Rorate Caeli

The Pope

Uh... no, wait, wrong picture.

Mr. Weigel's recent note on the Holy See-SSPX dialogue is just so authoritative and peremptory that one could be forgiven for believing that the man speaks for Peter.

_________________
Recess continues for several days; relevant news may be posted at any moment.

102 comments:

Anonymous said...

The note was not very impressive. As good speculation as the speculations of the others. How does this “Vatican insider”, Weigel, know better than the other “Vatican insiders” what is going on? Do anyone except the pope , some people from the Curia and SSPX know what is happening? The rest seems to speculate as good as Mr. Weigel. I agree on one point with Mr. Weigel. It is an act of charity from the pope. But does it contradict a possibility of a dialogue between the parts?

Anonymous said...

Yes, he has no idea what he's talking about as you can see from his statements in this article.

At least he got right one thing - there is no "dialogue" nor "negotiations".

But I think he's probably trying to put pressure by his factoids.

PKTP, I'm your fan and I would love to see your own blog extra - apart from comments on Rorate Caeli!

Anonymous said...

My second response to Weigel:

Zzzzzz

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On a subject which actually matters, I'd counsel bloggers here to attend to the content of the new liturgy that Rome is supposedly publishing next month for the Anglicatholics. Why? It will likely give us a sense of what Benedict XVI has in mind for a fourth edition of the Novus Ordo. Of course, the Anglican parts won't be in any Roman Mass but I'm referring to the other bits, such as likely Offertory, Canon, and Consecration Formula, in partcular.

I thought I'd switch from one topic Weigel doesn't know anything about to another topic Weigel doesn't know anything about.

P.K.T.P.

Antonio said...

An Americanist first and Catholic second...

Paul Haley said...

It's called "shoot yourself in the foot" disease that troubles some pseudo-traditional Catholics who insist on vilifying the SSPX with trumped up charges that have no basis in fact. If the Holy See saw no benefit from the joint talks with the SSPX, they wouldn't have agreed to them. It's really just that simple.

As to the implication that the Holy See agreed so they could bring the SSPX to the "woodshed" for doctrinal thumping I can only roll on the floor laughing. These talks have enormous implications for the entire Church and we should all pray that they are successful. That said, George Weigel has never been one of my favorite columnists.

Jack B. said...

Can someone please post the areas of Weigel's column with which they disagree? Overall, I don't think he makes any incorrect assertions, and the article is not an attempt to subvert the Pope. But I am reading a lot of ramblings in these comments.

Michael said...

The Pope who greeted Constantine was very wary of the Emperor's assistance. He feared corruptive influences. His successor disagreed and embraced Constantine. In any case, their prodigy and the successors to the Apostles at Vatican II had every right to officially end 'The Church of Constantine'. Jesus Christ scripturally [Matthew 28:19,Mark 16:14-20,Luke24:26,John 21:17,Acts 15:7-29]gave them that authority under the guidance of the Paraclete. Mr. Weigel knows what we have always known.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, FL

Anonymous said...

The only question of interest here is when and under what conditions Benedict XVI will grant faculties to the S.S.P.X. The liberal press has tried to turn the S.S.P.X into 'toxic waste' but the Pope needs to think of the future beyond this pontificate, and he has nothing to lose in angering the liberal press.

Should he not grant them faculties, the other route would be to create a universal particular church for the Real Church, which is not the false construct which followed Vatican II.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

George Weigel in his column is entirelly wrong in everything - from the history and today of the SSPX, to the alleged rupture (he doesn't use that word, but he means that) of the Second Vatican Council.

He's right only when he says that the talks are not a dialogue nor negotiations. It's clarification of the Council.

Anonymous said...

Having a very good knowledge of the statistics of the Traditional Rite of Mass, I can say with confidence that the Pope needs to take an additional measure to restore the Church of the Apostles, which is, of course, the Church of Constantine. S.P. created an impressive increase in numbers of dioceses offering the True Mass for only about eleven months. If the Pope does not do more, he'll be left holding a dead baby.

One route is a clarification of S.P., particularly of Article 1. Another would be the erection of an international diocese or apostolic administration for the traditionalist societies and orders, also able to incardinate diocesan priests. A third would be a grant or recognition of faculties for the S.S.P.X. And there could be a combination of some of these.

Given the actions until now of Benedict XVI, I predict that there is more to come. Unlike John Paul II, this Pope does not have twenty years to fix this mess.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On the purpose of the talks with the S.S.P.X:

It's not a negotiation, no. The purpose is to identify and condemn all the post-conciliar misintepretations and also to clarify the status of Council documents. One does not negotiate over the constant teaching of the Church. It is irreformable, so what the Society believes in sure. All we need to do is to adhere to the constant teachings. Whether we even bother to read what is not required for salvation is entirely our choice.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I think the original post captured the tone of Weigel's column perfectl!

Anonymous said...

"Those are the real issues. Conversation about them is always welcome. Those who confuse conversation with negotiation make genuine conversation all the more difficult." (G. Weigel)

At least, this time Mr Weigel is not blaming the pope or trying to cover him with tar and feathers like he did in the Spring crisis with no shame.

However Mr Weigel is wrong, one more time, because he has some trouble reading. The decree of January 21, 2009, is saying :
"trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem (...)".

The proper word is neither "negociations" nor "conversations". The 2 groups of experts on both sides are not talking gently around a tiny and strong Italian cup of coffee or about the various tastes of Italian amaro.

As the decree rightfully reads, these "discussions" have a reason which is doctrinal and a goal to solve the "original problem". So much more than "conversations" but indeed not negocations in a common sense.

For the final presentation, I find that Mr Weigel is "funny" : we can hear someone who feels that anything about Vatican II is clear and simple, ignoring the doctrinal debates within the Church on :
- what does Dignitatis humanae mean really ? There is a debate.
- what does Nostra aetate really mean ? To have elements outside the visible Catholic Church does not imply much and what about Dominus Iesus ?
- SSPX has already repudiated anti-semitism, a doctrine she never professed by the way. Probably Mr Weigel was deprived of any info from January to today so he was unable to read the various statements of Bp Fellay about this.

A pathetic anti-trad. neo-cons ? or a new liberal Catholic who is turning his back to the legacy of John Paul II embracing a soft Mahonyism ?
In both cases, it's too bad that he cannot see the chance that these discussions can be for the WHOLE Church.

Alsaticus

New Catholic said...

Thank you, Alsaticus.

Anonymous said...

Weigel says that Joseph Ratzinger lead the reform in the Second Vatican Council. Is this true?

Anonymous said...

This just in today from the Anglican-Catholic Church of Canada, which is the Canadian branch of the TAC:

"In addition to their October Response it is expected that they [sc. the C.D.F.] will soon respond directly to the TAC. Following receipt of that information it is hoped that we would begin a dialogue on how the Apostolic Constitution might be implemented."


These TACers, being typicall English, then go on to advise nobody to speculate on anything or even to think about the matter. Then, at the end of their Bulletin, they go on to prove that they're English by including a recipe for cooking turnips. Does anyone today actually EAT turnips? Only English people eat them. Other than English people, they are only eaten by farm animals.

Anyway, this is yet more confirmation that a separate response of the C.D.F. is coming for the TAC. It is supposed to come around the end of this month, about one week from now.

The new Anglicatholic Liturgy being arranged by Rome is supposed to come in the middle of next month.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon :36

No. Fr. Joseph Ratzinger did not "lead" the reform at Vatican II. He was a protege of Karl Rahner back then.

Delphina

Jordanes said...

Weigel says that Joseph Ratzinger lead (sic) the reform in the Second Vatican Council. Is this true?

No, Weigel did not say that (though Father Ratzinger did have a role in the Council's reforms). What Weigel referred to was "the mid-20th century reform of Catholic thought of which Joseph Ratzinger was a leader."

Jordanes said...

The Pope who greeted Constantine was very wary of the Emperor's assistance. He feared corruptive influences. His successor disagreed and embraced Constantine.

To which Popes are you referring? Your comment strikes me as an oversimplification to the point of historical inaccuracy.

Don't forget that it was only under Theodosius that the Catholic religion was established as the religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine only began to help and patronise the Church

In any case, their prodigy

Progeny?

and the successors to the Apostles at Vatican II had every right to officially end 'The Church of Constantine'.

The State had almost entirely ended its "Constantinian" role (if you like that manner of speaking), so the Church couldn't do anything else but recognise that the "Constantinian" relationship of Church and State was at an end.

Dan Hunter said...

I will pray for Mr Weigels conversion.

Boko Fittleworth said...

We need a prayerful solicitude towards our reform-of-the-reform, "JPII Catholic" brothers. They fought the good fight, as best they knew how, during some truly dark times, but now they risk being left behind as Tradition regains its rightful place.

Mike B. said...

