Rorate Caeli

Fifty years ago:
The Pope sets the whirlwind in motion

Just three months into his pontificate, Pope John XXIII makes his plans known to his close advisor and Secretary of State, Cardinal Tardini.
An important audience. 
Yesterday afternoon [January 19, 1959], His Holiness reflected on and specified the programme of his papacy. He planned three things: a Roman Synod, an ecumenical Council, a revision of the Code of Canon Law. 
He wants to announce these three points next Sunday [January 25, 1959] to the Cardinals, after the ceremony in St. Paul's. 
I said to the Holy Father (who asked me): "I like beautiful new things. Now, these three points are very beautiful, and the way of making the first announcement to the cardinals is new (but linked to ancient papal traditions), and it is very appropriate."
Cardinal Domenico Tardini
Personal diary
January 20, 1959

32 comments:

Son of Trypho said...

I wonder what he thinks about what the results of his actions were today?

Anonymous said...

Cardinal Tardini didn't survive long into JOhn XXIII's brief 4 1/2 year reign. He died in 1961, before Vatican OO even broke out.
But he probably would have been a progressive force for change a la Montini. He wouldn't have been in the Ottaviani camp.

Anonymous said...

The consequences of 'The Smiling Pope's' three actions have sadly been more akin to "cry havoc and let slip the Dogs of (ecclesiastic) War"

ponte said...

Certainly a mixed bag. A Synod in sane times would have been fine and a revision of the code of canon law, again under stable circumstances. But the council commenced in such a turbulent period and was carried out and badly implemented in what could not have been a worse period of history.

People who want to play it safe focus on bad implementation but even the conciliar documents with their ambiguity and "time bombs" ultimately hurt the Church more than help. Furthermore, when one reads up on the history of the council it was a disaster for the media have so much access and for the whole conservative vs. liberal drama of the council to be trumpeted throughout the world. This was probably inevitable though since it was a council in modern times.

I also think about the other two things announced along side Vatican II, canon law and a synod. Fascinating, isn't it, how now the law of the Church is basically disregarded or not taken seriously in so many ways.

As for a synod, whenever one is held nowadays in a diocese it is basically a waste of time and money when all is said and done. They give a platform to all sorts of characters with all sorts of agendas but in the end the only thing left is copious "acts" of the synod that no one reads and a big bill that has to be paid.

Theophilus said...

That was the beginning of the end.
John XXIII thought the Church that gave the world so many saints needed an upgrade...and the rest is History.
I am glad to know that the restoration is predicted in the Apocalipse, but it will probably not be in my lifetime.

Anonymous said...

The important thing to remember is that Our Lord permitted it to occur. He could have stopped it. He could have made it all turn out differently. But He didn't.

Veronica

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry it happened in my lifetime.

I feel cheated that I didn't grow up with the beautiful Catholic Mass and traditions my parents and ancestors for 400 years did.


Some of my ancestors died for the Faith and the True Mass. It would not be a struggle to die for the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, but for the principles of Vatican II...I'd pass.

Joe B said...

Not sure I get the point there, Veronica. God permitted Pope John Paul II to kiss the Koran and write that they pray to the same God we do. I'd have to say one was a scandalous sin and the other was untrue.

Anonymous said...

Anon said, "I feel cheated that I didn't grow up with the beautiful Catholic Mass and traditions my parents and ancestors for 400 years did."

My sentiments as well. Now that I have experienced the Latin Mass with the FSSP and most recently with the SSPX I won't go back. I feel quite tranquil.

You hit the nail on the head...twice. How many pro-V2 Catholics would die for V2. I venture to say not many.

Leo said...

"I am glad to know that the restoration is predicted in the Apocalipse..."

Theophilus,What part of Apocalipse?

Anonymous said...

I hope you are not talking abut the "Parusia", because it contradicts the Gospel.

So, Teophilus, be more Catholic and less palmerian...

Adrian

Jordanes said...

Not sure I get the point there, Veronica. God permitted Pope John Paul II to kiss the Koran and write that they pray to the same God we do. I'd have to say one was a scandalous sin and the other was untrue.

The one was scandalous, but the other can be true or false depending how what one means by "the same God." The Muslim understand of God is gravely defective, but in another way of looking at it the God they worship is the God of Abraham, the only God there is.

