Rorate Caeli

Italian Catholic Intellectuals Beg Benedict XVI To “Flee the Spirit of Assisi”

(UPDATE January 23, 2011 10:28 A.M.: As DICI itself indicates, certain passages from the original letter have been removed from this translation. I have now included translations of the missing passages in blue, with the complete Italian text as my reference. I have also adjusted the division of the text into paragraphs to bring the translation nearer to the original. 

In my judgment the non-inclusion of certain passages in the DICI translation has given a slightly harsher tone to the translation than is actually to be found in the original, and somewhat distorted the line of argumentation actually used by the authors, who refer to Vatican II and to a book of the then-Cardinal Ratzinger in support of their appeal to Benedict XVI. CAP)

From DICI:

On January 11, Catholic Italian journalists and academics caused to appear in Il Foglio a supplication to the Pope, begging him not to go to Assisi next October. Here are some of the most significant extracts.

Most Holy Father,
Holy Father Benedict XVI,

We are some Catholics who are extremely grateful for the work that you are performing as Pastor  of the universal Church in recent years. We are grateful for your great assessment of human reason, for having given us the Motu proprio "Summorum pontificum", for your profitable relationship with those Anglicans who are returning to unity and for many other things as well.

We take the liberty of writing you after having learned, precisely during the massacre of the Coptic Christians (Ed. in Egypt, December 31, 2010), your intention of convening in Assisi, in October, a large inter-religious assembly, 25 years after “Assisi 1986”.

We all remember this event that took place so long ago.

An event like few others in the media, that, independently of the intentions and declarations of he (those) who convened it, had an undeniable repercussion, relaunching in the Catholic world indifference and religious relativism.


It is this event that caused to take effect among the Christian people the idea that the secular teaching of the Church, “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic”, concerning the unique character of the Savior, was in some way to be banished to the archives.

We all remember the representatives of all the religions in a Catholic sanctuary, the church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, lined up with olive branches in hand: as if to signify that peace does not come through Christ but, indistinctly, through all the founders of any credo whatsoever (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Kali, Christ…)

We remember the prayer of the Muslims in Assisi, the city of a saint who had made the conversion of the Muslims one of his objectives. We remember the prayer of the animists, their invocation to the spirits of the elements, and of other believers or representatives of atheistic religions, such as Jainism.

The effect of this “praying together”, whatever its goal may be, like it or not, is to make many believe that all were praying to “the same God”, only with different names.

On the contrary, the Scriptures are clear: “Thou shalt not have false gods before me” (First Commandment), “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no man cometh to the Father but by me” (John 14:6)

Those who write here (the authors of this letter -- CAP) in no way contest a dialogue with each and every person, whatever his religion may be.

We live in the world, and every day we speak, discuss, love, even those who are not Christian, because they are atheists, indifferent, or of other religions. But that does not keep us from believing that God came down to earth, and let Himself be killed to teach us, precisely, the Way, the Truth, and not just one of many possible ways and truths. Christ is, for us Christians, the Savior; the only Savior of the world.

We recall with consternation, going back 25 years, the chickens beheaded on the altar of St. Claire according to tribal rituals and a statue of Buddha placed on the altar in the church of St. Peter, above the relics of the martyr Vittorino, killed in 400 AD to bear witness to his faith.

We remember the Catholic priests at the initiation rites of other religions: a horrible scene, for, if it is “ridiculous” to baptize into the Catholic faith an adult who does not believe, just as absurd is it for a priest to undergo a ritual of which he recognizes neither the validity nor the utility. By doing this, one ends up just spreading one idea: that rites, all rites, are nothing but empty human gestures. That all the conceptions of the divine are of equal value. That all moralities, that emanate from all religions, are interchangeable. 

That is the “spirit of Assisi”, upon which the media and the most relativist milieus of the Church have elaborated, sowing confusion. It seemed to us foreign to the Gospel and to the Church of Christ that had never, in two thousand years, chosen to do such a thing. We would have liked to rewrite these ironic observations of a French journalist: “In the presence of so many gods, one will believe more easily that they are all equal than that there is only one that is true. The scornful Parisian will imitate that skeptical collector, whose friend had just made an idol fall from a table: ‘Ah, unhappy one, that may have been the true God’.”

