Rorate Caeli

Let down?
De Mattei, Gherardini, Radaelli, and a Council that never ends

High Up, Let Down by Pope Benedict 
They are some of the leading traditionalist thinkers. They had wagered on him, and now they feel betrayed. The latest disappointments: the Courtyard of the gentiles and the encounter in Assisi. The accusation that they make against Ratzinger is the same that they make against the Council: having replaced condemnation with dialogue

by Sandro Magister
...
Most recently, in the traditionalist Catholic camp, the criticisms against Pope Ratzinger have not diminished, but have grown in intensity. And they reflect a growing disappointment with respect to the expectations initially invested in the restorative action of the current pontificate.
The criticisms of some traditionalists are focused in particular on how Benedict XVI interprets Vatican Council II and the postconciliar period. 
The pope errs – in their view – when he limits his criticism to the deterioration of the postcouncil. Vatican II, in fact – again, in their view – was not only poorly interpreted and applied: it was itself a source of errors, the first of which was the renunciation of the Church's authority to exercise, when necessary, a magisterium of definition and condemnation; the renunciation, that is, of the anathema, in exchange for dialogue. 
On the historical level, this idea tends to be supported by the volume recently published by Professor Roberto de Mattei: "Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta [Vatican Council II. A history never written]." According to de Mattei, the conciliar documents cannot be viewed in isolation from the men and events that produced them: from those men and those maneuvers whose deliberate intention – abundantly successful – was to break with the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church, on several essential points. 
On the theological level, one authoritative traditionalist critic of Benedict XVI is Brunero Gherardini, a vigorous 85 years old, canon of the basilica of Saint Peter, professor emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University, and director of the Thomistic journal of theology "Divinitas." 
[Read whole article at Chiesa.]

59 comments:

Man of Kent said...

Here, as in so many other posts, there is a very deep lack of trust - firstly in the Holy Father - secondly in the Holy Ghost. There is always a place for discussion, but the the tone of so many posts is negative and unproductive. We all know how we feel on occasion, but would not a reverend silence towards the Vicar of Christ in that which you do not agree be firstly more respectful, secondly more just because the event has not happened yet and the very programme shows a radical revision in agenda, and thirdly more prudent. Prudent, because the attitude of receive and reject is all too prevelant in traditionalist circles, it keeps people in precisely the SSPX "fear zone" which paralizes them to throwing stones from without the Church rather than descreetly, positively, actively and zealously working to change things from within. Whether or not Msgr Gherardini is happy or unhappy with Assisi or the Holy Father or whatever, is irrelevant, he remains in the Communion of the Church, peaceful, repectfully working for change. But such posts encourage just the opposite course of action as so many comments reflect. Union with Peter is a fundamental of salvation. Critisim of Peter, of the Pope, is a dangerous affair, he is Gods annointed, be careful.

Anonymous said...

I don't know how many of you read Italian well enough, but Gherardini's book is very poor from a theological standpoint, and his writings are often in contradiction among themselves, going from the Council as a "flow of grace" to a "radical change" of the Church. His book and that of De Mattei end up embracing the modernist "hermeneutic of discontinuity" even though their conclusions are - in part - different from those of our enemies. It is impossibile to let historical-sociological considerations - and questionable ones at that - prevail over the Magisterium of the Church as key to understand the Council. What they are basically saying is that the infamous "Spirit of the Council" does in fact exist and must be seen as THE key to interpret it. That's precisely the nonsense that was shoveled down our throats for decades and on which modernists - e.g: Alberigo's "school of Bologna", very apt name btw - have been basing their destruction of the Church.

These two books are inflicting great damage to the cause of the ancient liturgy as well as to the work of Benedict XVI, whose enemies use the errors of rad-trad as a proof of his isolation. They discredit us all. Debating the council is of course necessary and useful, but it must be done in a competent way. Bishop Schneider's position is much wiser.

We MUST NOT let anybody throw a wedge between the traditional liturgical movement and Benedict XVI. That's the modernist plan, and that's the trap into which many good people are falling due to bitter zeal, impatience and pride.