Anyway, God guides the Church through the Magisterium, and therefore in a special way through an oecumenical council, despite all the static and fog of human sin and personal and political agendas that swirl around all councils. It could well turn out that time will show that it would have been just as well if Vatican II had never been convened, but even so not everything that came out of the council was bad (. . . damning with faint praise).

Anonymous said...

Where would one find documentation form the Synod of Bishops in Rome held just before Vatican II? I remember reading that at that Synod, Pope John XXIII restated the importane of Latin in the Liturgy but unfortunately I cannot remember where I go the information from.

Anonymous said...

'The Roman synod [prior to Vatican II] was planned and summoned by
John XXIII as a solemn forerunner of the larger gathering [Vatican II],
which it was meant to prefigure and anticipate. The Pope himself said
precisely that, to the clergy and faithful of Rome in an allocution
of 29 June 1960. Because of that intention, the synod's importance was
universally recognized as extending beyond the diocese of Rome to the
whole Catholic world....
The texts of the Roman synod promulgated on 25, 26, and 27 January
1960 constitute a complete reversion of the Church to its proper
nature....
The synod in fact proposed a vigorous restoration at every level
of ecclesial life. The discipline of the clergy was modeled on the
traditional pattern formulated at the Council of Trent.... The synod
therefore prescribed for the clergy a whole style of behavior quite
distinct from that of laymen.... The distinct character of the clergy's
cultural formation was also reaffirmed, and the outlines were given of
the system which the Pope solemnly sanctioned the year after in Veterum
Sapientia. The Pope also ordered that the Catechism of the Council of
Trent should be republished....
The use of Latin is solemnly confirmed, all attempts at creativity
on the part of the celebrant ... are condemned..., Gregorian
Chant is ordered, ... all appearance of worldliness is forbidden in
churches.... The ancient sacred rigor is re-established regarding
sacred spaces, forbidding women entry to the altar area....
This massive reaffirmation of traditional discipline, which the
synod wanted, was contradicted and negated in almost every detail
by the effects of the council.... [T]he Roman synod ... was to have
been an exemplary foreshadowing of the council.... ' --Romano Amerio,
IOTA UNUM, pp. 54 to 60

Joe B said...

The Muslims would kill you for suggesting they pray to Christ, our God. Don't be obstinate.

Anonymous said...

So much of what John Paul II said and did was scandalous and an affront to Catholic tradition that it would tale two pages of paper to list them all.
I'll name but afew:

Kissing of the Koran was among the worst.

Kissing the ring of the "Archbishop of Canturbury" ranks as #2

The Assisi Gatherings #1 and 2, but especially #1.

Praying at the Wailing Wall like a Jew.

Praying at the graves of Anglican "martyrs" in Africa and stating that they died for Christ.

Invoking the blessings of "Allah" when visiting the Holy Land in 2000

the Protestant "Archbishop of Canturbury", assisting with opening one of the Hoyl Doors to open Holy Year 2000.

welcoming Lutheran "bishops" up on the main altar of St. Peters in full regalia to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the birth of St. Brigit.

etc, etc., etc. etc.


You get the idea.

LeonG said...

The whirlwind is the propagation of modernism from within The Church; rising and militant atheism; legalised and enforced sodomy; a dechristianised Europe; universal rights to abortion, artificial methods of birth control and euthanasia; the devastation of thousands of parish communities and their churches; closures and amalgamations; the ruination of the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass in a socio-linguistic tower of Babel; the glorification of the "self" in Jungian-Freudian psychodynamic self-realisation/empowerment and the right to blaspheme, commit sacrilege and persecute Christians, ad libidum.

Pandora's Box has been opened by The Vatican itself in the form of supposedly "beautiful new things". Consequently there is little that is left of beauty in a church so disfigured by 50 years of novel pursuits, internal wrangling, routine episcopal and clerical scandal and systemic disobedience, that it almost resembles a protestant denomination bent on fragmenting further into more sects.

There is absolutely nothing left from the Councils, objectively speaking, that is of any value at all other than for its enemies who continue to perpetuate the current state of chaos in The Church. For example, many in The Church think the mohamatens believe in God when The Catechism of The Council of Trent teaches clearly, they are pagans. Elsewhere, neo-conservatives accept that the NO Rite and the so-called Tridentine Rite are one and the same when they patently are not: even young children can see this is so. And this genre of disorder worsens by the week.