We therefore find comfort for our perplexities in the many declarations of the Popes who have always condemned such a “dialogue”.

Indeed, a congress of all religions has already been organized in Chicago in 1893 and in Paris in 1900. But Pope Leo XIII intervened to forbid all Catholics to participate.

The same attitude was that of Pius XI, the Pope who condemned Nazi atheism and Communist atheism, but deplored at the same time the attempt to unite people in the name of a vague and indistinct sentiment, without religion, without Christ.

Pius XI wrote thus in Mortalium Animos (Epiphany 1928) concerning ecumenical encounters: “We see some men, convinced that it is very rare to meet men deprived of all religious sense, nourish the hope that it might be possible to lead peoples without difficulty, in spite of their religious differences, to a fraternal agreement on the profession of certain doctrines considered as a common foundation of spiritual life. That is why they begin to hold congresses, reunions, conferences, frequented by an appreciably large audience, and, to their discussions, they invite all men indistinctly, infidels of all kinds along with the faithful of Christ and even those who, unfortunately, have separated themselves from Christ or who, with bitterness and obstinacy, deny the divinity of His nature and of His mission. Such undertakings cannot, in any way, be approved by Catholics, since they are based on the erroneous opinion that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, in the sense that all equally, although in different ways, manifest and signify the natural and innate sentiment that carries us towards God and pushes us to recognize with respect His power. In truth, the partisans of this theory fall into a complete error, but what is more, in perverting the notion of the true religion, they repudiate it, and they fall step by step into naturalism and atheism.”

In retrospect, we can say that Pope Pius XI was right, even on the level of the simple opportunity: in reality, what has been the effect of “Assisi 1986”, in spite of the just declarations of Pope John Paul II, aimed at forestalling such an interpretation?

What is the message relaunched by the organizers, the media, and even the many modernist clerics desirous of overturning the tradition of the Church?

What came across to many Christians, through the images, which are always the most evocative, and through the newspapers and television, is very clear: religious relativism, which is the equivalent of atheism.

If all pray “together”, many have concluded, then all religions are “equal”, but if this is the case, that means that none of them is true.

At this time, you, cardinal and prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, with Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, and several others, were among those who expressed serious doubts. For this reason, in the following years, you have never participated in the replicas proposed each year by the Community of Sant’Egidio. (…)

Actually, as you wrote in “Faith, Truth and Tolerance. Christianity and the religions of the world” (Cantagalli, 2005), when really criticizing an ecumenism that is colored by indifference, the Catholic “should understand that there are no ‘religions’ in a general sense, that there is not a common idea of God and a common faith in Him, that the difference is not only one regarding the interchangeable pictures or conceptual forms but concerns the same last choices".

You perfectly agree then with Leo XIII and with Pius XI on the danger of contributing, with events such as “Assisi 1986”, to syncretism and religious indifference.

There is a risk highlighted also by the Council fathers of Vatican II  when in Unitatis Redintegratio they asked for prudence against ecumenism, not against other religions, but against other “Christians”: “Still the communication of sacred things should not be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity…” These past years you have taught, without always being understood, even by Catholics, that dialogue has its place, and can take place, not between different theologies, but between different cultures, and not between different religions, but between men, in the light of that which distinguishes us all: human reason.

Without recreating the ancient pagan Pantheon; without the integrity of the faith being compromised by a love for theological compromise; without Revelation, that is not our own, being modified by men and theologians in the aim of reconciling the irreconcilable; without placing Christ, “sign of contradiction”, on the same level as Buddha or Confucius, who, besides, never said that they were God.

This is why we are here to expose to you our fears.

We fear that, whatever you may say, television, the newspapers, and many Catholics will interpret it in the light of this past and of the present indifferentism; we fear that, whatever you may claim, the event will be read as a continuation of the manipulation of the figure of St. Francis, transformed by today’s ecumenists into an pacifist, a syncretist without faith. It is already the case.