For Jordanes,
32.St. Miltiades (311-14)
33.St. Sylvester I (314-35)

Prof. Malachi Martin reported in his history of the Popes that Sylvester disagreed with his Pope, Miltiades. Sylvester may have been right in embracing the Emperor. No one questions the advantage for Evangelization work that Constantine gave the Church. The Roman/Byzantine Empires confessed the true God, while eventually discarding pagan entities. There could be no other valid reason to join at the hip with an Emperor.

Miltiades believed that the modus operandi of an impoverished, suffering Church was Christ's Will. The grandiosity that enveloped Sylvester would have appalled him. He must have been wrong for that particular time and place.

One could argue the obvious; that the effects of the French Revolution eventually made state enforced Catholicism counter-productive to the mission of the Church. Certainly, the martyrs of the first three centuries believed and died for freedom of religion, and the heart of the Church always expects one to come to Jesus Christ via free will. This is a good argument but not authoritative.

The authority for modus operandi change [this is not about faith nor morals] for Catholics belongs to the Pope especially when coupled with an Ecumenical Council.

In any case 'The Church of Constantine', which enforced Cathlolicism is a dead letter going nowhere. For those who can't take it, utilizing free will is valid within the context of a Catholic formed conscience.

However, God has made known His Will for the Church within the current era. The question really is: Are you in or out? I can't judge your conscience.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, FL

Jordanes said...

Prof. Malachi Martin reported in his history of the Popes that Sylvester disagreed with his Pope, Miltiades.

Do you have anything from a reputable Catholic historian? Martin has no credibility -- he was more a novelist than a historian.

Sylvester may have been right in embracing the Emperor.

It's not like spurning him and telling him to take an interest in some other religion was an option.

There could be no other valid reason to join at the hip with an Emperor.

The Church, nor St. Sylvester, were not "joined at the hip" with the Emperor, who was never anything more than a catechumen until his deathbed.

Miltiades believed that the modus operandi of an impoverished, suffering Church was Christ's Will.

How do you know what Pope St. Melchiades believed? It's not like he left a memoir or anything, nor did his contemporaries have anything to say about it. We do know, however, that history records no protest emanating from St. Melchiades when Constantine returned to him all the churches and possessions that had been confiscated during the last persecution.

The grandiosity that enveloped Sylvester would have appalled him.

"Grandiosity"?

We don't really have a lot of detailed historical evidence about St. Sylvester's relationship with Constantine either. A lot of legendary matter has come down to us, though, much of it known to be inaccurate or dubious.

Certainly, the martyrs of the first three centuries believed and died for freedom of religion

No, they certainly died for no such thing. They died for freedom of THE religion, that is, they died for their faith in Christ in the face of pagan imperial opposition.

and the heart of the Church always expects one to come to Jesus Christ via free will.

No, not always. Infants are expected to be brought for baptism even though their wills are immature. But for those who have their rational faculties, yes, the Church has always insisted that they freely choose faith in Jesus.

The authority for modus operandi change [this is not about faith nor morals]

The Church never teaches anything that is not about faith or morals.

for Catholics belongs to the Pope especially when coupled with an Ecumenical Council.

Apart from your mistake about it not pertaining to faith or morals, yes, the Pope in concert with a valid Council does possess the authority to shift the Church's "modus operandi" re the State.

In any case 'The Church of Constantine', which enforced Cathlolicism is a dead letter going nowhere.

The weakness of what you call "the Church of Constantine" is that it so rarely enforced Catholicism, but often meddled in the affairs of the Church and attempted to enforce heresies. That, however, does not mitigate in any way the State's obligation to the Catholic Faith.

However, God has made known His Will for the Church within the current era.

Well, considering the disastrous aftermath of Vatican II, one could get the idea that God has made known His Will for the Church, and that Vatican II's "aggiornamento" wasn't in accordance with His Will after all.

Anonymous said...

George Weigel makes the all the mistakes of a pulp-fiction novelist or weekend crime-beat reporter. He uses loaded words, he doesn't provide easy links that some commenters here found with no trouble at all, and he just can NOT see the forest for the trees.

First -- "Lefebvrists". This is quickly becoming like "racist" or "Nazi" in American political argument whereby the sooner you stoop to this word, the sooner you concede you have no point. The Priestly Society of St. Pius X was formed by Abp. Lefebvre AND APPROVED by Paul VI. They adhere to ideas championed by Abp. Lefebvre and countless others such as "The Council is not clear", or "The Council seems to justify action in those who part from tradition", or "the Council seems to be at odds with the timeless teaching of the Church" or many other phenomena that George Weigel himself notices and comments on from time to time.

If he would stop and listen to the argument they make, he might see that the SSPX has a lot of very good points besides just "The New Mass dilutes the Faith" - he misses that the society continually expresses concern for the fact that it might actually lead many souls into a false sense of security and cause them to risk perdition. He mentions nothing about ecumenism or "extra ecclesiam", which are probably two of the biggest points in recent writings and comments from the Society. And yet, he himself notes the gross misreading of basic theology when bishops start commenting out loud that the Jewish covenant is still valid and so there is no need of conversion.

Nope - typical for many of his writings, he is slightly hostile to real tradition, aggressively defends what he perceives to be assaults on the reputation of JPII, and generally misses the point. A little calumny against traditionalists thrown in for fun, and he doesn't even need the by-line. Calumny? When he says that many of the lay adherents are "more confused than willfully schismatic", what other word fits?

And no, I am not an adherent --> but I am getting quite frustrated at the refusal to address their points on the merits.

JMody

Anonymous said...

While this thread pertained to George Weigel, several posts regarding the TAC have appeared.

If we're permitted to veer from the original focus of this thread, then I'd like to pose the following:

A recent Pew Research survey of Episcopalians has made it clear that the Episcopal "Church" is dying.

Based upon comments issued by tradition-minded Anglicans/Episcopalians,
Katherine Schori and Rowan Williams are irrelevant religious figures.

But Pope Benedict XVI last Saturday made it clear that at least to Rome, Rowan Williams is a relevant religious figure.

His Holiness presented Williams with a Pectoral Cross.

Mr. Williams declared that the Pope is "extremely enthusiastic about the next stage in ecumenical dialogue"

Rome and the Anglicans plan to develop "phase three" of ARCIC talks.

The Catholic bishops in the U.S. have made it clear that ecumenism with the Episcopal "Church" will continue.

I simply don't understand why Rome and our bishops remain determined to promote Mr. Williams, Schori and the dying Anglican/Episcopal religion as VIPs/important "churches".

Other than homosexuals and abortionists, among tradition-minded Anglicans/Episcopalians, nobody takes Williams/Schori seriously.

Therefore, why does Rome?

Tim

Anonymous said...

Tim writes:

"Rome and the Anglicans plan to develop "phase three" of ARCIC talks."

Well,

0 + 0 = 0;

0 - 0 = 0; and

0 x 0 = 0, also:

0 ÷ 0 = 0.


On veering off to other topics, Weasel rarely deviates into sense but we can do better by deviating away from his nonsense.



On why Rome continues to talk shop with losers:

It is really the liberal Catholic losers who need to talk shop with the liberal Protestant losers, and the Pope plays host to their game of tiddly winks because it keeps them occupied. Occupied liberals do less damage than interfering liberals. It's all about diplomacy, old chap.

Close your eyes and use your imagination. Williams is the Archdruid of the Anglican Empire, which is the spiritual arm of the British Empire, which rules the waves and governs the lost colonies. They might not shoot tiger in India anymore but we can pretend that they do, and pretending is fun when your own organisation is nose-diving into the Atlantic.

Williams lives in Lambeth Palace, which is stocked with a fine collection of manuscripts, not to mention some the world's most expensive Burmese first-leaf tea.

Now how many Protestant leaders can boast that material pedigree? The miserable Methodists? The pusillanimous Presbyterians, the Brainless Baptists, the preposterous Pentecostalists? It's all a show but NewChurch is just like the Anglican Communion. NewChurch is a paper tiger. It is an edifice permeated by dry rot. Lean on a counter, and you fall into the basement.

And if the NewChurch of Rome is a paper tiger, well, the Anglican Communion is a paper mouse: it now looks irrelevant and it is irrelevant. But paper tigers and paper mice need each other: they need distractions from reality. Reality is so cruel. Liberal ideas ought to be true adn right. It's not fair that they aren't.

P.K.T.P.

Ponte said...

Weigel is a Vatican insider only in the possible sense that he has a secret time machine which he uses to travel back 10 years to the Vatican in the days of Pope John Paul II.

In the days of the late Holy Father Weigel was very involved and had more than frequent audiences. These days he cannot even get in for an audience nor to get the "inside track" as was once the case.

He has made great contributions intellectually to the Church and especially defended the Church in the public arena as well as calling out certain individuals for what lead to the sex abuse crisis.

Nevertheless, he, in a very John Paul the Great, neo-con way operates from this strange starting point that Vatican II is crystal clear and merely needs to be accepted.

