Rorate Caeli

Pope apparently not initiator of Assisi-III

In a personal note of the Pope to Prof. Dr. Peter Beyerhaus, he apparently hints at not having been the initiator - hence, responsible for - of the religious meeting in Assisi later this year.


In Kirchliche Umschau, April 2011), Prof. Beyerhaus summarizes the content of the letter as follows:

"It can be derived from the letter that the initiative for this anniversary event, which he indeed considered necessary, apparently did not stem from him. He will, however, attend and, as he writes literally, 'try, to determine the direction of the whole and do everything [in his power] to render impossible a syncretic or relativistic explanation of the happening.' He explicitly allowed me to deliver a public opinion on this, but requested 'to make noticeable, that I trust that the Pope stands firm on what he is called upon by his office - that is, to strengthen his brothers in the faith in Jesus Christ as the only Son of God and Redeemer and to unambiguously confess Him'."

[Free translation of the commentary by the editors of the website:]

These words are both nice and sad. Nice, because the event was not authored by the Pope. Nice, because the Pope wants to suppress the syncretism of the earlier events. Nice, also, because the Pope wants to make sure that there is no doubt about his mission as a herald of faith for Jesus Christ, de obly-begotten Son of the Father.

But why can't he cancel the event? "The pressure is too big", many will say. ... The commentator also mentions that there is a slight sign that the Pope does not consider the event very harmful ("which he indeed considered necessary"). Why is it necessary? For the faith of Christians? For the power politics in the Vatican? In this regard, the Sant'Egidio community is mentioned, which it is said to have a lot of money and to be quite powerful lobbyists.

What is more sad, though, is the fact that the Pope does not want to admit the great damage [of the event - translator note]. With the express allowance for publication, the writing seems to be a way of consolation for conservative Catholics.

Of course, every convinced Catholic will be happy that the Pope sees his job in unambiguously confessing Jesus Christ as Son of God and Redeemer. But it is exactly this "unambiguously" what Assisi is about. The religious meetings are nothing but ambiguous! Unless... the Pope would publicly announce that no one will be saved, unless through Jesus Christ. If he does not do this, Assisi 2011 will be just another brick for the construction of the free-thinking world religion [literal translation].

Of course, such a proclamation would be the death-blow for interreligious meetings. And that is something that associations like Sant'Egidio do not want. They see the papacy as a way to unite the religions, WITHOUT considering the question of truth (Wahrheitsfrage).

So, all remains as it was. Only, the Pope assures that it is his personal conviction is that he has the task to confess Jesus as only true Son of God.

But this personal integrity of his conviction was never a subject of debate.

What is debated is the act, in front of millions of people, that is capable of constituting a tremendous act of betrayal: betrayal of the claim of Christ, the Son of God, to be the founder of the only true religion.

79 comments:

Anonymous said...

Someone here correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same thing they told us about the first Assisi?

I sincerely hope this current report is true, as I would very much like to believe it.

Delphina

Cruise the Groove. said...

This is not surprising, as Cardinal Ratzinger[now the Holy Father] did not want the previous Asissi syncretistic meetings to occur.

hilaron said...

Oremus pro Pontifice!

It would be a marvelous design of the Holy Spirit if the Roman Pontiff at the gathering would proclaim as St Peter proclaimed, bringing to nought the plans of wicked men: "Therefore let all the house [of the Gentiles] know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. ... Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Let us pray deeply and humbly for this to happen, my dear brethren, and let us not be puffed up with pride and anger. God never fails and God hears the prayers of the humble and contrite! Let us not heep an even greater chastisement than the current one, which is indeed caused by our own sins and our unwillingness to be saints.

In Faith, Hope and Charity,
David, Sweden

Anonymous said...

I'll pray that the Holy Spirit does lead him to say that there is NO salvation without JESUS and the Catholic Church he started on Holy Thursday. These imposters must know the TRUTH!!!

Anonymous said...

I do not have words to adequately express my shock that the Pope is reduced to this.

I will redouble my prayers for the Pope, who is a gentle man, surrounded by wolves.

May God make Him a strong and virile scourge of the heretics.