No wonder Our Blessed Lady of Akita has admonished the dis-unified leaders of The Church for such compromises. We live under the clouds of confusion and unbelief.

LeonG said...

The Church consistently said mohametans are pagans, that is until we arrive at the postmodernist phenomenology of John Paul II (RIP). Imagine, not one pope disagreed with the proper teachings of The Church on what constitutes a pagan religion but for a pontiff who impetuously went his own way over most things no matter what impression was left in people's minds.

Interreligious "dialogue" like every other aspect of post-conciliar double talk & double dealing has led The Church along a spiritually & culturally relative cul-de-sac.

Jordanes said...

John Paul II was not a postmodernist phenomenologist, he was a personalist. Also, prior to Vatican II the Church distinguished between paganism and Islam. As unbaptised men, Muslims have the status of "pagans," but they are monotheistic and appropriate significant portions of Judaism and Christianity, and anti-idolatry to the point of iconoclasm, quite unlike all other "pagans."

Anonymous said...

I think they are in a similar situation as those Greeks St. Paul comes across in Acts 17:23-28. They had discovered the one God through natural means, and worshipped Him without knowing it.

It is a definitive doctrine of the Church that God can be known by natural means without access to authentic divine revelation. Similarly, it is also part of the Catholic philosophical tradition that God's non-contingent essence necessitates His existence. In a nutshell, since there can only be one non-contingent being and that being necessarily exists, to acknowledge a non-contingent being (A "Creator") upon which all else depends is to acknowledge that one being.

Muslims have therefore been said to make acts of "natural religion."

The great Jesuit scholastic of the Counter-Reformation, Francisco Suarez, explains in one of his commentaries on St. Thomas:

"Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God."

Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III


This is why Muslims have traditionally been classified as infidels or even heretics, rather than heathens. They are not idolators as are those who worship created things or imaginary beings with a contingent essence.

(note: acknowledging or praying to the one God does not mean those acts are therefore salvific--I think there is some confusion here that by admitting they acknowledge the one God, we are making their religion equally good and salvific--that is not the case).

LeonG said...

Phenomenology was at the root of his personalism and it could not disguise his ardent admiration for Husserl and the relativism of the subconscious mind and its subjectivism. This would explain perfectly well why he could give Tony Blair Holy Communion at the papal private chapel even though he was a sectarian Anglican at the time. It is also reflected in his papal writings which are often tortuously philosophical to the point of being uninterpretable in a clearly defined Catholic manner. It is certain that the influences of Descartes, Hume and Kant were also influential in Wojtyla's library as they were Husserl's. Also, the transcendental phenomemology was particularly influential as anyone who reads both Husserl and Wojtyla can discern. Both modernists and postmodernists are adept at phenomenologising all abstractions and concrete phenomena. Guided by such principles one can do almost anything that appears contradictory and explain its relative merits at a subjective level and justify both process and outcome. Therefore, put simply, inculturated liturgy with pagan dancing and The Latin Mass can both be cast as Roman Catholic and sponsored by the same person as such through the subjectivisation & relativisation of meanings & significations. Much of this was a guiding benchmark for John Paul II'S interreligious and ecumenical meanderings many of which were incomprehensible & even scandalous to many normal Roman Catholics but absolutely natural to him.

Furthermore, he went beyond Husserl and others towards a transphenomenological interpretation to embrace anthropology which led him to place man and his self-determination as a central focus of his own philosophy & theology. Of course, the inculturated liturgy with the priest facing the people and everyone actively participating would be the most apt for this type of philosopher: dancing, indigenous music and multilingual approaches were encouraged.

He was an active proponent of phenomenological thought. Like many a modernist & postmodernist thinker we can discover not only his personalism but his phenomenology at base. This is illustrated quite clearly by the fact that Kant's influence among others may be found in both too. Moreover, Buttiglione in his book on Karol Wojtyla exemplifies thoroughly the influence Husserl had on the man and his thought and implies their intellectual proximity was considerable, although Wojtyla maintained his own individual perspectives as well.

LeonG said...

As unbaptised men, Muslims have the status of pagans. The Tridentine catechism states this without inverted commas because it is clear about this and does not pour doubt over it as the post-conciliar church has done. They do not believe in the triune God. Nor did they inherit the promise of God except through the New Covenant, like ourselves. Until they accept God in The Blessed Trinity they remain pagan. St John is clear in his Epistles - we cannot have one part of the Godhead without the other and be considered believers.