Right now the Pope needs all the help he can get, and support, prayer and love for the Sweet Christ on Earth. ESPECIALLY from us. Of course one can have legitimate doubts or criticism on a given decision, but we must not turn them into more weapons against the Pope and the return to liturgical-ecclesiological sanity.

New Catholic said...

Man of Kent, you do understand that this is a link to an article in Sandro Magister's Chiesa blog, right? Your criticism deserves the following response: !?

Mr. Ortiz said...

The first two posts here are spot-on. Gherardini's book, in my view, is largely an incoherent rambling affair that will only convince the already convinced--maybe.

The Holy Father needs prayer backed up by sacrifice.

Filial piety is not an option.

Anonymous said...

"Critisim of Peter, of the Pope, is a dangerous affair, he is Gods annointed, be careful."- I wonder what St. Paul would have thought of this. Papolatry at its worst.

contrarian

Johannes said...

I disagree with the Man of Kent. I believe it is very clear that all that is wrong in the Western churches could only come about and have come this far because every sincere, thoughtful Catholic is viscerally inclined to keep a reverent silence (just how a reverent silence is productive, especially in face of so much that is so unspeakably wrong - I cannot see). In part - the SSPX and those who flock to them are the consequences of this as well. Since no one speaks in the Church - some are tempted to believe that they then must be outside of Her to do so. A reverent silence; when the last four bishops of Rome have been - without doubt - directly responsible for most of what is wrong.

Benedictvs is a man that can be spoken to. He is not possessed of or moved by any destiny-esque drive like his above numbered predecessors; it was them and the world. Benedictvs has not only shown that he can be spoken to - he listens. Svmmorvm Pontificvm. If we are all keeping a reverent silence - who shall be speaking? When good men keep quiet - worse men speak. Are we again going to let them dictate to us our future?

In my opinion the worst and least productive portion of the traditionalist movement is that part which urges being quiet and leaving it to the bishop of Rome on the grounds of an understanding of his office that the bishops of Rome themselves no longer uphold. Collegiality, the priesthood of the people, stewardship, committees and sub-committees. But no. Let us be quiet. And why are we quiet? "Fear zone". A turn of phrase much better applied to this enervating strain among us that compels us to let evil and impiety prevail because doing otherwise is a "dangerous affair"; salvation at stake. Cephas himself was repudiated by Pavlvs for less. Silence and inaction is the true danger; even to your salavtion.

Caritas yes. Communio - yes. But silence has failed. And in times of evil the silences of good men are loud. And they are judged.

Anonymous said...

Dear "contrarian":

"papolatry"? Protestant lingo at its worst!

Mona said...

Regarding the Sin of Silence:

“Next we should consider taciturnity. For it is known that just as an excess of loquacity is a vice, so also is, at times, excessive taciturnity. Indeed, ‘There is a time to keep silence and a time to speak’ (Eccles 3:7) - Vincent of Beauvais.

‘And refrain not to speak in the time of salvation’ (Eccles 4:28)

“When the time comes, speak, do not hide yourself…” - Jacinta Marto (to Lucia).

John Lamont said...

What are the problems with Gherardini's book? Have you read it?

The existence of problems with the Second Vatican itself can be verified by consulting the memoirs of a theological advisor at that Council, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The memoirs, titled 'Milestones', describe on pages 124 to 127 the wide acceptance at that council of the view that the church can only teach what is in the Scriptures (rejecting the idea of Tradition as an independent source of revelation), and that the teachings of the Scriptures are to be determined by the historical-critical method, which must be independent of any faith commitments. So the cardinal, who was on the progressive rather than the traditionalist side at the council, has stated that there was an influential current at the council - in fact he describes it as the 'general atmosphere dominant in 1962', on page 127 - at the council that rejected the fundamental basis of Catholic theology, and replaced it by a view that held that 'believing now amounted to having opinions and was in need of constant revision' (page 126).

I am not Spartacus said...

The traditional norm of never criticising the Pope in public is insisted upon even while modern Popes act to establish a non-traditional orthopraxis - Assisi Confabs, World Youth Days, Synagogue visits that do not include preaching The Gospel, Kissing the Koran, etc etc

The mind boggles.