Also, I always detect a bit of foaming at the mouth when neo-cons write about the "schismatic" and "disobedient" act of the SSPX bishops, but perhaps now not as often, also impugn schism to all of the followers and of the society. Just my sense; take it or leave it.

TOS said...

"His Holiness presented Williams with a Pectoral Cross."

A sign of authority which Williams does not have. Will he cause scandal like JPII and kiss his ring? I hope not.

Anonymous said...

This is a struggle between dogma (SSPX) and ideology (Rome), a dialogue of the deaf.

LeonG said...

Oh New Catholic!

How could you allow yourself to be so inweigeled?

Anonymous said...

:I simply don't understand why Rome and our bishops remain determined to promote Mr. Williams, Schori and the dying Anglican/Episcopal religion as VIPs/important "churches".

Other than homosexuals and abortionists, among tradition-minded Anglicans/Episcopalians, nobody takes Williams/Schori seriously.

Therefore, why does Rome?"

Because :
1). John Paul II did. And we must remember that Pope Benedict XVI and others in the Vatican who may disagree nonetheless can not move away from the path the magnificent, illustrious, perfect John Paul II followed. God Forbid that any Pope from now till the end of the world veered off the course set by John Paul II "THE GREAT".

2). The present Pope, and the next, and the next can't be allowed to think. He must adhere to the John Paul II line. That is what is expected by the WORLD. Doesn't matter what is good for the Catholic Church. John Paul II always laid that aside for his preference of outreach to the world. Everybody and anybody. God firbid any Pope would do otherwise.

That's why Rome still does this.

Just like some in China who still quote Mao 30+ years after his death...people will be copying John Paul II, his though and actions 30+ years after his death.

Besides, don't you know that the Catholic Church really began with Vatican II and John Paul II? All the rest is just useless garbage.

THESE ARE NOT REALLY MY THOUGHTS....BUT THAT'S HOW ROME THINKS, AND THAT'S WHY MR. WILLIAMS AND THE ANGLICANS WERE ACCOMODATED AND TREATED SO WELL WHEN THEY VISITED THE POPE.

benedictus said...

I normally just ignore nonsense like this article by Weigel, but I admit this one really annoyed me. Aside from the know-it-all tone, it struck it me as a totally unprovoked attack on the SSPX. I don’t think the nature of the discussions was controversial in any way. Weigel just wanted to pick a fight out the blue. I guess it is because the SSPX isn’t on the “JPII the Great” bandwagon, and they dare to suggest that there might be something less than ideal about the American political order. Which reminds me of my favorite part of the note:

“Does the SSPX accept that the age of altar-and-throne alliances, confessional states, and legally established Catholicism is over…”

Now, I haven’t read every word of Vatican II, but I am pretty sure it doesn’t say confessional states are verboten. I thought only liberals made up stuff that isn’t in the documents of VII. I guess now there is a neo-con Spirit of Vatican II.

LeonG said...

"I simply don't understand why Rome and our bishops remain determined to promote Mr. Williams, Schori and the dying Anglican/Episcopal religion as VIPs/important "churches".

That is because you do not understand the nature of modernism and how it has infected the manner in which modern churchmen think. Obsessive ecumenism and interreligious "dialogue" are the two precarious planks walked by the post-conciliar papacies. With the novel manipulable vernacular liturgy in the vanguard of this liberalist-pluralistic movement Rowan Williams, like the Dalai Lama and any other religious-seeming figure can be accommodated with relativistic facility. Religious plurality is a contemporary obsession that sits at the very heart of post-conciliar politics. Form one side of the voice is cried one lord, one faith while from the other side is uttered but many expressions. When all is said and done are we not all anonymous Christians.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"The present Pope, and the next, and the next can't be allowed to think. He must adhere to the John Paul II line. That is what is expected by the WORLD. Doesn't matter what is good for the Catholic Church. John Paul II always laid that aside for his preference of outreach to the world."

Regarding John Paul II's successors: the past three years prove you wrong. And lest anyone forget, John Paul II may have committed many serious mistakes, but a worshiper of the world he was not.

I still remember how the world media savaged John Paul II all the time for his stance versus abortion and contraception. How short people's memories can be!

Anonymous said...

Zero divided by zero is not zero. No number is divisible by zero.

Anonymous said...

+UIOGD He speaks for the American Bishops! Margaret

Anonymous said...

Was Joseph Ratzinger a prominent figure in the Second Vatican Council? Was he a leading theologian in the council?

Paul Haley said...

Jack B. said...

“Can someone please post the areas of Weigel's column with which they disagree? Overall, I don't think he makes any incorrect assertions, and the article is not an attempt to subvert the Pope. But I am reading a lot of ramblings in these comments.”

Ok, Jack, here are some examples:

"Prior to the opening of formal conversations between officials of the Holy See and leaders of the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)…
No, George it’s the Society of St. Pius X not the “Lefevbrist” Society.

“On the one hand, we have the bishop of Rome and those curial officials whose work is an extension of his papal office; on the other hand, we have a society of clergy who have been living in disobedience to the Roman pontiff for decades, and their lay followers, many of whom are more confused than willfully schismatic.”
No, George, neither they nor their lay followers are schismatic, willfully or otherwise. Cardinal Castrillon would disagree with your characterizations.

…”to listen politely to what the SSPX has to say, and to invite the SSPX back into the full communion of the Catholic Church, which the SSPX broke in 1988 when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed the schismatic act of illicitly ordaining bishops without the authorization of the Roman pontiff (and against the direct, personal pleas of Pope John Paul II)”.
The excommunications have been lifted, George, so in what way are the SSPX not in full communion with the Catholic Church. What do you mean “listen politely”? Doesn’t that imply that the SSPX have nothing worthwhile to say? C’mon, George, stop painting the SSPX in such a bad light.

I could go on but it’s rather pointless to comment upon Weigel’s opinions. He is not an official of the Catholic Church nor does he possess any Theological license to characterize these talks. ‘Nuff said.

dcs said...

0 ÷ 0 is undefined.

Anonymous said...

George Weigel wrote regarding Society of Saint Pius X "lay followers":

"many of whom are more confused than willfully schismatic."

1. "many..." Therefore, Mr implied that rather than "confused," there are "lay followers" who are schismatic.

2. Okay...but the Society's "lay followers" are "confused" about what?

Tim

Anonymous said...

What's the evidence to the contrary? That Weigel's wrong? What's the evidence that the meetings are occurring because the Vatican is open to the SSPX claims on ecumenism and so on?

The SSPX embraces a hermeneutic of rupture.

Pope Benedict says over and over that that is an incorrect interpretation of Vatican II. Commenters here would most frequently apply it to the NewChurch people who want to reject everything from before Vatican II and "create a new church" but why are you assuming that he doesn't mean it the other way and that he does, indeed, want the SSPX to moderate its views?

Anonymous said...

George Weigel wrote that "it is not easy to see how the Catholic Church is to be theologically enriched by the ideas of those who, whatever the depth of their traditional liturgical piety, reject the mid-20th century reform of Catholic thought of which Joseph Ratzinger was a leader."

1. What is the specific "mid-20th century reform of Catholic thought" to which Mr. Weigel referred?

2. Is said "reform of Catholic thought" infallible? Nobody may dare to question said reform?

(Mr. Weigel should have offered concrete examples of said "reform" so that we would at least have known what we're supposed to have accepted.)

3. A reform of "Catholic thought" transpired decades ago, according to Mr. Weigel. Josef Ratzinger was involved in said reform.

So?

One group of Catholics, of which Josef Ratzinger was a leader, replaced a version of "Catholic thought" with their version of "Catholic thought."

That means that a future group of Catholics could replace Josef Ratzinger's version of Catholic thought.

In other words, whenever they please, wave upon wave of Catholic "leaders" could overthrow previous waves of Catholic thought.

Does Mr. Weigel not realize the absurdity of the notion that our union with the Church depends upon whether we bow to a particular group of Churchmen's reform of "Catholic thought?"

Is Mr. Weigel joking?

Sorry, but I found Mr. Weigel's column in question absurd...not to mention arrogant.

Tim





"X" amount of years ago, A our Churchmen standings as Catholics is

George Weigel claim, the "mid-20th Century reform of Catholic thought,"

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins wrote:

"It is really the liberal Catholic losers who need to talk shop with the liberal Protestant losers, and the Pope plays host to their game of tiddly winks because it keeps them occupied."

However, Pope Benedict XVI (as did Popes Paul VI and John Paul II (I'm not sure as to what line Pope John Paul I would have pursued) has made it clear that he desires to "talk shop" with liberal Protestants.

It was none other than His Holiness last Saturday who presented Mr. Williams, the irrelevant "church" leader, with a Pectoral Cross.

The Holy Father plays more than "host" to waste-of-time ecumenical discussions that feature such nonsense as Mr. Williams last week declaring that the Catholic Church could embrace unity with priestess "churches."

Again...I just don't get it.

The Holy Father could be nice to non-Catholics (as were pre-Vatican II Popes) without the useless ecumenical gatherings.