We are afraid that whatever you may say to clarify things more, the simple faithful, of whose number we are, everywhere in the world will see but one fact (and that is all that will be shown, for example, on television): the Vicar of Christ not only speaking, debating, dialoguing with the representatives of other religions, but also praying with them. As if the manner and the end of prayer were indifferent.

And many will think mistakenly that the Church has henceforth capitulated, and recognized, in the line of the New Age way of thinking, that to pray to Christ, Allah, Buddha, or Manitu is the same thing. That animist and islamic polygamy, hindu castes or the polytheistic animist spiritualism, can go hand-in-hand with Christian monogamy, the law of love and pardon of the One and Triune God.
However, as you have written, in the book cited: “With the lack of differentiation of religions and the idea that they are all discernible and at the same time equal, we do not get anywhere”. Most Holy Father, we believe that with a new “Assisi 1986”, no Christian in the Orient will be saved: nor in Communist China, nor in North Korea or Pakistan or Iraq… on the contrary, many faithful will not understand why in these countries, people still die martyrs for not renouncing their encounter not with just any religion, but with Christ. Just as the Apostles died.

In the face of persecution, there exist political, diplomatic means, personal dialogues between States: may they all take place, and as well as possible. With Your love and Your desire for peace for all men.

But without giving those who wish to sow confusion and to augment religious relativism – antechamber of all relativisms –, an opportunity, for the media included, as appetizing as a second edition of “Assisi 1986”.

With our filial devotion,

Francis Agnoli, Lorenzo Bertocchi, Roberto de Mattei, Corrado Gnerre, Alessandro Gnocchi, Camillo Langone, Mario Palmaro

(Sources: messainlatino.it, in italian. The bold print is from this edition – DICI 228, Jan. 20, 2011)

48 comments:

ElGatoLobo said...

=(

We are living a very confuse time...

LeonG said...

Amen!

It is about time the papacy desisted from this ecumenical and interreligious pathway of madness. All it achieves is the production of a neo-catholicism which is devoid of any missionary militancy and a passive acceptance of false beliefs as the only appropriate approach to contemporary religion.

This is one very salient and germane reason why JP II (RIP) should not be beatified - he propagated indifferentism & relativism, both pastorally and liturgically on a global basis. He is not a model to be imitated. It is time too we heard more protest about this manipulation of the sanctification process, gutted by the previous pontiff, too.

We should all be manifesting our disapproval of the evil spirit of Assisi, for this is what it is.

Anonymous said...

"We are living a very confuse time..."

That is the result of having cast aside Traditional Liturgy, from which everything flows that will form us to think and act in Traditional Catholic fashion.

Tom

Anonymous said...

God help us all. Sometimes I really do believe that Our Holy Catholic church has hit the self destruct button. Or should I say what seems to be the church. There are many of the faithful who remain faithful to the Gospel and to the Holy Traditions handed down to us by Christ and His apostles. We are finding it hard to be assured that the smoke in the Vatican hasn't blinded our present Holy Father. We need to pray and pray hard.

Anonymous said...

Are the signatories prominent in Italy? Here in the U.S., I am not familiar with them. Will the Pope recognize their names?

mundabor said...

A truly beautiful letter and I hope that the Holy Father will give it careful consideration.

Mundabor

Prof. Basto said...

The Pope changed his mind in the matter of his intention of declaring St. John Vianney Patron Saint of all priests.

St. John Vianney never asked to be proclamed patron of priests, but since the Pope announced the intention, and since there was nothing morally wrong with the idea, he should have gone ahead. Anyways, the Pope decided to call the whole thing off.

Surely, if he can change his mind so as to call off praiseworthy initiatives that had already been announced, with an unpolite result towards the memory of the Saint in question, he can call off this encounter too...

With the difference that, in the case of this encounter, the initiative of a gathering to commemorate and re-live Assisi 1986 stupid (for, if the Pope thinks that his message will come across, he is plain wrong; what will come across is the relativistic idea that main stream media corporations favour), and it is also morally wrong.

What Pius XI wrote in the past about those gatherings is also true today. If the Pope goes ahead with this Assisi meeting, then he will be dealing a deadly blow to his message of continuity, of Catholic revival.