I confess I do not trust The modern Papacy when it comes to these novelties. I do trust them when they teach with authority but their actions ought be criticised when they appear to conflict with the previous 2000+ years of orthopraxis.

Anonymous said...

In addition to what most others here have already said, Radaelli (as quoted by Magister) is off the mark too:

Instead of defining truths and condemning errors, "he has made himself dramatically open even to being criticized, not claiming any infallibility," as he himself wrote in the preface to his books about Jesus.

Of course the Pope's books on Our Lord are not claiming infallibility - but that's hardly an abdication of his role as an infallible teacher under the prescribed conditions.

Also, trying to make Rajith and Schneider, et al. look like critics of the Pope is too much.

To link without commentary to this post of Magister is to invite the notion that one endorses it.

--Benedict Ambrose

Anonymous said...

I was wondering when the counter-attack against Gherardini, DeMattei and Radaelli would commence. We have our answer with Sandro Magister's initiative to contrast Bishop Schneider's remarks with the above writers and concluding with Arzillo's commentary, "On Continuity." The first two posters are (like Magister) part of the Catholic "neo-con" vanguard of conservatives who have nothing more to conserve: the French Revolution is complete in the Church.

Unless you understand Italian ecclesiastical politics, most here will not see that the Magister piece is the first salvo of a war against those who would oppose Assisi and the Court of the Gentiles policies of the present Pontiff.

New Catholic said...

True, last Anon. And, also today, Tornielli mocks and criticizes traditional Catholics, including blogs, in La Stampa: http://tinyurl.com/6feoe7z . Magister actually sounds very sympathetic when compared to Tornielli.

I guess they have received the memo...

NC

Anonymous said...

Assissi II is extremely regrettable.

That said, hoping that, once again, Pope Benedict will lead by example and show what "Interfaith prayer" should look like.

(for starters: no Buddha statues on the altar....)

Prof X

Tradster said...

To paraphrase the Bill Clinton 1992 campaign slogan: It's the council, stupid.

While those who call for a greater degree of respect for the pope are not totally devoid of a valid point, speaking for myself, I must confess it is at times quite hard to muster this when this pope and the last several clearly did not exhibit proper sufficient regard during the groovy 1960s for earlier popes and the fullness of Holy Tradition.

Indeed, the post-council is not separate from the council itself, not be any means.

And for those who want to demand in selective fashion that full allegiance to all aspects of the present-day Holy See is an absolute necessity of salvation, I respond with: please examine our present-day so-called teaching in Unitatis Redintegratio, Ut Unum Sint, and Orientale Lumen, and please show me where you come up with such a notion.

Anonymous said...

Apologies, NC for not signing my name (an oversight) to the last post: 12:01).

Giles

(You don't need to print this -- but I'm annoyed I didn't sign my name).

Jack said...

Would it be remiss to remind people that the Pope is the Pope of the ENTIRE Church, not just one part of her--even if that part be the traditionalists (itself a very flexible term)?

I see Pope Bendict as trying to move gently and pastorally, without spooking the herd.

Henry said...

Man of Kent: ”We all know how we feel on occasion, but would not a reverend silence towards the Vicar of Christ in that which you do not agree be firstly more respectful”

Truer words are not often written here. Those traditionalists who carp and criticize Pope Benedict simply discredit all traditionalists. Whatever we may think the pace of his efforts, handcuffed as he is by his bishops and even the Curia, he is doing what he can to restore tradition, at the pace he as the Vicar of Christ thinks feasible. If his friends attack him, that only strengthens his enemies, who are Legion.

Joe B said...

I still think it was largely the casting aside of the TLM that opened the floodgates. Before that, the revolutionaries were present but didn't have the power to propagandize Catholic laymen, but after that, Katy couldn't bar the door.

And the council has significant responsibility for the Novus Ordo. The power players obviously intended it to happen, although one can make a good argument that the council would not have approved the N.O. if they had known what it would be.

I don't believe the Novus Ordo is the work of the Holy Spirit, and the N.O. proves to me that the hierarchy of the church can make disastrous pastoral decisions. Pope Paul VI didn't construct the Novus Ordo, so the papacy still gets a higher level of trust than the rest of the hierarchy, but he approved it, so all non-dogmatic decisions are for this era subject to my distrust now. The rule for me now is I'll judge them by their fruits, and those consistently smell rotten.