We have talked and talked...everybody knows each other's beliefs.

Okay...stop by for tea...but either convert to the True Church or end waste-of-time ecumenism that sends such mixed messages as presenting the Pectoral Cross to pretend "bishops."

On paper, our Churchmen present Mr. Williams as a pretend "bishop."

In actual practice, our Churchmen treat Mr. Williams as a legitimate "bishop."

No wonder millions of Catholics are confused as to what they're supposed to believe.

Tim

Adeodatus said...

Alsaticus, you claim that the SSPX has "repudiated" anti-Semitism. Could you provide a reference for this please? Unless you mean that they told Williamson to keep quiet... which is not the same thing.

You may not be aware that, until the Williamson scandal got into full swing, there was a document on the American SSPX website called "The Mystery of the Jews". It asserted, among other wicked calumnies, that the Jews use the profits of usury to fund world communism and conspire to kill Christians.

I'm sorry, but that document (which contains many evil things besides the few I have said) was being propagated by the SSPX; it is tantamount to distributing the Protocols.

This is a crime that must be acknowledged and answered for.

Anonymous said...

“Does the SSPX accept that the age of altar-and-throne alliances, confessional states, and legally established Catholicism is over…”

Is the above a Dogma of the Faith?

One's union with the Church depends upon whether one believes that the age of altar-and-throne alliances, confessional states, and legally established Catholicism is over?

Again...is Mr. Weigel joking?

He reminds me of neo-cons who insisted that any Catholic who didn't believe in Pope John Paul II's "apology of the week" program had separated himself from the Church.

Why do neo-cons invent laughable "dogmas" that they demand must be accepted by the Faithful?

Tim

Jordanes said...

neo-cons who insisted that any Catholic who didn't believe in Pope John Paul II's "apology of the week" program had separated himself from the Church.

Did any neo-conservative political leaders, pundits, and writers make that claim? Most neo-conservatives aren't even Catholic, so why would they care who was and wasn't separated from the Catholic Church?

In actual practice, our Churchmen treat Mr. Williams as a legitimate "bishop."

And he might have been validly consecrated too.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone here have any idea where the deep-seated animosity towards the SSPX in particular (and tradition in general) comes from with these "neo-cons"? I have been noticing it for some time now, particularly in people too young to have known anything in the Church other than what we now have.

Delphina

Dan Hunter said...

"And he might have been validly consecrated too."

Jordanes:

Not if he was "ordained or consecrated" using Anglican "orders"
See "Apostolicae Curae"

Anonymous said...

Time writes:

"In actual practice, our Churchmen treat Mr. Williams as a legitimate 'bishop.'"

Yes, that's true, and yes, they should not. This has been going on now since Paul VI presented one of the Archbishops of Canterbury witn an episcopal ring. It is wrong and it should stop but it's nothing new and, given far worse abuses (e.g. Benedict XVI actually praying in mosques and synagogues), we tend not to comment on it much anymore.

Jordanes speculates that Williams might have been genuinely consecrated bishop. Perhaps but those Anglicans who are not Anglo-Catholics do not usually make an attempt to assure apostolic succession through Old Catholic bishops, so no such assumption is appropriate. This isn't it: the Pope's action was one of courtesy only and I agree with Tim that it is not appropriate. However, the shock value is minor given much worse abuss over the years.

P.K.T.P.

j.g. rathkaj said...

At least these days the bishop of Sandhurst, Australia, repudiated (after intervention of the nuncio) the request of the anglican sachem of Bendigo, who wanted to "ordain" in Sandhurst's catholic cathedral four women and men for his community.

Anonymous said...

In reference to Adeodatus's claim:

Adeodatus is presumably trying to help the enemies of the Church paint the Society as an organisation which is beyond the pale. They are looking for evidence of what the media considers to be muck so that they can prevent a reconciliation with the Society. Unfortunately, the conciliar and post-conciliar popes actually respect the rabbis of Palestine and what they think, which was a major mistake, of course. The Conciliar Church has also come to fear what the secular press thinks owing to the power of that influence over secular governments.

As to the particulars of Adeodatus's claim, I only note that such questions of fact are not, in themselves, matters of theology. Good Catholics are free to form opinions on such matters, just as we are free to form the very same opinion held by Bishop Williamson on the matter of secular history for which he has been condemned by the goons in the popular press.

Therefore, one can make a separation here. There are those positions of the S.S.P.X which might be questionable theologically and might therefore prevent a just reconciliation between it and Rome. The number of these is zero, since the Society only claims to adhere to what the Church has always taught. Then there are positions of the Society which might be unacceptable to the secular media and the people who control it. Everyone knows exactly who I mean. These might not be theologically unacceptable and yet might prevent a reconciliation of the Society with Rome owing to Rome's fear of those people and of their worldly power.

Adeodatus no doubt knows full well that his references here are paltry: he knows that there is much else he and others can and likely will dig up. While I pray that Adeodatus and his friends will fail in their endeavour, and while I applaud the S.S.P.X for all its theological positions, I must nevertheless take his side in one respect. I think that Bishop Fellay has been very foolish not to discipline and even remove certain Society members for their imprudence over the years.

At this point, the real question is how determined people such as Adeodatus and Rabbi Rosen in the U.S.A. will be. Rome would be wise to recognise Society faculties as soon as possible. If the Pope should wait on this too long, it will give our enemies the opportunity they need to obstruct any such recognition.

P.K.T.P.

Mike B. said...

On Papa Benedetto and Vatican II,
Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, S.V.D. reported in 1966-67: "Almost no one in the vast assembly, after the Pope, had been more influential in the passage of the Council legislation than Cardinal Frings. Except for the organization which he had inspired and led, the Council might never have operated efficiently at all. He had leaned heavily upon the theologian Father Rahner; but by the end of the Council, he had come to be more cautious in accepting his proposals. Father Ratzinger, the personal theologian of Cardinal Frings and former student of Father Rahner, had seemed to give an almost unquestioning support to the views of his former teacher during the Council. But as it was drawing to a close, he admtted that he disagreed on various points, and said he would begin to assert himself more after the Council was over." page 285, The Rhine Flows into The Tiber

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, FL
P.S. If you think there is any living human more knowledgeable on Vatican II than the 'zinger of rats', then you are mistaken.

Anonymous said...

More on Adeodatus's comments:

Essentially, I'd put it this way:

1. The liberal enemies of the Church have been incompetent. They have big mouths and they love to take legal action, but they have not done their homework. Had they been compentent and thorough, they would have compiled a dossier on all the imprudent things Society members have said over the years, sometimes even as representatives of the Society.

It is crucial to keep their incompetence in mind. They frequently try to create the impression that they have all the facts and all the files. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's a deception meant to intimidate their opponents.

2. In the wake of the Williamson Affair, the liberals in the curia have managed to convince the Pope that it would be disastrous to 'rehabilitate' the S.S.P.X in any way, even by recognising its faculties. Even the fact that the talks are necessarily ongoing is a problem for the curial dipolomats. The Pope has been convinced at least to wait while the pseudo-scandal cools down.

I should add here that the liberals want MORE than to prevent a rehabilitation of the Society. They want to STOP the talks because they fear where they might go in the long run.

3. This waiting period is what the liberals need to compile their dossier. Why do they need so much time? The answer is low intelligent quotients on their part. Yes, most of them are thick. These are not smart people; they are only mouthy and pushy people whom the media misrepresents as intelligent.

4. Once the cooling-off period ends and Williamson is abandoned and forgotten, the Pope will be 'unable' to reconcile the Society and might even have to cancel the doc talks. Why? Because, at that point, 'advisors' in the curia will 'warn' him that scandalous information about the Society is in the hands of the liberals, who will gleefully release it soon.

End of story.

Essentially, the charge against the Society will be that it is a fascist organisation of Jew-haters. Fellay will try to dissociate himself and his leadership from the implication but once the media gets hold of this bone, the image will stick. As Sir Humphrey Appleby would say: Truth is irrelevant; only appearances count. Adeodatus is a little smarter than the rest of his tribe: the most damaging beliefs of some Society members are those which the Society leadership has allowed to be disseminated in its official news media. The question can then be asked why Fellay did not forbid this, whereas he obviously has far less control over what some of his priests have said privately. The answer, I think, is that Fellay was not responsible for imprudent comments on websites but, in an imprudent attempt to keep the Society hardliners on side, he allowed such comments to be posted.

The Pope should have recognised faculties for the Society on the very day that he lifted the declarations of excommunication. Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos managed to do an end-run against people like Adeodatus (for which that Colombian will be forever reviled by all liberals) but the Pope failed to follow through. Even so, the liberal Cardinal Re failed miserably to stop even the lifting of the censures, which is why he has been so fuming hot angry over this (so much so that he apparently condemned the Colombian cardinal openly and loudly on a Rome bus). Re, who has done so much for the liberal cause, will not be missed by fellow liberals when he retires in 2010 or 2011--and nor will he be missed by conservatives!