He will be betraying the very words that Cardinal Ratzinger spoke to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church in his homily for the Mass pro eligendo Romano Pontifice:

Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceipt from truth.


Either the Pope calls the Assisi gathering off, or he is surrendering to the dictatorship of relativism.

Joe B said...

Relativism isn't the only destructive attitude that came out of Assisi. Please pardon my bluntness, but so did the opinion that Catholics, who claim to be the one true faith of the one real God, are nothing but incredibly stupid liberals led by a stupidly naive flower child who claims to be infallible and to speak for God.

This attitude is nothing to take lightly. We feed religious bigotry this way, and it becomes fodder for Satan.

This liberalism has got to stop.

God bless SSPX.

Anonymous said...

"chickens beheaded on the altar of St. Claire according to tribal rituals and a statue of Buddha placed on the altar in the church of St. Peter, above the relics of the martyr Vittorino, killed in 400 AD to bear witness to his faith."

I am ignorant, and naive. I don't really know anything about "Assisi I" or whatever it's called. (OK, I've heard about the "Koran kissing" business, but little else.) But somehow I can't believe this. Never mind anything else, all the theory – are these two assertions beyond doubt? If undoubtable, then is there an official line about these events?

Especially the bloody chicken. Perhaps it was a disused (side) altar? Else how could the Holy and Bloodless Sacrifice be offered on such an altar, after that?

AM

Anonymous said...

"Are the signatories prominent in Italy? Here in the U.S., I am not familiar with them. Will the Pope recognize their names?"

Yes, they are well-known and have been attacked right left and centre for this even by "Avvenire" the Bishop's conference newspaper.

We are most definitely living in a confused time...It's all very unsettling. What is going on? First "THE PANDORA'S BOOK" with all its strangeness, Assisi III (which I now totally oppose)then the approval by His Holiness of NCW - and some other STUFF...that it would take too long to write about....what's going on? I have tried so hard to give His Holiness the benefit of the doubt..

Barbara. Italy

Gideon Ertner said...

Extremely well said. However I don't think the Holy Father will change his mind about Assisi. I firmly believe, and cannot do otherwise, that he is in good faith and wants to correct the abominable excesses of Assisi I & II. I believe he intends to make Assisi III as close to a model of authentic Catholic dialogue with non-Christians as possible. But I also believe, in line with the distunguished authors, that he is being naïve about how it will all be presented in the media. It doesn't seem that he has learnt anything from Regensburg.

Benedict XVI likes to lead by example rather than condemn and admonish. This is in my view the basic vision of the 'renewal' of Vatican II envisioned by John XXIII. On a personal level I have much sympathy with this approach, but it is clear that it just doesn't work. No child can be adequately raised by a father who only ever corrects him in a vague and oblique way. Our Lord did not hesitate to preach about the terrors of Hell nor to forcefully drive out the merchants from the Temple - why should His Vicars not follow His example?

Aemilius said...

It disappoints me, yet does not surprise me, that so many of us Catholic Faithful have so little faith in our beloved Holy Father, who has done, is doing, and will continue to do so very much for Christ and His Church. I have no doubt in my heart or in my mind, that the one who coined the term "dictatorship of relativism" would NEVER himself succumb to that. Have ANY of you taken one second to consider that perhaps Benedict XVI plans to host this event DIFFERENTLY, in a manner which may finally set an example of what Assisi 1986 could have been, before it was hijacked by those in the Curia of dangerous mind and intention?? This is not an event to declare to the world our intent to syncretize the worlds religions, for Pete's sake! This is an event that seeks to cry PEACE to this wretched world of ours, and it is the Bishop of Rome, at the tomb of that great Apostle of Peace who was Giovanni Francesco di Bernardone, who is bringing together religious leaders who also wish to join the Bishop of Rome in that same cry to the world. This is what the event is at face value. I cannot wait to hear the Pope's message during this event, because I have no doubt that if anyone can explain away such an event, it is he who can...and I bet that he will do it brilliantly. May the Lord touch and open our hearts just enough so that we may also learn to actually LISTEN and UNDERSTAND, rather than to just hear that which it pleases us to.

rodrigo said...