The Jews are another story altogether.

The Bible contains its own admonitions about those who corrupt its Scriptures. Mohamatens have done so and incur such sanctions as are written therein. That is unless they repent and convert.

Jordanes said...

Phenomenology was at the root of his personalism

So then he wasn’t an adherent of phenomenology after all, just influenced by it? Or so it is alleged. From what I’ve seen of phenomenology and postmodern, John Paul II’s personalist philosophy doesn’t seem to me to bear much resemblance to them. I doubt any postmodernists and phenomenologists would have seen him as anything but hopelessly premodern.

This would explain perfectly well why he could give Tony Blair Holy Communion at the papal private chapel even though he was a sectarian Anglican at the time.

Assuming that story is true (I never did find out if that rumor was ever confirmed), one need not bring in speculations that he was a closet phenomenologist to explain that action, which as Supreme Pontiff he had the authority to take, even though I would think it to be a scandal for him to dispense with the Church’s law in that way.

As unbaptised men, Muslims have the status of pagans. The Tridentine catechism states this without inverted commas because it is clear about this and does not pour doubt over it as the post-conciliar church has done.

I think you’re missing my point. All the unbaptised, even the children of Catholics prior to baptism, are “pagans,” no matter what their religion is. That’s not in dispute. But we must distinguish between Muslims and Islam itself, which is not a form of idolatrous “paganism.”

Jordanes said...

The Muslims would kill you for suggesting they pray to Christ, our God. Don't be obstinate.

Some Muslims probably would, but most would just disagree. But it doesn't matter if they agree or not -- all that matters is what is and isn't true, regardless of whatever they happen to think is true. If Muslims disagree that they worship the God we worship, does that make their opinion correct?

Also, how would I be "obstinate" in saying something the Church says?

Joe B said...

Because the church didn't say it, one person did, and he was wrong because Allah isn't the Triune God and the Mohammedans know it, and your insistence on a parsing defense of this error is persistent.

The only defense of this stupid statement is that the Pope isn't an expert on the Mohammedan religion, and thus his stupid statement does not violate Papal Infallibility, although it does greatly scandalize us, as any reasoning non-Catholic will let you know as he laughingly walks away from anyone who doesn't know that people who saw off the heads of Catholics worship Satan, not the True God.

Jordanes said...

Because the church didn't say it, one person did, and he was wrong

Wrong on both counts. First, it wasn't one person who said it, it was more than one of our Holy Fathers. Also, the Church did say it, in Nostra Aetate:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

"Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom."

"(5) Cf. St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)"

Allah isn't the Triune God and the Mohammedans know it

But "Allah" (God) is triune, whether or not the Muslims know it or believe it. They certainly cannot know that Allah isn't the Triune God, because there is no God who isn't triune. All they can do is hold to the erroneous belief that Allah isn't triune, and Islam is so riddled with error that a Muslim cannot be relied upon to authoritatively tell us whether or not Allah is the Triune God.

your insistence on a parsing defense of this error is persistent.

I don't see it as a parsing defense of an error. I see it as an acknowledgement that there is a sense in which it is correct to say that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, just as there is a sense in which it is correct to say that we worship different Gods, because the Muslim understanding of "Allah" is gravely defective.

The only defense of this stupid statement is that the Pope isn't an expert on the Mohammedan religion

No, many have seen how his statement can be explained without recourse to "the Pope doesn't understand Islam."

people who saw off the heads of Catholics worship Satan, not the True God.

And not just the heads of Catholics, but anybody's head. When Muslims commit such evil acts, they unwittingly offer service to the Devil even though they think they are serving God.

Jordanes said...

By the way, I was able to find on the internet a good portion of the letter of Pope St. Gregory VII to Anzir that was cited in Nostra Aetate. The portion specifically cited by the Council Fathers of Vatican II is in boldface, followed by the Latin text and an alternative translation of the passage:

Gregory . . . to Anazir, king of the province of Mauretania Sitifensis in Africa.
Your Highness sent to us within a year a request that we would ordain the priest Servandus as bishop according to the Christian order. This we have taken pains to do, as your request seemed proper and of good promise. You also sent gifts to us, released some Christian captives out of regard for St. Peter, chief of the Apostles, and affection for us, and promised to release others. This good action was inspired in your heart by God, the creator of all things, without whom we can neither do nor think any good thing. He who lighteth every man that cometh into the world enlightened your mind in this purpose. For Almighty God, who desires that all men shall be saved and that none shall perish, approves nothing more highly in us than this: that a man love his fellow man next to his God and do nothing to him which he would not that others should do to himself.
This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of this world. For, in the words of the Apostle, "He is our peace who hath made both one."
This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities. Two of these, Alberic and Cencius, intimate friends of ours brought up with us from early youth at the Roman court, earnestly desiring to enjoy your friendship and to serve your interests here, are sending their messengers to you to let you know how highly they regard your prudence and high character and how greatly they desire and are able to be of service to you.
In recommending these messengers to Your Highness, we beg you to show them, out of regard for us and in return for the loyalty of the men aforesaid, the same respect which we desire always to show toward you and all who belong to you. For God knows our true regard for you to his glory and how truly we desire your prosperity and honor, both in this life and in the life to come, and how earnestly we pray both with our lips and with our heart that God himself, after the long journey of this life, may lead you into the bosom of the most holy patriarch Abraham.

Hanc itaque charitatem nos et vos specialibus nobis quam caeteris gentibus debemus, qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimus et confitemur, qui eum Creatorem saeculorum et gubernatorem huius mundi quotidie laudamus et veneramur.

"Thou and We are bound, therefore, by this charity peculiar among us compared to the remainder of the nations, that we believe in and confess one God, although in a different way, Who we praise and venerate daily as Creator of the ages and Ruler of the same world."

LeonG said...

Following nearly two decades of working and living amongst mohamatens and as a sequel to studying their belief system together with discussions, there are a few realities that the utopian interreligious neomodernisers of the current NO Church should note. The god mohamatens believe in has no Son and no Holy Ghost, nor will he ever have as this is considered a blasphemy that is punishable. Also, god is capricious ; has little to do with the time and tide of human affairs ; does not have personal relationships with humankind ; he exacts absolute submission to all the dictats of his preferred prophet ; he demands exacting vengeance on everything that is not mohamaten including acts of violence against all who do not follow this pathway and he will condemn to Hell all non-mohamaetans. Further, he does not love but can show acts of mercy but evidently not towards the non-believer. There are other unfamiliar facets too. I am sure most people would agree that this is nothing to do with the Almighty God that we know and understand from Sacred Scripture. This is another reason why the Trent Council was only continuing the understanding of The Church about what constitutes, in toto, a pagan religion. It certainly has twisted and corrupted The Bible and Judaism but of course if we know about the life of the founder of this militant movement then it is comprehensible. However, snatches of Scripture & an apparent lack of idolatry do not qualify it to be considered anything other than what it is - pagan.

Nonetheless, like everyone on Earth if they submit to Almighty God in the manner prescribed by His Only Son Our Blessed Lord, they can find salvation. But, by definition, their religion alone cannot save them no matter what phenomenological hypothesis a pontiff may wish to propound to the contrary.


In the strict sense of the concept, interreligious and ecumenical dialogue is a complete waste of time since The Faith may only be found in one holy catholic and apostolic church. If the dialogue is to present the undiluted truth & convert the sinner then it is has value but if it just serves to validate pagan belief as post-conciliar processes have done what purpose can there possibly be in that. Therefore, church missionary activity has come to a total standstill as a result. A rise in animistic activities in Africa and elsewhere is a pathetic but sinister reflection of this. Rampany atheism and paganism flourish in what was once Christendom. Moreover, Europe is slowly going over to mohamatenism as mosques mushroom everywhere - soon to be 4,000 in France up from 2,000. Social welfare that supports their penchant for large families assists this process. Once mohamaten Turkey joins the EU then it will gather increasing momentum.

Papal concessions to false religions will be sorely lamented if we ever witness the day when catholics are persecuted directly on the streets and in their homes in Western European countries. No one can state these days that this can never happen - 50 years ago universal rights to abortion, euthanasia and sodomite families appeared impossible too.

Kevin said...

Good of you to post that Pope St. Gregory VII quote, Jordanes.

Jacob Michael has a nice essay on this topic in his "From Econe to Rome" book. The essay is called "Together With Us: Muslims and the One God"--one thing it does is critique an article in Si Si No No's September 2003 issue, which is an article that attacks Nostra Aetate on this point of "the Muslims adore with us the one true God"

LeonG said...