End of blind trust.

Anonymous said...

...those who want to demand in selective fashion that full allegiance to all aspects of the present-day Holy See is an absolute necessity of salvation...

That's a ridiculous strawman, Tradster - I don't know anyone who remotely resembles that description.

But Mr Oritz is correct: filial piety is not optional, even for those who find something legitimate to critisise about the Pontiff.

I see plenty of the criticism in these comboxes, but not so much of the piety.

--Benedict Ambrose

Anonymous said...

I haven't been real impressed with Gherardini's book. As someone else said, it seems pretty illogical.

Also, while I do think it good to condemn current errors in general, I don't think it necessary or even wise to impugn the Council.

For example, Pius II condemned the heresy of conciliarism generally, while praising and re-iterating his adherence to the Council of Constance which enabled its spread doing great harm to the Church. Because it detached the loyalties of princes and the people to the Pope for so long, the Reformation was able to "stick.".

Not only did this Council promulgate an explicitly heretical decree (Session 5) when not under the presidency of the Pope, other decrees which were received and enacted by Pope Martin V were utterly imbued with the spirit of conciliarism (if the spirit of Vatican II is modernism, the spirit of Constance was conciliarism). Most notable is that from Session 39 which required an ecumenical Council to either be convened or to be anticipated--when one Council ended it was required by this decree to set down the date and place for the next Council to be convened in no more than 10 years time after the preceding. While there is nothing explicitly contrary to the faith in this decree, it reflects an understanding of the Church as being governed supremely by Councils and not the Pope (in fact, it stated the Pope could not even set down the place for the next Council without the previous Council's approval). Pope Martin complied with the decree convoking the Council of Pavia/Siena and then Basel in which conciliarism more explicitly flourished doing great harm to all of Christendom.

Anyway, Pope Pius II explicitly condemned conciliarism and he ignored the decrees of Constance (he did not ever summon an ecumenical Council), and yet, in the very Bull where he retracted his own past errors (especially that of conciliarism) he said of Constance (In Minoribus):

"With these authorities, we recognize the power and the authority of a General Council as it was declared and defined in our age at Constance when the Ecumenical Council was assembled there. For we revere the Council of Constance and all Councils that were approved by our predecessors."

Note, the only real definition of the authority of a council made at Constance was the heretical one.

To this day, Constance is seen in a good light for ending the Great Western Schism and condemning the errors of Hus and Wycliffe, but not for all the lasting damage it caused.

marcel w said...

I do not understand the criticisms of Gherandini et al. Their contributions are, in many ways, more consequential than those of the traditionalist societies.

When more highly visible Churchmen start to speak with as much candour as those mentioned by Magister we will know that the long Winter of the Council is finally starting to thaw.

I nodded vigorously several times when reading setences like this: As for the reigning pope – Gherardini observes – "he has not yet corrected even one period or one comma of that 'vulgate' which was sponsored by his predecessors": he, who although "as few others of Catholic officialdom he has truly thundered against the deformations of the postcouncil, has never ceased either to sing the praises of the Council or to affirm its continuity with all of the previous magisterium."

Anonymous said...

There is too much theology being thrown around and too much liturgical games instead of the one thing these guys should be doing, going out into the world trying to save souls from going to Hell. Let your Yes be Yes, Your No be No, stop this gray answers posturing.

Anonymous said...

The battle is on.

The Magister and Tornielli pieces in their respective Italian publications indicate that there is a coordinated offensive being launched by elements within the Roman Curia and the Italian Bishops Conference. In a political masterstroke they are using "conservative" journalists to begin the campaign of discrediting the most renowned (but controversial) intellectuals within Catholic traditionalist circles. I even find it odd that the first two posters out of the box (and an inordinate number after them) on this thread supported the attack against DeMattei, Gherardini and Radaelli.

This offensive, however, is not simply about Assisi and the Court of the Gentiles. Something else has set it off. My sources tell me that the Levada faction within the Vatican is absolutely apoplectic about two recent publications.