Vittorio Messori wrote, in an article for La Stampa some time back (when the Franciscans of Assisi were curbed) that:

They even allowed African animists to kill two chickens on the altar of St Clare's...

The Franciscans have always denied this claim. In any case, when you can have a Catholic archbishop opining that, "we have kept [animal sacrifice] out of the Church of God for too long", can anyone be surprised if such horrors happened?

Anonymous said...

What a mess!


Delphina

Pascendi said...

Are these people even aware of the intentions of the Holy Father??? Assisi is intended to call all those who claim to profess religion to adhere to non-violence. If this is indifferentism and relativism ... ??

Barbara said...

@Pascendi
It is indifference and relativism because Assisi I and II treated all the religions present as if they were equal. They're not. Did you not read the quotes from earlier Popes about the dangers of this type of ecumenism? Does Catholic Tradition mean nothing to you? Did the Faith just begin in 1968 or with VII? For two thousand years our Vicars declared these meetings dangerous and wrong, but suddenly the Holy Spirit wakes up and inspires the last two Popes to change course? If you can't see the fruits of this nonsense over the last forty years, you're not paying attention. If the Pope were to call a meeting in Assisi and ask all attendees to convert to Catholicism, as St Francis did to the Mohammedans, then I'd be all aboard, but I think we can all agree that the chances of that the chances of that are slim to none.

Anonymous said...

I am so angry and frustrated at the Pope Benedict XVI for reviving that heretical spirit of Assisi.

The Ecumenism presented in 1986 gives Catholics the wrong idea because it reinforces a Christian unity based on error.

To be One in Christ means to be united under the Catholic Church as Catholics, not as members of different religions, or faiths practicing varied types of spirituality.

Lord Jesus have mercy on us!

We perish!

The Sibyl said...

Assisi was a scandal; I'm sure the Holy Father was not impressed or pleased by it! However - it is Pope Benedict who is assembling it this time - are we all so fickle that we do not trust him to redeem it? Yes, the thought of it makes me shudder, but I trust the Pope more than my visceral reaction to the thought of it.

Anonymous said...

Aemilius
I personally don't agree with "having faith in our beloved Holy Father".
I have faith in God. and I do pray to God his Servant, the Pope, does his job correctly.

xavier rynne said...

Maybe he will make a good statement there, but it is slightly demoralizing in that it gives ammunition to those who claim that Catholicism is just one religion among many, Jesus is just one way to God, etc. The Church has been bending over backwards with this ecumenism thing for 45 years with very little to show for it, and much damage internally.

Some Nobody said...

Let's see what His Holiness does. He is the Pope after all. This could easily be the perfect opportunity to correct the inanities of what has gone before.

Tis a shame, though, that whatever good he does will be probably be screwed up by his own staff.

Ah well. I'm glad it's Christ's Church and not the hierarchy's, not matter how nuts they are.

;-)

-

DV

Anonymous said...

A plea from a simple lay man will not even get the Holy Father's attention, but I must say you are really confusing me of late. Everyone is going to twist your message anyways, the greater good may be not to go this time.

Aemilius said...

@Anonymous - I would hope that you would not infer that I was deifying the person of the Roman Pontiff, as much as expressing a hope that we would trust him. If you have issues with obedience and submission to the authority of the Roman Pontiff at face value in matters of faith and doctrine, then you have issues with the Catholic Faith and the person especially chosen by will of the Holy Spirit to guide the Lord's flock, as the servant of the servants of God. If it is up to you alone to dictate when he does his job "correctly" or not, then in good faith I say God help us! I can think of so many sad souls in 20 centuries who thought similarly and went down very shady paths, and took many with them. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.

@M.A. - I am assuming that you reference Our Lady's appeal to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.. which Pope John Paul II effectively did during his Pontificate. Again, whether we choose to appoint ourselves to the committee of Papal Judgement and consider this having taken place or not (a can of worms that I DO NOT intend to open with these comments), then suit yourself. Some of you think the sky is falling when the Successor of Peter does not behave to your liking and liken him to be as unfit for the Papacy as Alexander VI was...others have an inate respect for the authority of the Pope (especially this one who has already done so much for us), and at least hear the man out instead of freaking out before anything has even taken place yet.

