Church, it's meaningless for you to talk of your "catholicity."

Anonymous said...

Humboldt,

You stated that I need to start thinking as a Christian and not a European pagan. While you have not taken any explicit vows of obedience to the Holy Father, your being a Catholic rests upon communion with the Successor of Peter. Furthermore, your argument that you have not taken an oath to the Holy Father, therefore you are responsible "NO ONE but to Jesus Christ, my ONLY Lord and Savior." is a self-serving farce. As an argument, it holds about as much water as a claim that since I haven't made an explicit oath of obedience to my local government, I am not bound in obedience to them. Your "ONLY Lord and Savior" placed Pope Benedict XVI as the Supreme Legislator and Governor of the Universal Church. There is no membership in the Catholic Church without communion (in the true sense) with the Sovereign Pontiff. And you have no part in Christ if you are not a member of the Church.

humboldt said...

What does "communion" mean? That is the gist of the matter. Communion, for a layman, is not blind obedience. Communion for a cleric is hierarchical obedience. My boss is no cleric, while if you are a cleric you have a boss.

Anonymous said...

Humboldt,

"¿Communion of the Saints? I thought that this referred to the glorified church, no to the militant church."

In response to this question, the communion of the saints is defined as "the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices."

In regard to your statement that you do not owe obedience to the Holy Father, see the following quote from the old Catholic Encyclopedia: "In the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus", cap. 3, the pope is declared to possess ordinary, immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful:

We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character (Enchir., n. 1827)."

It is a strawman argument for you to say that you do not owe the same obedience to the Holy Father as a cleric since no one has claimed that as the case.

The above quotes illustrate two important points. One, given the constant teaching of the Church confirmed at the First Vatican Council in the decree Pastor Aeternus, you do owe the Holy Father obedience, he is your lawful superior, and as such, it is strictly forbidden to you to judge his internal forum. Following from this, you do owe the Holy Father deference and respect, which would certainly not include referring to him as "JR" or "Joseph Ratzinger."
The second point is that you do in fact posess a fault ecclesiology. Given that you did not know the simple definition of the Communion of the Saints, but thought it only applied to the Church glorified, it would be best if you ceased to expound theologically on matters you do not have competence in. I do not mean this in disrespect, but in true charity.

humboldt said...

Thank you anonymous. But for clarification:

1)"In regard to your statement that you do not owe obedience to the Holy Father": I never said that I did not owe obedience to the Holy Father. I said that I have never taken an oath or made a vow of obedience to him. This means that the Pope does not have the authority to teach me contrary to Divine Revelation or to disrespect my religious feelings.

2) "Following from this, you do owe the Holy Father deference and respect":

Yes, I owe him deference and respect.

Jay said...

Humbold said:"I have every right and duty to criticize any cleric, particularly a pope, who HAVE taken oaths of obedience and fidelity to the hierarchical church and to the depositum of the faith, when I see then going astray.

My catholicity is not defined in terms of the actions, words or decrees of any man, including a Pope.

My catholic faith is not centered around the pope or the cleric order.

So I think it would be most healthful to you to get rid of that totalitarian european mentality and start thinking as a Christian, not as an European pagan."

Pope is Chirst Vicar on earth and we owe him obedience for Christ only is his superior - this is awesome when we think about it. Every catholic priest is Christ representation when he offers the sacrifice of the mass for the expiation of our sins and when he hears our confession and gives us absolution and for there very reasons we should respect the, for priest have a power we have not, the power to change mere bread and wine into flesh and blood of Our Lord and redeemer. if you have difficulty with respecting catholic autority of the pope and his priest you are no longer catholic, you are blinded by spirits of separatism and criticism, you should reflect on it and on your actions, you will certainly be responsible for every idle word and for not using you reason, the free gift from God to discern what is wrong and what is right in obedience to spiritual authority.

Jay said...

Humboldt, I was born pre-V2 and live in Europe and in my country, when priest visited housee in his parish during Christmastide it was very special day and whole family waited for him to come. And you know what, we children had to kiss priest's hand when he arrived, no matter if we liked him or not so much. We had to show him love and respect for this was our catholic tradition.

humboldt said...

Jay, yes I respect any priest because of the authority granted to him by the Church to perform the Holy Sacraments in the name and power of Jesus Christ. But my respect to him ends when he begins to offend Jesus Christ, of whom he has a particular duty to be faithful.

As for kissing the priest's hand, I in principle have nothing against that practice, many modern priests despise this genuine sign of respect and appreciation by the the faitful. I would have second thoughts for the fear of being humiliated by a modern priests.

But because I do respect a priest and because I value and know what a priest is, is the reason why I cannot stand a disloyal and disobedient priest (be it presbiter, bishop or cardinal). It is just incomprehensible to me.

Jay said...

Humboldt, I believe you are pious person, however I also believe we should abstain as much as we can from critical words about others especially when they are absent, for basically we cannot see what really is in other person heart. Only God knows. We certainly should pray for priests and in particular for Holy Father. This is our duty and will give us merits. I cannot imagine how petrus radii is going to explain 'poppycock'word he used in the first comment on this thread on his judgment day! Can we imagine that good God will say: 'Well done my good and faithful servant'!!!

Jay said...