(1)In September 2010, the Italian Catholic traditionalist monthly, “Chiesa viva,” published Don Luigi Villa’s attack on the beatification of John Paul II. If you don’t know the identity of Father Villa, do some research. He almost singlehandedly stopped the beatification of Pope Paul VI with his work, “Paulo Sesto, Beato?” The Italian bishops conference had tried to intimidate Father Villa into retracting his charges against Paul VI (even suing him in court – until they backed off at the last moment). Father Villa’s new book documenting the case against Pope John Paul II has upset both the Italian bishops and the dicasteries of the Roman Curia (and quite possibly even the Holy Father himself).

(2)“Christian Order,” a traditionalist publication in the United Kingdom, in its most recent issue published an excerpt from “Paulo Sesto, Beato?” However, the preamble to the excerpt mentions the book, “Nichita Roncalli controvita di un Papa” [Nikita (Krushchev) and Roncalli – Unknown Aspects of a Pope.” This book was written by a former correspondent of “L’Osservatore Romano” by the name of Franco Bellegrandi. Bellegrandi charged, in an interview with “Il Tiempo” back in 1976 that Papa Montini had a past which involved the “unspeakable vice” and that he was blackmailed with this information by Freemasons once he became Pope. “Christian Order” points out that when he released his book on Roncalli in 1995, none other than Silvio Cardinal Oddi openly endorsed it at a press conference in Rome. Cardinal Oddi, for some of you youngsters out there, had been appointed by John Paul II as Prefect for the Congregation of the Clergy early in his Pontificate.

The Italian bishops have close ties with the both the Communists and the Freemasons. The Roman dicasteries contain some very influential ecclesiastics who are, to put it as delicately as possible, not unsympathetic to the homosexual subculture which permeates throughout the Church.

Magister and Tornielli and their ilk are the “useful idiots” for both these groups. Catholic traditionalists (especially in Europe) are trying to connect the dots among the three groups mentioned above – dots the pedigree of which extends back decades. Magister and Tornielli’s pieces are, as I said above, the first salvo in their attempt to denigrate those who would dare to connect the dots of the French Revolution within the Church.

Giles

P.S. The Levada faction has been joined by the neo-cons within the Roman Curia who are trying to derail any possible rapprochement between the Vatican and the SSPX.

Lucius49 said...

It would be great to get some examples from Gherardini's book which indicate poor analysis or poverty of thought. I read sections of the book in Italian and I would not say from the parts I read that this is the case. For example his critique of the document on religious liberty makes the point that if all this document stands for is that people cannot be coerced in professing religious belief, this was already the teaching of the Church given the fact that the document says explicitly that it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

New Catholic said...

Thanks, Giles.

Anonymous said...

New Catholic,

"I guess they have received the memo..."

I just read that article by Tornielli. To quote a character from Spiderman I "It stinks and I don't like it!"

These vaticanisti ought to be examining their consciences a bit more carefully ....for when they address "Traditionalist topics" much of what they write is not objective and fairminded. Tornielli of late, has decidedly become allergic to the so called Tradtionalists. Quite a poisoned tongue he has aquired. Since this is public, he will have to pay his dues one day.

This is absolutely not the time for silence. The faithful have been deprived too much of what is truly Catholic for the last 50 years.

I think our Holy Father would encourage discussion. After all we who love the TLM and all that goes with it have him to thank for this lively discussion.....impossible to find just a few short years ago. (at least for me).

It is possible to possess filial reverence for the Pope while voicing perplexion and confusion at some of his recent actions. What is wrong with that?

Offenses towards His Holiness are completely unacceptable.

Barbara

I am not Spartacus said...

As I recall, there were at least 80 Bishops who did not sign one of more of the Documents of Vatican Two and they all left without having been forced to either sign them or walk the plank off The Barque of Peter.

The opening speech at The Council promised that The Catholic Church would not exercise authoritative discipline against errors but would overcome opposition by love (I know that's a paraphrase. I don't have Pope John 23rd's speech before me).

Well, that was surely a failed novelty, wasn't it?

The rest of the speech was wildly wrong in reading the signs of the time and I would love it if once, just once, the Vat Two Popes would apologise for their errors rather than mounting the Pulpit to apologise for the errors and sins of long dead Christian Catholics.