Anonymous said...

Aemilius
Your words are also twisting my statement, and jumping into conclusions that are in your mind, not in mine.
I do pray to God His Servant does his job correctly. His Holiness, and all of us, will face the judgment of God for what we have or we haven't done.
I do not obey blindly and I keep my critical thinking, no matter where the command or the word comes from, no matter who says it, even His Holiness, who is another human being.
Only obey God blindly.

Anonymous said...

Although not directly related to Assisi, a recent news item certainly reveals much about the Holy Father's ecumenical attitude, and it's unsettling. On the recent anniversary of the death of Brother Roger of Taize, the Pope sent a letter to the present leader of that "ecumenical community" through the pen of Cardinal Bertone, the present Secretary of State of the Vatican.

Quoting part of the letter, he says of Brother Roger: "he has entered eternal joy..." Brother Roger, of course, never renounced his Protestantism.

How can anyone on this board criticize the instant canonizations at funerals by priests done all over the so-called Catholic world after reading the Holy See's own instant canonization process? And doesn't this provide a clue as to the Holy Father's true attitude toward religious indifferentism?

(I don't want to get into the fact that Brother Roger received Holy Communion daily at a Catholic Mass in his community and was given Holy Communion by the present Pope himself -- again all without conversion to the One True Faith).

The Church was once the herald of unambiguous Truth, and antidote to the intellectual chaos that is always the mark of the evil one.

Some days, I just want to pack it in; maybe the Lord has Willed the trajectory of the Church for the past 50 years. Maybe, just maybe, I'm wrong about my assumptions about many things.

Giles

Elijahmaria said...

All this is very strange to me. I never saw the first meeting at Assisi as anything other than Mother Church...mothering ALL her children.

What is it that twists your interpretations to be so fearful...spending your time running around pulling out the tares.

I suppose you know better than our Savior who tells you to leave them where they are. In fact I am sure you think you are all so much wiser than that...all you fearful ones.

No wonder obedience is the key to humility and humility the key to all charity. I will choose to obey the Holy Father

Elijahmaria

Knight of Malta said...

The Holy Father could have called together a meeting of religious leaders (in a different locale) without commemorating the syncrenistic wretched spirit of Assisi. That place, once of holy meaning, is no despoiled and to be avoided.

Anonymous said...

The pope responds to things like this. The form of the response, though, could be all sorts of things.

I have a high degree of suspicion that he will disagree and agree variously on different points in the letter, and this he will do privately. For I doubt that he has ever taken seriously the idea that the Assisi prayer meetings are deleterious (in theory) to any Church teachings about Herself. What is needed, he would likely argue, is proper perspective.

I don't think he would ever have announced another Assisi event unless he considered criticism of these events to be reactionary and lacking, in at least some fashion, precise ecclesiological thinking.

--Zakhur

Anonymous said...

"The Church was once the herald of unambiguous Truth, and antidote to the intellectual chaos that is always the mark of the evil one."

It still is Giles, although I understand perfectly your worries and perplexity.

Barbara

Johannes said...

Vae mvndo a scandalis necesse est enim vt veniant scandala vermvtamen vae homini illi per qvem scandalvm venit.

Giles - about that Roger from Taize, he did enter the Church. I do not endorse at all these men calling themselves monks (indeed if I passed by it - to me it would be a crisis of conscious to leave it unburnt...). My priest told me, not knowing that I knew of it, that many priests go there on pilgrimage and I replied - why? There is no saint there. But because that this Roger is frequently misrepresented and used to carp at needlessly two bishops of Rome - I repeat, he did enter the Church. He refused however (and here is the confusion) to call himself a Catholic arguing and insisting it introduced an unnecessary distinction after Christian.

I know of worse actions and opinions among our very bishops. If you are bothered that this Roger was given the Eucharist - what of that they celebrate it?

LeonG said...

" Maybe, just maybe, I'm wrong about my assumptions about many things."

On the contrary, you are using sound Roman catholic common sense. The major problrem for most neo-conservatives is that they are unable to use proper discernment because they see a few traditional vestments and Holy Communion in the mouth on some occasions and swoon imagining a restoration.