ABOUT GENTLENESS

"Brethren, if a man is found guilty of some fault, you, who are spiritually minded, ought to show a spirit of gentleness in correcting him." Gal. 6.1
Thus St. Paul urges us to practice apostleship in a spirit of charity and humility. Psalm 36 tells us: "Patient souls are the land's heirs, enjoying great peace" v.11; and Solomon: "A gentle answer is a quarrel averted; a word that gives pain does but fan the flame of resentment."Proverbs 15.1.
A man who is gentle can do much good. Gentleness is necessary, especially where its contrary exists. It is a question of how we react to an unkind word or deed which we were not expecting, or to sin of another. To be gentle under such circumstances requires self-control, and far from being a sign of weakness, as a proof of a strong personality and long training; self-love and selfishness must have been, as far as may be, conquered.
A man who is gentle, or as the Bible says, "meek", has pity on the sinner who has offended him. He refuses to see malice or bitterness in the words and deeds of others; words and deeds which do more harm to the sinner than to the sinned against. He has pity on him, because he is his fellow man; he remains calm and friendly; his answer is not an angry defense of his own conduct, but a kindly word welling up from a heart in which God's peace dwells, and which therefore brings peace with it. The hothead is calmed down by it, and his anger drops.
Jesus praises the meek who will possess his land, his kingdom, and declares: "Blessed are the peace-makers; they shall be counted the children of God" Matt. 5.9. Few man are gentle by nature. It supposes true Christianity; it is a grace to be obtained only by prayer and by following the example of him who was meekness itself, and of whom Isaias prophesied: "He himself bows to the stroke; no word comes from him. Sheep led away to the slaughter-house, lamb that stands dumb while it is shorn; no word from him." Isaias 53.7. He himself urges us to follow his example:"learn from me; I am gentle and humble of heart; and you shall find the rest for your souls."Matt. 11. 29
He, the meekest of men, bore insult and mockery for our sake, died a shameful death on the cross, to save us sinners. If we remember him, we shall find it impossible to be hard and unforgiving, however ill men may treat us. They can never behave to us as they behaved to him!
O Jesus, we long to be gentle, as you are, and thus to bring your peace upon earth. You give yourself daily to us as Food and drink, and assure us that thereby we shall live, as you live, in the Father. Give us grace that we may help others to be gentle, and may win them over to your ideal of unity and love and peace.

humboldt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
humboldt said...

Jay, Thanks for the wise words. They are very correct.

I must confess that my rage was not directed to then Joseph Ratzinger, but to me for being so gullible. I was blind, for I was reading without understanding, I was looking without seeing. So my umbrage is directed to me for not excercising proper judgement and basing my faith on the actions of another man, who did not deserve it.

I am angry at me for buying all of that "trash" theology.

I have discovered that my Christian faith is still very inmature. In a way I must thank these people, who I believe have lead astray to so many Christians of good faith, for having made me realize what the important thing is.

Never again in my life I shall trust my faith on that of another man.

So the one I must forgive is myself, not Joseph Ratzinger. I was the one who was wrong, not him. But all of these instances have taught me a great lesson: the relationship between me and my sweet Lord Jesus Christ, is a one to one direct relationship, without any mediations away from him.

So my forgiveness process is with me not with the then Joseph Ratzinger or the current Benedict XVI. I was the one who was wrong, not him. But it is a painful process to realize that I have been so childish and dumb. ¡NEVER AGAIN!

I shall never base my faith on ANY man or woman.

Anonymous said...

Dear Humbolt,

I base my faith on a Man, who is also God.

As for JR writing books as a Cardinal, it enabled him to criticize what he felt was wrong in reforms and era of post of Vatican II, and that seems to have been his intention all along.

While he certainly has showed himself a thinker independent of the fathers of the Church and the doctors of the Church, and with little regard for authority in matters theological -- I think he does not even understand the concept of what "theology" means, really, because he thinks there can be non-catholic theologies -- nevertheless there would not have been as wide spread support for a man, perhaps the only one in the Curia of his day, to allow the TLM back on such a wider basis as he did in the MP, if he had not written those books.

So whatever his motives, God used it to better the situation.

BTW, let's get back to the topic of this post, if you, Humbolt, want to talk about this more, start a thread at your own blog.

Anonymous said...

"I base my faith on a Man, who is also God."

In theology the commutative law does not apply. Christians adore God made man, not the other way around; anything else is bologna.

Anonymous said...

""I base my faith on a Man, who is also God."

"In theology the commutative law does not apply. Christians adore God made man, not the other way around; anything else is bologna."

Dear Anonymous,

If you studied theology, which obviously you have not, you would know that there is no such thing as a commutative law: its called the law of the communication of idioms.

In regard the above statement, "I based my faith on a Man, who is also God", the statement is valid and perfectly catholic, because it speaks of Jesus Christ ("a Man") indicating He is both God (note the capitalization of "man") and the basis of our faith inasmuch as He is such.

It does not signify: "I base my faith on man, who is also God".

But perhaps you are not a native speaker of the English language, because you seem to be completely unaware of the signification of the honorific capitalization in theological discourses.

Anonymous said...

". . . honorific capitalization in theological discourses."

¡Ha!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for confirming that you are a native speaker of Spanish, because only in that Language does one use the inverted exclamation point.

In English, instead, we say, "Ha!".

Perhaps then you sould not fault us for using forms of signification foreign to your own tongue.

After all Catholic Unity requires as much.

Anonymous said...

"Thank you for confirming that you are a native speaker of Spanish, because only in that Language does one use the inverted exclamation point.

In English, instead, we say, "Ha!".

Perhaps then you sould not fault us for using forms of signification foreign to your own tongue.

After all Catholic Unity requires as much."

anonymous: ¡Your are a base racist or xenophobian!. ¿Who cares if I am from Mars?

As for my race, that is none of your business.

Anonymous said...

Clearly there is a fifth columnist visiting this blog.

Anonymous said...

Carido Senor,

I do care if you are from Mars: because then you are not human!

Anonymous said...

"Carido Senor,

I do care if you are from Mars: because then you are not human!"

LOL, ¡Ha!, Ha¡ . . .