I am not Spartacus said...

Matthew 28, reformed for our age of ages;

And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, pray with all nations; recognise in their false religions that they already worship the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost in all of their imaginative names. [20] Dialogue with them and behold I am with everyone, in some sense, all days, even to the consummation of the world.

I am not Spartacus said...

He had to go through with this madness or the world would have noticed he put a stake through the heart of this madness the same year he Beatified Pope John Paul II.

I guess that also means continued not-preaching-Jesus visits to Synagogues etc etc etc etc.

These attempts to concretise as the new orthopraxis the numerous novelties of that captious Papacy is so depressing and it is an anchor on what once seemed such a hopeful Papacy.

Pope Benedict has so firmly tied himself to his predecessor and Vatican Two that he can not disentangle Tradition from the Bonds of novelty that has ensnared Tradition and almost totally obscured Tradition.

What a sad and depressing time is this new Springtime in the Church.

Alan Aversa said...

The title of the 2011 Assisi event is "Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace."

Honestly, what other religion can claim to unite all the other religions' leaders? It symbolically shows the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth of which the other religions may already have a small part but yet are still in error, worshiping "the gods of the Gentiles [that] are devils." (Ps. 95).

From Pope John Paul II's closing speech at the Assisi event in October 1986: "I humbly repeat here my own conviction: peace bears the name of Jesus Christ." How much more explicit would you like Pope Benedict XVI to be this October?

hilaron said...

@I am not Spartacus: Please, it is offensive to pious ears to hear Our Blessed Lord's words twisted in that sarcastic and impious manner, especially used as a sarcasm against the Holy Father. Is the Holy Writ really meant to be used for sarcasm? And sarcasm towards the Sovereign Pontiff, Vicar of Christ on earth, the highest authority on earth? Are those mere titles thrown around as we please or do they actually signify something? Shouldn't they induce the wholesome fear of the wrath of God in presumptuously, and without the proper modesty and respect, rebuking the highest prelate on earth in a public forum where he is unable to defend himself?

Pray, pray, pray, that there will not be punishment waiting for you. And please get yourself to the Sacrament of Penance!

And pray earnestly, humbly and perseveringly for the Holy Father that he will have the strength not to flee for the wolves that roam about him.

Faith, Hope and Charity,
but the greatest of these is Charity,
David

PS. This does not mean I approve of the Assisi meetings nor of the beatification, so don't bark down that tree. And no, I am not into the wishy-washy "see no evil, hear no evil" view of charity. Just straighting things out before hand. DS.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"I humbly repeat here my own conviction: peace bears the name of Jesus Christ." How much more explicit would you like Pope Benedict XVI to be this October?"


Hopefully to state unequivocally what the Church has always taught:
"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church"

After all many non-Christians have never heard this great truth.

David said...

From Pope John Paul II's closing speech at the Assisi event in October 1986: "I humbly repeat here my own conviction: peace bears the name of Jesus Christ."

Yes, the late Holy Father made many orthodox statements. However, these were very often belied by other contradictory statements and actions.

He even reiterated the dogma "no salvation outside the Church" to a Franciscan gathering in Assisi. Yet, his praise for the syncretic horror that later took place in that lovely town contradicted this Catholic dogma.

A.M. Gerasah said...

Serious theologians and scholars must disentangle the heresy of ultramontanism from the sound dogma of papal-magisterial infaillibility. The first is dangerous for the Church, especially when accompanied with papal maximalism, whereas the second is essential for the Church. Mater and Magistra...in the meantime, let us pray the Mater et Domina for the much-awaited consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

Jordanes551 said...

The Church has never proscribed or condemned any heresy under the name of "ultramontanism." On the contrary, a century ago Catholics were proud to be branded "ultramontanists."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm

"For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanism are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it."

authoressaurus said...

"How much more explicit would you like Pope Benedict XVI to be this October?"

How about, "I firmly repeat the dogma of the Catholic Church, that SALVATION bears the name of Jesus Christ, and NO OTHER. Now I'm going to give Benediction, and leave you here to think about what you have heard and seen. I'll be at the Apostolic Palace, but you may be received in the church in any parish. Come to think of it, you'd better see me personally."