But while the typically obtuse liberals fouled up on this, the pusillanimous conservatives in the curia also failed to follow through. Now we are in a limbo and the liberals have really won by default because the lifting of the excommunicaitons itself is only an exculpation of four individuals. What matters is that Rome should recognise Society faculties publicly.

MY ADVICE TO ROME: Next Posting

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

MY ADVICE TO ROME: from previous posting

My recommendation, were I asked for it, would be that the C.D.F. recognise Society faculties THIS WEEK in an official and public document of low 'rank'. I mean that it should be a 'notation' or something and definitely not an apostolic constitution. It should be an official act of the Holy See but not signed by the Pope. The idea would be to present this as a 'mere detail' that follows logically as a consequence of the talks. But this 'mere detail' would, of course, be published in the A.A.S.

Next week, the Pope would then make a big splash over his offer to the TAC, and we on this blog and elsewhere will discuss this to death, thereby taking attention away from the 'mere detail' regarding the S.S.P.X. His Holiness might do something else to distract media attention from the 'mere detail', since the media can and will try to ignore the TAC as irrelevant. Much as i hate to suggest this, H.H. might do something symbolic to please liberals.

Then comes the Christmas holidays and it is a fait accompli.

The longer the Pope waits on this, the sooner will come the day when he's waited too long. If he acts now, he can say honestly later on that he knew nothing about past Society internet postings.

Anonymous said...

"In actual practice, our Churchmen treat Mr. Williams as a legitimate "bishop."

And he might have been validly consecrated too

In that his consecration was Protestant, with the "reforms" adopted at the Reformation etc. his "consecration" was not valid.

Pope Leo XIII declared in 1896 that Anglican ordinations and episcopal "consecrations" were totally void and invalid.
That has not changed.
No Protestant consecration is vaild.

Paul Haley said...

With all due respect the controversy over SSPX internet postings is a tempest in a teapot. Who cares what this or that SSPX member believes in the politico-economic sphere? We're talking about the salvation of souls, including Jews, and nothing is more important than that - it's the supreme law of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI would be wise to invoke this law immediately and state unequivocally that he has no other purpose than to save souls. What are they going to complain about then - that saving souls is not his job? He could also say that this action is the logical follow-up to the lifting of excommunications and the opening of doctrinal discussions. Can't you just hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth by the SSPX-haters?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone here have any idea where the deep-seated animosity towards the SSPX in particular (and tradition in general) comes from with these "neo-cons"? I have been noticing it for some time now, particularly in people too young to have known anything in the Church other than what we now have.

Delphina


Because there was a rupture - whatever the supporters of hermeneutic of continuity say - and they're afraid it may be healed.

What is really sad is that plenty of people who came to be interested in TLM after Summorum Pontificum have somewhat similar attitude.

Anonymous said...

Delphina asks a very good question. It deserves reflection and analysis in my view. I'd add that most faithful are not running to the T.L.M. It's true that one cannot gauge its relative popularity to the N.O.M. based on this fact and that is because there is nothing like equal access to the two Rites of Mass.

However, we should be asking ourselves why many people work night and day to prevent beautiful Masses at all costs. The incoming Anglicans have this problem too. In 1983, the first group of them were given a botched liturgy, infected, tainted and polluted by the Novus Ordo Offertory and also harmed by a mixing of Rites (there is an optional Byzantine Ektenia form for the Prayer of General Intercession.

One can almost feel the liberals' hatred as one moves out of the sonorous cadences of the Anglican Liturgy to 'Blessed are "You" Lord God of all creation", the sudden intrusion of non-liturgical pronouns completely destroying the peace and serenity of the previous prayers by creating a sudden disconuity in style (quite apart from the banal wording itself). It figures the rupture that was the 1960s.

So why do liberals hate anything that is beautiful? That is the question. One reason is that beauty points to its Creator, whereas they want to dump God and recast man as his own god. The only way to assert that man is the standard of judgement is to insist that something ugly in most people's eyes is beautful is some people's eyes. And if the latter group is impossibly small (e.g. zero), the some have to lie and say that this modernist buidling is beautiful to them.

Another problem with a perfectly serene and beautiful liturgy is that it militates against the modern democratic error that all men are created equal. Anything excellent implies a standard in which some things are good and others are bad. This reminds people that certain people have better judgement than they have, and that is forbidden after the French Revolution! So a beautiful and reverent Mass reinforces a social class system which most people today, coached by our communist media, denounces and denies.

Under the previous system, people accepted the social place in which God had put them, and they accepted the fact that God created us male and female because He intended mostly different rôles for the two sexes, not only at Mass but everywhere.

However, there was a spiritual hierarchy that outranked the social one. In this hierarchy, a simple nun could have more real authority than a king. But that, too, implies a ranking system and hierarchy. Few want that today either: few want saints. Saints are better than others in an even more crucial moral category. How dare those saints be better than I!

So the error that all men are created equal leads to a dumbed down culture, a dumbed down liturgy, and a dumbed down society. It brings out the worst in man. Now the prideful man, fearful that he's not as good as his neighbour in some way or other, insists that everyone is equal in everything. There's no room for quality in that philosophy.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

In that his consecration was Protestant, with the "reforms" adopted at the Reformation etc. his "consecration" was not valid.

No, it's a lot more complicated than that. Anglican ordinations were invalidated not only due to defect of form, but also to defect of intent. The Anglican ordination rite today is comparable to the Pauline ordination rite.

Pope Leo XIII declared in 1896 that Anglican ordinations and episcopal "consecrations" were totally void and invalid.
That has not changed.


What has changed, however, is that many Anglican priests and bishops can trace a "lineage" to Old Catholic bishops. I don't know if Rowan Williams has such a lineage. Mr. Perkins says that's unlikely, and that the Church's treatment of him is a matter of courtesy (a courtesy that is ill-advised and goes too far), and I'd say Mr. Perkins is probably right about that.

Anonymous said...

"Because :
1). John Paul II did."

There certainly is a cult of personality surrounding JPII both in Rome and across the Church. I wish there was a more fair and balanced reflection of JPII. He talked the talk a lot, but unfortunately didn't walk the walk that often.

Davidus

Adeodatus said...

P.K.T.P.: You tar me as a liberal; that is obviously not true. No one who knows me or reads my words would mistake me for such (I attend Latin Mass, I vote Republican, I speak admiringly of General Franco... what more do you want?). Why do you say such things about me? Is it because I defend the Jews? Defending the Jews from persecution is not "liberal". It is Catholic.

The fact is, anti-Semitism is wicked and a sin. And as much as apologists for the SSPX such as yourself would like to cover it up, the SSPX harbors anti-Semites and even gives them a platform (until anyone notices, then they scurry into hiding).

Hatred of the Jews is the work of the Devil. Keep that in mind, P.K.T.P., as you spread lies about those who would oppose this evil.

For the record, I do not think the SSPX is unable to be saved. The one follower of that organization I have met is a sedevacantist, a Feeneyist and a slanderer. I know for a fact that there are anti-Semites in that group. But I don't think for a moment that they are all as bad as that, or that they are beyond hope of correction. No power on Earth is greater than the grace of Jesus Christ and His Sacraments.

Anonymous said...

To Adeodatus :
"Alsaticus, you claim that the SSPX has "repudiated" anti-Semitism. Could you provide a reference for this please? Unless you mean that they told Williamson to keep quiet... which is not the same thing."

I do not "claim" anything, I read.
1) I read during years "Fideliter", the official magazine of the French district of SSPX which has never, ever, condoned antisemitism, on the contrary.

2) I also read the statements made in January-February 2009 by a) Fr. Schmideberger German district superior b) Fr de Cacqueray French district superior c) Bp Fellay Superior general.
These statements were published on the official websites of SSPX and are easily available.

3) I also read that 2 priests were expelled from SSPX for antisemit declarations during the same period, one was in Italy.

Do your homework my friend : read.

nb. SSPX never condoned antisemitism, as an official teaching of the Society, so they do not have to "repudiate" it strictly speaking.

Anonymous said...

Was J. Ratzinger a n°1 theologian expert at Vatican II ? Not exactly.

The most prominent experts of the Majority were : Msgr Philips, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Msgr Martimort (liturgy), Msgr Colombo as a spokesman of the "Authority" ...
J. Ratzinger would be more easily put in the second ranking like his friend Hans Küng or Fr. Chenu or Fr. Martelet sj, Fr Häring, Fr. Delhaye etc.
But not third or fourth ranking.

He was in the inner circle of the important experts and the German bishops played an important role however a lesser role that the famous "squadra belga", the Belgian bps and theologians.
In the complex mecanisms of Vatican II, you have trouble to say this one was n°1 or n°2.
I don't know if there is a precise study gathering all the proposals made by the theologian Ratzinger during the Council and what has finally be transcripted in the Vatican II documents.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Anon 21:24

I agree. Who has instilled this "attitude" in them? Why?