This is far from the truth. This papacy is flagrantly liberal modernist and nearly all of its public actions so far and projected into the future attest this uncomfortable fact.

There are some websites that delude their subscibers by propagating the false notion that there is some grand scheme to bring the church back to tradition. This is absolute nonsense. How can we restore tradition using modernist methods? The two are oxymorons. However, there are too many here and elsewhere ready to swallow this myth.

There is hardly a day goes by now without some new scandal hitting the neo-catholic church while The Vatican remains pregnantly silent. The sole aim with tradition is to hrness it unsuspecting for the benefit of the continuing modernist revolution.

Paul Haley said...

The Novus Ordo is IMO the liturgical equivalent of the "Great Chastisement" and no amount of modernist propaganda will convince me otherwise. Our Lord and Savior could, if He wished, turn every "NO consecration" into a non sequitur by turning the "bread" into stones and the wine into vinegar. Instead, He allows the Church to continue to produce what Pope Benedict XVI calls, a banal product, to wit:
Quote:
"There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced--as if it were a technical production--with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product." The Mass Reduced to a Show Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Our Lord must be thinking:
Quote:
"If this is what they want then this is is what they'll get as long as they continue to blaspheme Me. I could on a moment's notice convince them of their errors but I will not until they come back to Me. Their minds and hearts must revert back to things of God rather than mankind's own platitudes and theories."
Not convinced? Remember that Rome has ruled some time ago that the consecration of the wine must use the words "pro multis" but in their stubbornness the bishops of this country continue to allow the vernacular equivalent of pro omnes or "for all". This is, of course, a blatant attempt to institute the concept of universal salvation into the holy liturgy, if not de jure then de facto. When I see the hybridized masses on EWTN, I think that stubbornness is not really the right word for what is happening. It is downright apostasy! And the bishops do nothing, absolutely nothing, to reverse these trends. But, then, what was that saying about the floor of Hell being paved with the skulls of bishops?" (St. John Chrysostom said, "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops!") My question is what happens to those who secretly and even publicly conspire with such bishops?

Long-Skirts said...

THE
GRATE

Weary winter
Teary earth
Blessing one
Who is not worth

Looking forward
First of May
Then Assisi
With The way

Wrote a letter
Vatican sent…
Ireland’s
Effeminate bent

Within all that
Beatified?
To show this one
Was justified?

Oh no you can’t
A silk purse make –
Out of a sow’s great ear
What’s fake is fake!

spock said...

Like most if not all of the rest of us, I don't like the Assisi move either. However, the SSPX removing salient portions of the letter of the Italian Catholic Intellectuals is very disturbing. Cowardice is not a Christian virtue and is not in the Tradition.

One would/should not tolerate silly games like that in the workplace and our Church deserves better behavior than what is expeceted in the workplace.

Pascendi said...

Barbara,

Attack the point and not the person. I did not mention nor defend Assisi 1 or 2. I'm defending the Pope and asking that people allow him to conduct his meeting before crucifying him.

You refer to 1968 - perhaps you should re-read Pope Paul's Credo - that document is a summation of the correct interpretation of Vatican II.

Anonymous said...

Johannes:

The main point of my post was the abrupt canonization of Brother Roger by Cardinal Bertone in his recent letter (written on behalf of the Pope) to the Taize community. That's more ad rem to this particular string. Does that bother you at all?

Giles

Xavier Rynne said...

Pascendi makes a good point. Read Paul's Credo; it almost sounds like something from Cardinal Ottaviani after the last 40 years of modernism.

It is excellent.

Anonymous said...

Although the prior Assisi spirit was a fiasco and embarrassed Pope John Paul II [One could see it on his face and physical reaction], the intent was honorable and sensitive to the authentic mission of Christ to His Apostles. Both Peter and Paul walked right in, and sat in their midst. Too many deeply attached to the Latin Mass cannot see outside themselves. God bless Pope Benedict XVI for the courage of his convictions and willingness to trust Christ's power and Grace to break through to non-believers. The Roman Catholic Church has been quietly respecting other's beliefs since the early martyrs relying on example with God's power to persevere.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg Florida

Johannes said...