If 80, or more, Bishops were allowed to leave the Council without submitting to its Documents then what is all the hoo-rah about it being in continuity with Tradition?

At what other Council were Bishops allowed to reject/refuse Conciliar Documents while still be allowed to exit The Council without being anathematised?

I am tired of being told to trust The Magisterium's novelties because this Pope or that Pope is brilliant and Holy and so his novelties must be considered as somehow being in continuity with tradition while at the same time being told I am a Big Blue Meanie for objecting to them because they clearly are not in continuity with ecclesiastical tradition

All Ecumenical Councils are, by their nature, infallible and the most recent Ecumenical Council was no different. It is just the The Holy Ghost's protected the Fathers from issuing its Documents in a clear Infallible manner and drafting and issuing Decrees, etc.

This Ecumenical Council was a Pastoral Council and, as such, it could have taken wrong decisions in reorienting the Church.

At least that is how I understand it.

Once the Church has applied the Funeral Rites (in white, with applause?) to every single Father at that Council then maybe we can restore ecclesiastical tradition.

It will not happen under this Pope who made it very clear, "Ratzinger Report," that his desire for the Indult had to do with Liturgical Pluralism not a restoration (age 124).

Paul Haley said...

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” - Edmund Burke.

Yes, we must be respectful but silence in the face of evil is not an option IMO. If we criticize, let us criticize the actions or the lack thereof, not the person.

New Catholic said...

Thank you, Barbara. I agree with you.

NC

Anonymous said...

Joe B-
How can you not hold Pope Paul VI and the Papacy accountable for the Novus Ordo? He authorized it, he promulgated it, and all the might and power of the Papacy was used to roll it out.

Athunes said...

"Don Luigi Villa"

I guess his works are not in English. It would be interesting reading.

It is said that St. Pio encouraged him to look into infiltration of the Church from her enemies. Did he succeed?

Mr. Ortiz said...

"It would be great to get some examples from Gherardini's book which indicate poor analysis or poverty of thought."

Each chapter wanders and lurches around like a drunken sailor.

I am sympathetic to his conclusions, but Schneider's book is on a totally different, higher level.

LeonG said...

True Roman Catholic traditionalists do not need Mgr Gherardini's comments. They and others have been made more poignanlty and more accurately elsewhere. Sacred Tradition provides the greatest source for evaluation of the NO revolution.
To put the boot on the other foot, defence by the liberal modernists of their standpoint is often based on sentimentalism; scant knowledge of the early history of the church and sheer protestantism. Assessing the NO liturgy makes a germane starting point, for example.

Anonymous said...

BenedictAmbrose said: "I see plenty of the criticism in these comboxes, but not so much of the piety."

Do you have a crystal ball?

Delphina

Sixupman said...

An SSPX firend of mine opined to his congregation that they shoul;d stop moaning about the papacy, they have got the pope they have and live with it - Mother Church having had sintly, good, indifferent and outright dastardly popes throughout Her history.

BXVI appears, to me, to be a man of integrity and humility - castigated by all sides. Why even the English hiearchy, upon his election, stated he was not their man, or words to that effect, and proceed to ignore any edict flowing from him.

Anyone who thinks the problems of Mother Church are going to be resolved by a thrust of lightening, from The Holy Ghost, are deluded. As +Fellay opined it will take circa forty years to regain equilibrium.

SSPX should treat with BXVI and then convert by example the wayward diocesan flocks.

Anonymous said...

Prego, New Catholic.

Are you hearing similar things?

Giles

David said...

In part - the SSPX and those who flock to them are the consequences of this as well. Since no one speaks in the Church - some are tempted to believe that they then must be outside of Her to do so.

...which implies that the SSPX is somehow outside of the Church, which no serious person would maintain.

David said...

And for those who want to demand in selective fashion that full allegiance to all aspects of the present-day Holy See is an absolute necessity of salvation, I respond with: please examine our present-day so-called teaching in Unitatis Redintegratio, Ut Unum Sint, and Orientale Lumen, and please show me where you come up with such a notion.

I always find it rather ironic that solemn anathemas are only ever hurled against precisely those who are most faithful to the traditional Catholic faith.