Delphina

dcs said...

There are those positions of the S.S.P.X which might be questionable theologically and might therefore prevent a just reconciliation between it and Rome. The number of these is zero, since the Society only claims to adhere to what the Church has always taught.

Right, the SSPX "claims" to adhere to what the Church has always taught, but claiming to adhere to something is not necessarily the same thing as actually adhering to something; moreover, adhering to what one believes the Church has always taught is not necessarily the same thing as adhering to what the Church has actually always taught. Does that mean that the SSPX is actually in error? No, it only means that the claim to adhere to what the Church has always taught is not enough.

Anonymous said...

"Then there are positions of the Society which might be unacceptable to the secular media and the people who control it. Everyone knows exactly who I mean."

PKTP - I'm a little dense. Can you spell out exactly who you mean here?

Anonymous said...

Adeodatus writes:

"Keep that in mind, P.K.T.P., as you spread lies about those who would oppose this evil."

Which lies are you referring to? I can't think of any.

Incidentally, if you like Franco, you can't be all bad. Franco was truly a great man!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

dcs writes:

"No, it only means that the claim to adhere to what the Church has always taught is not enough."

According to whom? You are dead wrong. There is only a positive obligation not to adhere deliberately to what the Church condemns. If you claim to adhere to what the Church teaches and, unbeknown to you, you err in some respect, you are not culpable and you have indeed done enough. There's no bar to Heaven there; nor are you violating the laws of Holy Church.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Adeodatus writes:

"Hatred of the Jews is the work of the Devil."

Yes, that is correct: hatred of anyone is that. But as regards the dissemination of facts regarding the intents of one's worst enemies, that is not evil as long as one's purpose is good.

Christ commanded us to love our enemies but not to decline to resist them. On the contrary, we are permitted and sometimes required to oppose them vehemently by extreme force. Our Lord did He say that we had no enemies or that some of them are not more vicious than are others.

Compassion must be plenary and defence of the Truth must be equally adamant.

P.K.T.P.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"The excommunications have been lifted, George, so in what way are the SSPX not in full communion with the Catholic Church"

The excommunications never touched anyone else still alive save the four SSPX bishops, so the lifting of the excommunications this year did not in any way affect the status of the rest of the SSPX. To imply that the lifting of the excommunications also changed the status of the Society is to imply that the Society was also somehow "excommunicated" and "schismatic" prior to this year, which is precisely what all of us here deny.

Be careful and be consistent, folks.

Also, I think everyone realizes the obvious reality that relations between the Vatican and the SSPX are "irregular", shall we say, which is why the Vatican and Econe are holding talks in the first place, and why the Vatican has not given faculties to the SSPX. When most people say that the SSPX is not "in full communion", this is what they often mean, and NOT that the SSPX is schismatic.

Anonymous said...

Adeodatus:

I did not tar you as a liberal. However, from your comments, I am assuming that you oppose the regularisation of the S.S.P.X or that the Pope should recognise faculties for it. If this is a misinterpretation of your position, I apologise for that.

So why not clarify your position on this: Do you favour a measure by the Holy See to grant faculties to or recognise faculties for the S.S.P.X? Yes or no?

P.K.T.P.

dcs said...

If you claim to adhere to what the Church teaches and, unbeknown to you, you err in some respect, you are not culpable and you have indeed done enough.

No, rather: If you adhere to what you sincerely believe the Church teaches and in fact you err, then you are not culpable. "Claiming" alone isn't worth anything. If you "claim" to adhere to something, but don't actually adhere to it, then yes, you may be culpable.

Anonymous said...

The Pope presented Rowan Williams with a Pectoral Cross, which gave the impression that "Archbishop" Williams is a legitimate Archbishop.

That is why I remain puzzled by the Holy Father's ecumenical actions.

His Holiness is aware that 80 to 90 percent of Catholics, at least in the West, have ceased to practice the Faith regularly.

Regarding Church-related developments, said folks are far more likely to be "informed" by uniformed news media types than Holy Mother Church as they (the dropout Catholics) have little contact with the Church (as they assist at Mass infrequently, if ever).

The Holy Father knows that.

Several news media types and bloggers have, for example, declared that the Holy Father's above-mentioned action has demonstrated that the Pope view "Archbishop" Williams as a true bishop.

Millions of nominal Catholics have read or heard about the Holy Father's meeting with Mr. Williams and the presentation of the Pectoral Cross to "Archbishop" Williams.

Said Catholics have also encountered the reports that the Pope's action signified that Rome view "Archbishop" Williams as a legitimate "Archbishop."

The Holy Father is aware that millions of Catholics, dropouts and even those who assist at dreadful Novus Ordo Masses, have lost their Catholic identities.

As the result of ecumenical and interreligious actions undertaken by our Churchmen, and the "Protestanization" of the liturgy, millions of Catholics view all religions are equals.

I have encountered that within my family.

Via marriage, they have, for example, encountered Episcopalianism.

Thanks upon the dreadful post-Vatican II "reforms" and ecumenical actions of Catholic Churchmen, I have once-upon-a-time Catholic relatives who argue that the Catholic Church and Episcopal "church" are the same church.

Their belief is sonly fortified when Anglican Communion "Archbishops" are treated as such by Rome.

"Did you see that the Pope gave a bishop's cross to Archbishop Williams? That proves that the Pope accepts the Archbishop as a brother bishop."

Actions speak louder than words.

Once again, what the Church teaches on paper is obscured by the far more important actions of our ecumenically-minded Churchmen.

Please, Holy Father, you know that actions speak louder than words.

Tim

P.S. Please, Holy Father, demonstrate your ultimate support for the TLM by offering said Mass.

David Werling said...

Oh, good grief.

http://arsorandi.blogspot.com/2009/11/weigel-missed-press-release.html

John L said...

On the question of lies about the Jews:

'As regards the dissemination of facts regarding the intents of one's worst enemies, that is not evil as long as one's purpose is good.'

I understand 'our worst enemies' to refer to the Jews, so this is a claim that the Jews are our worst enemies. That means that they are worse enemies than secularists and Muslims. This is an obvious falsehood. Religious Jews do not try to get Christians to abandon their faith and convert to Judaism; they limit themselves to refusing to become Christians themselves, and keep themselves to themselves. Muslims on the other hand believe Christians must be oppressed, made to accept Islamic law, and converted to Islam. They have succeeded in this program to the extent of making the former heartlands of Christianity overwhelmingly Muslim. Jews have done nothing like this. As for secularists; some of them were and are Jews, but the vast majority are not, and there are no grounds for attributing the secularism of Jewish secularists to their being Jews - their rejection of God is a complete rejection of Jewish belief.


'We are free to form the very same opinion held by Bishop Williamson on the matter of secular history for which he has been condemned by the goons in the popular press.'

Bishop Williamson advanced an obvious lie - that the vast majority of the Jews of Europe were not killed by the Nazis. This lie serves the purpose of whitewashing a vicious pagan regime and making hatred of the Jews more legitimate, by denying the existence of an abhorrent crime against the Jews that discredits such hatred. This lie is not a matter of Catholic belief. But that does not mean that it is permissible to hold it, any more than that believing and spreading slander is permissible when the slander is not something that is contrary to the Catholic faith.

The issue of anti-Semitism among traditionalists is a real problem, as the above citations illustrate. The problem is not simply the existence of anti-
Semitism, but the toleration of it by traditionalists who do not share it themselves; as if slander and hatred cease to be grave sins when they happen to be directed against the Jews, and become mere peccadillos. Both anti-Semitism and toleration of it are quite common among members of the faithful who worship at SSPX chapels, and raising this issue is quite legitimate.

On the question of the SSPX itself being an anti-Semitic organisation; Alsaticus is correct. There are no statements by the Society that endorse anti-Semitism (links placed on websites by webmasters who are probably volunteering their time cannot be categorised as such); there are emphatic statements that condemn it; and there is the vigorous action that was taken against Bishop Williamson - his being removed from his posts and silenced. I cannot think of any disciplinary action that has been taken against bishops outside the SSPX that compares to it.

Anonymous said...

dcs quotes me and then gets it wrong, as usual:

"If you claim to adhere to what the Church teaches and, unbeknown to you, you err in some respect, you are not culpable and you have indeed done enough.

No, rather: If you adhere to what you sincerely believe the Church teaches and in fact you err, then you are not culpable. "Claiming" alone isn't worth anything. If you "claim" to adhere to something, but don't actually adhere to it, then yes, you may be culpable.

Dcs, if you err and this error is not known to the believer, then it is sincere, so you have only repeated what I have claimed, while trying to make the appearance of a difference.

It is true that we have an obligation to make a *reasonable* effort to learn the truth as well as to adhere to it, it is always possible to err in some point and not be culpable for that. Agreed?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

dcs writes:

"If you "claim" to adhere to something, but don't actually adhere to it, then yes, you may be culpable."