How about that?

LeonG said...

The entire Assissi enterprise is definitely not Franciscan in the proper sense.

Please Pope Benedict XVI brush the dust off from your feet and leave no blessing there.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps he views Assisi III as an opportunity to correct the mistaken conceptions of Chirstian exclusivity that the earlier meetings generated.

It is possible to respect those who hold other beliefs without accepting the validity of their beliefs.

Blayne Riley said...

I hope he indeed uses this as an opportunity to evangelize! What better opportunity to turn this nonsense 'all faiths go to God attitude' around than here? I will pray for him!

Steve said...

"It would be a marvelous design of the Holy Spirit if the Roman Pontiff at the gathering would proclaim..."

The influence of the Holy Spirit on the Vatican Hierarchy seems to have rapidly lost momentum since the sale of the Papal States and the subsequent investment of the proceeds, unrestricted by religious and doctrinal considerations.

Besides, the design of the Holy Spirit announced at Fatima has been rejected for many decades in favor of an ecumenism based on a secular humanist world view.

Jordanes551 said...

When did the Church sell the Papal States, Steve? Was it before or after the Kingdom of Italy illegally seized them?

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Please don't get your hopes up. This pope is a neo-modernist, even if he is a conservative one, relatively speaking.

They Think They Have Won

John McFarland said...

Dear Mr. Gerasah,

"The sound dogma of papal-magisterial infallibility" has already been stated, infallibly and irreformably, in the acts of Vatican Council I.

That's the way such things are settled in the Church, on such occasions as they need settlement.

"Serious theologians and scholars" are only serious insofar as they explain and draw out the implications of such pronouncements, and of the other doctrinal provisions that as relevant to those pronouncements. If you demur at that contention, I'd be interested in knowing where serious theologians and scholars get their principles from.

As Jordanes indicates, "ultramontanist" is a code word for "Catholic." The opposite of an ultramontanist is a liberal Catholic (someone who believes that the Church must kowtow to liberalism) or a liberal (someone who rejects Catholic teaching).

Mr. Ortiz said...

He's not a neo-modernist. He does somethings you don't approve of.

Well. You're not the Pope. Neither am I. Thank the Lord.

Haven't we all heard that we suffer for the Church, and sometimes because of the Church?

John McFarland said...

The Vatican structure as "reformed" by Pope Paul leaves practical power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without quite saying so. This creates constant battles for the steering wheel, or for sticking the other guys with the steering whell, and endless possibilities for claiming that responsibility (and hence, when things go wrong, blame) lies with somebody else.

John McFarland said...

God bless you, Brother Anthony. There's nothing like SiSiNoNo for removing the veil that "soft" traditionalists wear when they read the writings and addresses of the Holy Father.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Ortiz,

Take a look at the link on Brother Anthony's comment, and the others on then Cardinal Ratzinger there, and then come back and we can talk further about whether the Holy Father is a neo-modernist.

Peterman said...

To anyone "shocked" by this please read the prophecies of St Anne Catherine Emmerich. She saw a pope hiding out in a "palace other than before" to avoid people and having their dangerous demands put on him. Read it, it's all there plain as day.

Anonymous said...

Thank heaven for John McFarland and Brother Anthony. They are the antidote to the soft, squishy, sentimental mentality that would make of the pope, regardless of his merits, the principal of truth and above reproach. Whereas in reality, the pope speaks the truth and is above reproach only insofar as he reiterates and defends the deposit of faith Our Lord entrusted to the apostles. It has NOT been promised that the Vicar of Christ would never fail in his duties.

Gratias said...

Benedict XVI has liberated us with Summorum Pontificun and we should be very greatful to Him.

A.M. Gerasah said...

Mr Macfarland,

as i wrote in a comment that was censored, i fail to see any equivalence between Ultramontanism and Catholicism. The dogma of infaillibility does not caution ultramontanism as a careful perusal of the Vatican I constitutions will reveal. The Ultramontane excesses were only to be matched by the liberal excesses of the last century. There is not a trace of Ultramontanism in Bellarmine, while there is much of it in De Maistre, which even, 'Ultramontane' theologians like Journet find extreme.