Giles - I only took issue with your brief mention of the fact that Roger of Taize received the Eucharist regularly and from two bishops of Rome. I corrected you and that is all. He was lawfully allowed to receive the Eucharist (whether he was of sound conscience to do so has - I assure you - since been made manifest ante tribvnal Christi).

Regards the letter of Cardinal Bertone - it matters profoundly little to me. It should matter equally little to you. Roger of Taize has not been canonised (though if Ioannes Pavlvs II - who shall say?). Do you think there are no cardinals in Gehenna?

Anonymous said...

Johannes:

The fact that you are not bothered by those words of instant canonization by Cardinal Bertone IS the problem -- for two reasons:

(1) Such language fuels the fire of universal salvationism because it misleads by example -- and he states in the letter that he is speaking for the Pope. Are we at a point that words mean nothing?

(2) It provides insight into the attitudes of the highest authorities in Our Lord's Church regarding their presumptions about salvation.

Not to be bothered by this -- especially as Assisi III dawns -- is beyond my comprehension.

By the way, your claim that Brother Roger was a Catholic in any way, shape or form is simply not true:

http://www.taize.fr/en_article6739.html

Giles.

ToS said...

Michael F Brennan wrote:

the intent was honorable and sensitive to the authentic mission of Christ to His Apostles

The intent of not preaching the Gospel? Yes that is exactly what the Aposltes did. Thank you for your insight.

Michael F Brennan said...

"The intent of not preaching the Gospel? Yes that is exactly what the Aposltes did. Thank you for your insight."

To suggest that Pope John Paul II's intention was not to evangelize the Gospel and exhibit love of Christ is a frightening paranoia coming from a Roman Catholic.
Love of Jesus Christ and his mission to be Vicar to the world motivated John Paul II as all Bishops of Rome have been motivated since Peter.
Administrative errors, and betrayals by those close to him do not change the holy life of John Paul II.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, FL

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brennan:

Please spare us the "Casablanca Routine": "I'm shocked! SHOCKED that there's gambling going on in this establishment!"

We cannot read John Paul II's heart, but any Catholic is entitled to question, given his novel theology and dispositions toward universal salvationism, the content of his evangelization as well as his notion as to what constitutes the "love of Christ."

Giles

Pascendi said...

too many little "popes" abound, too many little "popes".

Michael F Brennan said...

Giles said:

"Please spare us the "Casablanca Routine": "I'm shocked! SHOCKED that there's gambling going on in this establishment!
We cannot read John Paul II's heart, but any Catholic is entitled to question, given his novel theology and dispositions toward universal salvationism, the content of his evangelization as well as his notion as to what constitutes the "love of Christ.""

Dear Giles,
Although the Casablanca mosaic was humerous your alien perspective is beyond my intellectual comprehension. You must be simply smarter than I and therefore correct. However, I thought everyone could read and hear the heart of John Paul II while recognizing his deep love of Jesus Christ. Could the 'salt of the earth' escaped your prayer life?
I apologize and beg Christ's mercy if I have offended you. For my part this ends my thoughts on the subject. And I am grateful for Pope Benedict's statements today clarifying previous ecumenical misunderstandings by other Christian congregations. Ahh, Benedict the zinger of rats who is my hero of correction. Pope Benedict knows the Holy Spirit is moving with power and purpose.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg Florida

Anonymous said...

Pascendi,

Blind obedience to papal policies which appear contradictory and which are never explained in the light of history and tradition, is not being "a little pope."

I'm exercising my right as a Catholic -- a right to which the history of the Faith itself bears witness. To be in our present chaotic historical circumstances and NOT to question policies which seemingly continue the chaos does nothing to assist the Faith or the peace of one's soul.

Giles

Anonymous said...

Pope Benedict said today of ecumenical endeavors:

"We are well aware, however, that we are still far from that unity for which Christ prayed...."

Previous Popes have said unequivocally that the unity for which Christ prayed has been achieved in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

This man is a heretic.

I wash my hands of him.

Pascendi said...

Giles,

Sadly, there are people who go beyond what you advocate. A cursory reading of any number of comments shows this up.