Yes, but you also might not be culpable. Claims can be honest and that is what I meant. I was not assuming that they would be dishonest. That's why I mentioned that there could be error in the claim.

P.K.T.P.

dcs said...

Yes, but you also might not be culpable. Claims can be honest and that is what I meant. I was not assuming that they would be dishonest. That's why I mentioned that there could be error in the claim.

Right, just as there could be error in the SSPX's claim to adhere to what the Church has always taught, and therefore the number of their positions that could be questionable theologically is not necessarily zero (as you wrote above). And this is the case whether their claim is honest or not and whether they sincerely believe that they are correct or not. Of course, that doesn't mean that any of their positions necessary are questionable theologically, only that their claims and beliefs, however sincerely held, aren't enough. Heretics (not that I'm implying that the SSPX is in heresy; I don't believe it is) - except for Modernists - always claim to adhere to what the Church has always taught. So one can claim to adhere to what the Church has always taught and still hold to errant positions, whether or not one is culpable.

LeonG said...

"P.S. Please, Holy Father, demonstrate your ultimate support for the TLM by offering said Mass.'

You will be disappointed since this is not his cause. He is determined to hybridise the two liturgical "forms". He has in some sense righted a wrong committed against those who love the Holy Mass in Latin but it is not his liturgical preference. He has in the past made some disparaging comments about The Latin Mass and devotional behaviours that it encourages.

Dan Hunter said...

Leon G: How could anyone in their right mind possible prefer, in a million years, the cobbled together NO that reminds me of a poorly run nursery school I went to years ago, over a Mass that has remained relatively pure and unchanged for over 1500 years?

I do not think that Pope Benedict XVI prefers the Novus Ordo over Gregorian Rite.
There has to be another reason why His Holiness does not offer the TLM in public.

Anonymous said...

dcs concludes:

"So one can claim to adhere to what the Church has always taught and still hold to errant positions, whether or not one is culpable."

Yes, or one can claim to adhere to what the Church has always taught and in fact do so, thereby adhering to zero errors and also not being culpable for any errors which one *might* have held.

Please don't tell me that Rome is about to explain that novel ideas from Vatican II are about to be revealed as the constant teachings of the Church. While that is not impossible, it is also not bloody likely.

P.K.T.P.

dcs said...

Yes, or one can claim to adhere to what the Church has always taught and in fact do so, thereby adhering to zero errors and also not being culpable for any errors which one *might* have held.

I don't think that's in dispute. If I gave that impression then I do apologize.

Please don't tell me that Rome is about to explain that novel ideas from Vatican II are about to be revealed as the constant teachings of the Church. While that is not impossible, it is also not bloody likely.

No, but again, that doesn't mean that the SSPX is not in error in their theological positions.

Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz said...

Fr Karl Stehlin, superior of the Eastern Europe House of the SSPX has some insights of the SSPX-Holy See talks from Bishop de Galarreta who visited Poland two weeks ago.

1. There are 12 main topics of the discussions, and the Holy See agreed that the very texts of the Second Vatican Council will be the subject of discussion.

2. Video recordings will be made (!!!). Also, everything will be documented in writing.

3. Bishop de Gallareta is very satisfied with the first meeting and the people who form the Roman part of the commission, because they're very conservative and more or less sympathetic to the Tradition.

So we can hope that the documents produced will be important for the benefit of the whole Church and surely these talks will allow the voice of Tradition to be heard in Rome.

In Polish only: http://www.konserwatyzm.pl/publicystyka.php/Artykul/4490/

Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz said...

Fr Stehlin also said that both the topics of discussion and the method were proposed by the SSPX and the Holy See agreed. Now they're asked to express all of their critical opinions.

Anonymous said...

dcs:

"No, but again, that doesn't mean that the SSPX is not in error in their theological positions."


If they merely agree to adhere to the teachings of the Sacred Magisterium, I don't see how the Society as an organisation can be in any error. Perhaps some of them are as individuals. If someone merely says: I adhere to whatever the Church has always taught and accept the Magisterium as the interpreter of that teaching, there is no error there.

What the Society spokesmen might ask Rome to explain is how statement #436 from D.H. can be reconciled with statement # 211 from Quanta Cura (of course, I've made up the numbers).

The Magisterium could then explain how they are reconciled or, if they can't be, which one is correct; it may also choose not to answer the question until after considerable study of say, 1,000 years.

If you are suggesting that twits such as Courtney Murray had insights which elucidate understanding of previous teaching, so as to develop it, I'd say that that is not impossible, just less likely than a meteorite killing me in the next ten seconds.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On the meetings:

The news is smashing but, let's be honest, the hard part likely lies ahead. But if there can be an agreement on Part One, perhaps Rome will recognise Society faculties on the grounds that it is acting in good faith.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I think that Bishop Williamson is sincere in his belief on the matter, which means that he is not a liar.

-noting of course that his sincerity only extended so far as to arguing that he never intended for it to be aired in Germany where he knew he could be prosecuted.

One wonders whether a "learned" indvidual such as Williamson ever asked himself why this issue is subject to criminal prosecution and didn't seek to inform himself further?

John McFarland said...

Mr. Brzęczyszczykiewicz,

I had not thought about it, but it is logical that the SSPX would "go first," if you will. It is they who have sought the discussions. It is also hard to imagine the Vatican's letting itself be seen as bearing the burden of proof. After all, it's not as if this conversation is going on with schismatics or heretics or Jews.

Whenever we see the SSPX's submissions on each topic, they will be the most careful formulations that they can muster, and so should be most useful.

But I'm afraid that the Vatican's responses won't be very interesting. After all, what can they say except: the continuity is institutional (popes and bishops made Nicaea and Trent and V2), which overrides the discontinuity in dogma between the Church's first 1930 years and the last forty or so. You will notice that Jordanes expends more energy in a week in trying to argue substantive continuity of dogma than the Vatican has since V2 broke up.

The Ecclesia Dei Commission sympathetic to tradition? That is news to me.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

With all due respect, you have a remarkable goofy idea of the Magisterium.

Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Even the classic elucidations of doctrine are centuries old, and almost always arose from particular problems. Until forty years ago, the Church has never been in the business of spending any time worth mentioning reconciling apparently inconsistent doctrinal pronouncements, because there were no such inconsistent pronouncements to reconcile.

It seems to me to follow that the prima facie answer to the fact that we now have such inconsistencies is to reject the strange "pastoral" council that gave rise to them, except insofar as its acts are demonstrably consistent with previous doctrine. I think that can be determined in a lot less than a thousand years. I think it could be determined in a lot less than a thousand days if everyone understood that the basic issue is the content of the Faith, not the authority of those with the responsibility of teaching the Faith. If their efforts produce novel teachings, the answer is not to generate further novel arguments to reconcile the novel teachings with the previous teachings. The answer is to reject the novel teachings.

Jordanes said...

But I'm afraid that the Vatican's responses won't be very interesting. After all, what can they say except: the continuity is institutional (popes and bishops made Nicaea and Trent and V2), which overrides the discontinuity in dogma between the Church's first 1930 years and the last forty or so.

You regularly assert that what the Church (what you call "the conciliar church") teaches today is contrary to and irreconcilable with what She taught before Vatican II, but you never get actually demonstrate it.

You will notice that Jordanes expends more energy in a week in trying to argue substantive continuity of dogma than the Vatican has since V2 broke up.

I don't recall arguing that point very often, but anyway it seems to me that you expend far more energy alleging substantive discontinuity than I do arguing substantive continuity.

Anonymous said...

Give me a break, Mr. McFarland. i was, after all, trying to explain to dcs that the S.S.P.X has nothing to be concerned about, since it merely wishes to adhere to established teaching. However, it is possible that the Magisterium could explain further elucidations, although, as I made clear, I see no reason to expect that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

One wonders whether a "learned" indvidual such as Williamson ever asked himself why this issue is subject to criminal prosecution and didn't seek to inform himself further?

Because the Nazis were anticommunist, and you can't say that about people who rule Germany nowadays. On the contrary, they were very sympathetic towards communism, if not directly involved in revolts of the 1960s. They must use the repressive power of the state to maintain the false image of good communism that defeated the evil nazism. Denying more than a hundred million victims of communism is not a crime in Germany. No surprise.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland wrote:

"The Ecclesia Dei Commission sympathetic to tradition? That is news to me."

I believe that Bishop De Galarretta said that those involved in the talks were sympathetic to tradition. I've heard this before. What worries me, however, is that Levada is in charge. He doesn't exactly have a track record which favours tradition.

I think that the Pope wants the talks to begin on a good footing, so they have begun on a discussion of Liturgy, where some in the curia might agree in general with the S.S.P.X. I am hoping, again, that the Pope is using all this as a way to justify a recognition of Society faculties.

The Pope must do something to advance tradition while he can. "Summorum Pontificum" did increase the number of T.L.M.s in its first year of life but the baby is now on life-support. The French bishops are preventing more Masses in France; the German bishops forbid personal parishes for the Traditional Mass; the Philippine bishops are now actually reducing the number of Traditional Masses; and things have ground to a halt almost everywhere.