Thank you to CNS/magdiallam

"On October 20, Magdi Allam, born a Muslim and baptized by Benedict XVI during the Easter Vigil 2008, posted an open letter to the pope on his website. On the eve of the first meeting of the Catholic-Muslim Forum which took place November 4-6, 2008, the deputy director of the Italian daily Corriere della Sera wanted to share with the pope his concerns about “the grave religious and ethnic downward spiral which has infiltrated and spread into the very heart of the Church”. It seems to him “vital for the common good of the Catholic Church, for the general interests of Christianity and Western civilization itself” that the Holy Father make a “clear and restrictive” declaration on the “fundamental question” which is “discrediting the Church”: “Is it conceivable that the Church legitimizes Islam as a religion to the point of considering Mohammed a prophet?”
He stated, “I say to you in all sincerity, and inspired by a positive intention, that the objective truth is the opposite of what Cardinal Tauran imagines”. “The truth is that Islamic fundamentalism corresponds naturally to authentic Islam which is of a piece with the Koran, which, in its turn, is considered of a piece with Allah. The truth is that moderate Islam does not exist, as Cardinal Tauran himself has maintained, although there are certainly moderate Muslims.”
“I wonder if the Church realizes that by not stating this and by not setting herself up as a witness of the uniqueness, of the absolute character, of the universality and of the eternity of the Truth in Christ, she will only make herself an accomplice in the construction of a world pantheon of religions, where everyone considers that each religion possesses a part of the truth, even if each religion claims the monopoly on the truth?
Why be surprised after this, if the fact that Christianity, put on an equal footing with a myriad of other beliefs and ideologies which give the most diverse responses to spiritual needs, no longer fascinates, persuades nor conquers the minds and hearts of these very Christians who are increasingly leaving the Church, who flee from the priestly vocation and more generally exclude the religious dimension from their life?”
“For me, Christianity is not a religion better than Islam, or the complete religion of a message accomplished in comparison to an Islam considered as an incomplete religion of an unaccomplished message. For me Christianity is the one true religion, because it is the authentic Jesus, God made man who witnessed among us men, through His works of truth, of good sense and of the goodness of Christianity.”
“It is precisely my experience as a moderate Muslim pursuing the dream of a moderate Islam, which made me understand that as an individual one can certainly be a moderate Muslim, but that Moderate Islam absolutely does not exist.”


To which I might add...


Westerners and wishful thinking modern Catholics need to remember that when they read the Quran [Tony Blair boasts he does this everyday] and the Hadith they do not read it as mohamatens which is why they do not understand how insidiously militant, anti-christian and anti-judaic it actually is.

Militant Mohamatenism goaded on by Quranic politico-religious ideology pushes the follower on toward the duty & responsibility of a wholly mohametan world that dominates and persecutes the non-believer. Violence is implicated in its methods of evangelisation. Once Christendom has been subdued by this it will comprehend fully what it has been negotiating and bargaining with. For these the "dialogue" is one of the deaf since the objective is to compromise with whatever evil it sees necessary at the time, in order to achieve the longer term goal. Many earlier Popes understood this very well and sought to defend Christendom, by force of arms if necessary, from this alien creed. They may import the concepts of mercy and compassion for the mohamaten with their conquest but they will never bring one of Christian love because for this you require total submission to The Gospel of The Christ and to the authority of His Church: the very church they wish to destroy.

Fr. Phillipson said...

Thank you very much Jordanes for your Latin translation of Pope St Gregory VII's letter. It made my day and restores a little bit of sanity to our Church suffering from so much confusion. dp+

Abaddon said...

"John XXIII thought the Church that gave the world so many saints needed an upgrade...and the rest is History."

Any who has watched a few films about the Fountain of Youth will know that the youth one had gained, and possessed for centuries, is cancelled out, not increased, by having a second taste of the Fountain. So when "She" takes seconds of the Fof Y after living for two thousand years, she becomes a hideous old hag, and dies.

That's what happened at V2 - the Church had already been given life by the Spirit of God at Pentecost, so when the Pope tried to bring about a New Pentecost, it cancelled out the one the Church already lived by, and had lived by for over 1900 years. And because God's Pentecost, unlike the Pope's re-jigged Pentecost, was a reversal of the confusion of Babel in Gen.11.1-9, the New Pentecost invented by men brought back the confusion of Babel, but this time within the Church.

That's what I think, anyway.