Louis E. said...

Giles,
Are mechanisms in place to inhibit the further advancement of Communist/homosexual sympathizers in the Italian hierarchy or Curia,or is the problem insoluble?

Note the use of "Name/URL" to enter a name rather than choosing "Anonymous" greatly aids the attribution of comments.

Anonymous said...

Giles, thank you for what you have written.

Delphina

LeonG said...

"Anyone who thinks the problems of Mother Church are going to be resolved by a thrust of lightening.."

And there is a fact without doubt. It is only by restoring the traditional liturgy that the church will gradually be restored. Nothing else much will suffice.

Anonymous said...

No, Delphina - but I have eyes.

And I don't see a lot of basic respect for the Pope from many of those here who disagree with him, and even less filial piety towards him in their comments.

--Benedict Ambrose

JoeB said...

Anon, I do hold Pope Paul VI accountable for the Novus Ordo, just not on the same level that I hold Bugnini accountable. Bugnini, I believe, constructed the thing in detail with Masonic motives. You are right that Pope Paul VI has responsibility as the approving authority. I just think his motives to be more naive than sinister. Bugnini just gets the fuller portion of guilt, that's all.

But, as Hamlet said to Othello, "What do I know, bro?"

Ligusticus said...

And yes, Barbara and Giles, there was quite a U-turn also by (once trad-sympathetic) Rodari..

Giles said...

Louis E:

No, the problem is difficult to solve because bishops make bishops – and they protect and promote their own.

Delphina:

You have no idea how depressed I’ve been since yesterday when I had to write what I did. I fear more and more for my own soul because I need to pray more and perform more penances for the Church. Sometimes the intellect gets shrouded in darkness because of certain realizations and the will drifts toward paralysis. Please pray an Ave for me if grace so moves you.

I was once such a skeptic about the Communist/Freemason/Homosexual de facto alliance which has been in the shadows of the Revolution since I was a boy and before. I remember a priest telling me once about the Rector of his seminary telling the seminarians that most would not know evil if they tripped over it. I think I’ve been one of the “ignoranti” for most of my life.

I looked recently at the astounding and draw-dropping list of the Freemasons published by Father Villa back in the autumn of 1978 (again, he was persecuted and threatened for publishing the list, but he always stood his ground and there was never a successful ecclesiastical or judicial initiative against him). I always asked myself, “Why would a priest or bishop be a Freemason? What would they have to gain?” The obvious answer came to me after the revelations about the method used by the Founder of the Legionnaires of Christ to protect himself: money. The Freemasons have expended large sums of money on “progressive” (read: “modernist”) priests and bishops. They convince these ecclesiastics at first that they want to support them because of the way they think (and after all, they can give the money to charity!) The priest/bishop then convinces himself that his cause for “reform” of the Church is validated by the support of influential people (and he’s being richly rewarded for it in the process). The Freemasons have used their influence and financial resources to advance those whom they have treated as their proteges. The devil does his best work in and through secrecy and the promotion of the prideful self-delusion of others (as all of us sinners know).

One last thing: the beatification speed of Pope John Paul II is an effort to “beatify” and eventually “canonize” the Revolution within the Church. It places all of the elements of the revolt within a moral context.

The apoplexy over the explicit mention in “Christian Order” of the connection between Pope Paul VI and the “unspeakable vice” implicitly questions the moral context of the Revolution’s very roots. Hence, the rage.

Giles

Anonymous said...

Thank God I am not like the rest of men, eh Benedict Ambrose?

Delphina

Malta said...

Vatican II declared not a single new dogma; one can simply DISMISS it entirely, and remain a good Catholic (perhaps a better Catholic). Though it is hard to ignore, since it permeates the foul air we breath in the Modernist Church.

"In all truth Modernism hid itself under the cloak of Vatican II's hermeneutic...The new rite of Holy Mass practically silenced the nature of sacrifice making of it an occasion for gathering together the people of God...the eucharistic gathering was given the mere sense of sharing a meal together...After having said all of this about Vatican II, if someone were to ask me if, in the final analysis, the modernist corruption had hidden itself within the Council documents themselves, and if the Fathers themselves were more or less infected, I would have to respond both yes and no...But yes as well, because not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism--this can be seen above all in GS."