What more can the Pope do? He can erect an international and personal diocese or apostolic administration for tradition (which I have been clamouring for for years); he can extend the reach of S.P. by clarifying its meaning; or he can grant faculties to the S.S.P.X (or recognise them). He can't grant the Society a structure because it won't take one until doc talks are done, which could take many years.

While the Pope could recognise Society faculties, I'm not sure that this would ensure the future because the next pope could simply withdraw such recognition in a day (I don't think that that would happpen but the provision alone would not be adequate). This Pope simply does not have the time to reverse the Revolution doctrinally and practically, not unless there is a Great Purge of Ratzinger. Any clarification of S.P. can also be obstructed because the local bishops control promotions and transfers of priests, and few priests relish being punished for saying TrueMass by being appointed hospice and prison chaplains. Just to support my point with a recent example, when a group of traditionalists finally petitioned Rome for their Mass in an American see, the local ordinary finally granted them a Mass 'at the only available' hours: 5.30 a.m. on Sundays or 7.30 p.m. on Saturday evenings. Ha, ha.

So there will have to be a universal structure, an international personal diocese. The sooner it comes, the harder it will be for a coming pope to shut it down. It's an ordinariate or personal diocese for the lot of us. The new Anglicatholic ordinariates are papal smoke signal: they are being used, in part, to prepare the faithful for the idea that not all immediate authority need be that of the local bishops. To break the back of the local communist bishops, the Pope is getting us all used to the idea that their power is not solitary in their bailiwicks.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

In preparation for what is supposedly coming next month, an new 'Anglicatholic' Liturgy, I had a look at the present 1983 Anglican Use 'Book of Divine Worship'. It is not impressive. It's based on a 1973 edn. of the Novus Ordo plus the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer plus, even worse, a more recent 1979 U.S. Book of Common Prayer.

It forces down everyone's throat that nauseating N.O. Offertory, that 'Blessed are You [sic, or sick] Lord God of all Creation' thingy. It also insists even with the Roman Canon that the N.O.M. Words of Institution be used, with the futuristic 'which *will* be given up for you' addition, implying a mere memorial, and with the mistranslation of pro multis.

We can pray for the following for the new Liturgy to come:

First of all, not one single word should be taken from the Novus Ordo. At the very minimum, there should be nothing from the N.O. which is mandatory.

Second, not one single word from any American prayerbook should be forced on non-Americans in the new ordinariates. Were I in their position and something from the U.S. version of any Prayerbook were mandatory, I'd refuse to attend that Mass. After all, under Anglicanorum Cœtibus, all these fellows are entitled to have the Traditional Latin Mass, and their priests are entitled to celebrate it in Latin.

It would be perfectly acceptable to have some American bits (such as their epiclesis) for use in the U.S.A., or even, at a stretch, for purely optional use everywehre). But nothing from the 1928 or 1979 U.S. prayerbooks should be imposed on non-Americans.

As a Canadian and a monarchist, I'd be damned before I would accept anything American. Anglicanism comes from England, not the U.S.A., so the prayers should be taken from the 1668 English Book of Common Prayer, the 1912 English Missal, and especially the 1921 Anglican Missal which, I've just learned, is back in print.

I also note that the vast overwhelming majority of these incomers are from India, not the U.S.A. or the U.K. Rome should be sensitive to that fact.

To my recollection, the 1921 Anglican Missal is the ideal in terms of the arrangement of parts but its translation of the Roman Canon is far inferior to that of the English Missal of 1912. I see no reason why the latter could not be imported if this is the case.

One way to ensure that everyone be accommodated would be that Rome could approve the 1912 English Missal, the Anglican Missa of 1921 and the Sarum Use Missal for these new faithful.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Because the Nazis were anticommunist...

-well except when they were dividing up Catholic Poland of course...

the rest of the comment doesn't deserve a considered response as it delves into the realm of conspiracy theory.

Mar said...

Anonymous 22:18,

Yes, consigning any opinion which differs from your politically correct one to the realm of conspiracy theory isn't a considered response, that's true.

And speaking of Catholic Poland, if it had not been for 'conspiracy theorists' maintaining their version of what happened in the Katyn forest despite jeerers and sneerers such as yourself the truth may never have come to light.

Anonymous said...

Mar

I would humbly suggest that you do some reading on the Katyn issue and come back and comment. Perhaps start with the issue when it was raised at Nuremberg and then move to the Madden enquiry. The only conspiracy after WW2 was that on the part of the USSR - the rest of the world acknowledged that they were responsible.

Mar said...

Anonymous 03:10,

Save your protestations of humility as I certainly have done some reading about Katyn. The USSR was not the only one involved in a 'conspiracy'. Also involved were UK and USA, the other two Allies of "The Big Three". Playing essentially the role of Western sycophants, they denied Soviet culpability for this crime throughout the Cold War and the life of the Soviet Union, right up to fairly recent times, thereby enforcing a scandalous cover-up.

The London Poles, who put together an account of what had happened, had a hard time keeping the matter alive in the face of much opposition to the truth coming out.

Louis FitzGibbon has extensively documented not only the events of Katyn but also the ensuing cover-up by the Allies.

Nuremberg Trial. When the Soviet prosecution at the Nuremberg Trial accused the Germans of the Katyn massacre, no Polish representative was called to testify. Even Dr. Stanislaw Swianiewicz who could have given the most pertinent testimony was not called. Swianiewicz, an officer in the Polish Army during the Second World War, was captured by the Soviets and destined to be shot at Katyn. He escaped by a quirk of fate.

Madden Enquiry. It charged that the Poles had been killed by the Soviets but evaded the issue of the US cover-up. As recently as the late 70s the UK condemned moves to erect a plaque to the victims as provocative in the political climate of the Cold War.

So if your humilitas is consonant with veritas, Anonymous, perhaps it is you who should do some reading on the Katyn issue.

Anonymous said...

See for example: "Early life" of this particular prominent figure on the German political scene - ex-foreign minister and Vice Chancellor (1998-2005), leader of Alliance '90/The Greens party:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joschka_Fischer

In 1967 he became active in the German student movement and left-wing movement (post-) 1968 (the so-called Spontis), first in Stuttgart and after 1968 in Frankfurt am Main. Later Fischer had several unskilled worker jobs, among others in a left-wing bookstore in Frankfurt. During this period he began attending leftist university events as a guest, such as the lectures, de rigueur for revolutionary students, of Theodor W. Adorno, Jürgen Habermas and Oskar Negt.[2] He studied the works of Marx, Mao and Hegel and became a member of the militant group Revolutionärer Kampf (Revolutionary Struggle). Fischer was a leader in several street battles fought by the radical Putzgruppe (literally "cleaning squad", with the first syllable being interpreted as an acronym for Proletarische Union für Terror und Zerstörung, "Proletarian Union for Terror and Destruction") which physically attacked a number of police officers. Photos of one such battle in March 1973, which were later to haunt him, show him clubbing policeman Rainer Marx[3], to whom he later publicly apologized.

His close friendship with Daniel Cohn-Bendit dates from this time. In 1971 he began working for the car manufacturer Opel and tried to organise his fellow workers for a coming communist revolution. (This was not organising on behalf of an ordinary labour union: the vast majority of Opel's workers had already been organised by IG Metall, the German metalworkers' union, decades earlier.) Six months later he was fired because of these political activities


And he's not the only one terrorist in Germany who apparently renounced "violence" but not leftist ideas.

How can people like him admit that their beloved communists collaborated with the Nazis until 1942, and that they in fact were worse?

"Conspiracy theory", "xenophobia", "intolerance", "anti-Semitism", "fascism" are just words used like hammers by the Left, they have no real meaning, they're insults used with intention to exclude your opponent from public discourse.

Just answer for yourself, is it impossible to set up a conspiracy? were there no conspiracies ever in the history of mankind? (tip: there was an attempt to assassinate Hitler or something). The same applies to other loaded words I mentioned.

But it works both ways. The notion that one man with silly moustache wanted to murder entire nations must be a conspiracy theory, this can't be possible, you must be wrong, ha ha ha.

Omaha Greg said...

Does the SSPX accept that the age of altar-and-throne alliances, confessional states, and legally established Catholicism is over, and that the Catholic Church rejects the use of coercive state power on behalf of its truth claims?
Uh, right.
Which is why the Catholic Church--to this day--has concordats with nations such as Colombia, Malta, Dominican Republic that recognize the Church's privileged role in education, marriage legislation, public recognition of Church holidays, and other aspects of civil life.
That D.H. require the the Church to abandon "confessional states" is erroneous both from the document itself and from actual Vatican practice since the Council, and it is a myth that should be put to rest.

Anonymous said...

TAG THIS! Why was this not tagged with the SSPX-doctrinal talks tag (or whatever it is)? I watch for that tag and am disappointed that, had I not broadened my search, I should never have found this entry!!