The Ecumenical Vatican Council II, A Much Needed Discussion--Msgr. Gherardini

Anonymous said...

Giles,

You wrote: "Sometimes the intellect gets shrouded in darkness because of certain realizations and the will drifts toward paralysis." If you only knew how I can relate.....I could write a book.

The Ave for you has been prayed. Say one for me too (if you would be so kind), as I know, more than you could ever know, exactly how you feel and what you are going through.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Joe B-
Why is it so hard to conceive that Paul VI was NOT a naive sheep led by a wily Bugnini? Montini was a pretty savvy guy, groomed for the position, a protege of Pius XII. It would seem logical that he indeed wanted the Novus Ordo and the Concilliar reforms, as he did promote them. As did JP II, who was ALSO at the Council. Why the illogical emphasis on this Bugnini fellow, who was probably following Papal orders?

Anonymous said...

Giles,

A Hail Mary from me too!

Your last two posts were rather shocking, but I sense your sincerity.

Barbara

LeonG said...

Abbe Luigi Villa has had several attempts made on his life in pursuing the cause given to him by St Pio da Pietrelcina. He is also adamant that JP II (RIP) should NOT be beatified. I could not agree more with his conclusions.

Benedict Ambrose said...

Uncalled for, Delphina.

Anonymous said...

Benedict Ambrose, keeping with the spirit of the Lenten season, I apologize.

Delphina

Joe B said...

Because due to wildly divergent descriptions of Paul VI's personality, I can't say it with any confidence, and I prefer not to think that badly of popes unless the evidence is quite strong. Saint Pio was a good friend of his, for example, and never assigned blame for what was going wrong to the Holy Father even though he was appalled by the council and the direction of the church, including his own bishop. Paul VI was disastrous as a pope, but to assign evil to his motives is a step I simply don't want to take without more evidence.

I do think you vastly underestimate the craftiness and stench of Bugnini, who was the kind of man who took pride in manipulating weak minds, which I think Paul VI had. And Paul VI is said to have edited Bugnini's mass, at least in the essence of validity. If they had been of the same mindset this would have been unnecessary.

Nonetheless, I again state that I have read such contradictory descriptions of Pope Paul VI that I would not at all be shocked if your assessment turned out to be the right one. A little less so with John Paul II - there are hints of trouble there, but people I respect who knew him somewhat say he was just hopelessly liberal in a flower-childish way - no intent to promote evil there.

Don't count me out, just count me as giving the benefit of the doubt to the office so far.

Malta said...

Joe B: "Saint Pio was a good friend of his [Pope Paul VI's]"

That's new to me! Where'd you get that tid-bit?

Giles said...

Delphina and Barbara, so many, many thanks!

Giles

Giles said...

Joe B.

PLEASE let me be clear: what I stated above is NOT MY assessment. I have stated the apparent reason for the unusual development of the simultaneous Magister/Tornielli journalistic pieces attacking traditionalist intellectuals and even traditionalist websites.

I make no judgments about Pope Paul VI; I am in no position to know. But Father Villa has, and his recent work arguing the evidence against the beatification of Pope John Paul II has not a few influential and powerful ecclesiastics outraged (I would surmise because of the success of his first contra Pope Paul VI book). THUS the counteroffensive using the "conservative" Vaticanisti journalists. (Notice they've not mentioned Father Villa.)

I will write no more on this thread. I find it all very upsetting and spiritually distracting.

Giles

Anonymous said...

Joe B.

"Paul VI was disastrous as a pope, but to assign evil to his motives is a step I simply don't want to take without more evidence."

I agree with this. Thank you. I am still trying to digest Giles' posts from yesterday and I am not sure if I want to know the WHOLE TRUTH - it's so utterly evil and squalid what has been suggested. If true, then surely these people had lost all faith and no fear of eternal damnation. I know I sound like "a green girl" but I too say WHY? WHY? WHY? Money and power don't cut it as an answer for me..call me thick! Trading the wonders of Our Lord Jesus for ephemeral rubbish like money and power! Nah!

Barbara