Isn't it both hazardous and dishonest to equate the opposition to Ultramontanism with Liberalism? Was Gerson in his time a liberal? Was Darboy a republican?

Isn't the equivalence of Ultramontanism with Catholicism a result of a long process, the culmination of which was reached in the Integral Catholicism debate during the pontificates of Saint Pius X and Benedict XV? (And forget not in what year was the Catholic Encyclopaedia published..)

Wasn't it Ultramontanism as an attitude that led the mass of Catholics to swallow the pill of disastrous liturgical reforms so easily?

Jordanes551 said...

The problem is that you're speaking of "ultramontanism" as something with a fixed definition and application, and you even spoke falsely that the Church regards it as a heresy. The meaning and application of "ultramontanism" has varied over time, but however it has been applied, it has ever served as a handy rhetorical club with which to beat one's opponents.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Hilaron. It is the modern Popes who have twisted Tradition and my reforming scripture was not sarcastic but a dramatic illustration of the evil before us and it does no good to warn me of writing comments at a website when the real problem is the modern Popes and how they refuse to use Ecclesiastical Discipline or to follow Tradition.

It is a tautology to acknowledge we are all sinners but even you would not have done what our current Pope and his predecessor have done vis a vis Assisi.

When, say, Pope St. Pius Xth was gloriously reigning, were there no sins being committed by individual Catholics? Of course there were sins being committed by individuals but the sins of his subjects did not prevent him from faithfully discharging his duties.

Of course we Christian Catholics have the Vicar of Christ but we revere and adhere to him to the extent that he follows the Head of The Church, Jesus.

And you and I both know the modern Popes are not following what Jesus commanded them to do but it is much easier and safer to criticise a fellow layman than it is to criticise a Pope.

Believe me, I know. I was the biggest Knee-Jerk Papal Loyalist in America - even while I was a soi disant traditionalist - and it took an incessant barrage of novelties to break-through my wall of denial that things were horribly wrong at the highest level of my Church.

I have no problem in confessing that every Pope who has ever lived is/has been holier than me. There is but one of The Seven Deadly Sins, Pride, that I have not specialised in but it is a tactic of liberalism to blame everyone else but the individual responsible for the novelties and the trashing of Tradition.

The Modern Popes have not been carrying-out the Commands of Christ and they have not been discharging their duties and the responsibility for those failures can not be sloughed-off onto those who have no authority.

In fact, the attempt to do so is not humility but an inversion of truth and reality that mimics the tactics of Satan

dominic Pedulla said...

He want to suppress not "the syncretism" but "any appearance of syncretism" -- be careful to distinguish -- which is as much indictment of the overly strict sensibililties of some as it is anything John Paul II did.

A.M. Gerasah said...

Mr Jordanes

I concede that I made liberal use of the word heresy. My point being is that you may well revere and obey the Holy Father, the Successor of Holy Peter, without subscribing to the ideas of de Maistre and Veuillot. The measured tone of the Vatican I documents in their appeal to Tradition is noteworthy. The Apostolic charge implies strong notions of responsibility and ultimately accountability. We cannot be satisfied with the attempts to displace the responsibility of certain acts from the Pontiff to certain eminences grises. Whatever he does, he is responsible for it; and we must live with it.

Mr. Ortiz said...

Mr. McFarland:

I have; they seem tendentious in the extreme, characterized by a hermenuetic of suspicion.

"The main question, without misrepresenting the author's idea, could be put in the following words: authentic man, precisely by the fact that he is fully such, is God, and consequently, God is an authentic man."

Total misread.

Anonymous said...

I have a question and I would like an answer please (there must be one kind soul here who would be willing to provide me with one).

How does one protect their faith in the novus ordo church with all the new fangled theology around?

I read Brother Anthony's link, that is what is prompting the above question.

"Thank you for responding to my call."

Delphina

Mona said...

Delphina,

Your question is valid and you understand the errors the n.o. promotes.

One really can't: one can only be absorbed by it all, either buying it a "normal" or suffering in the pew because of it.
God is good -- He provides for us through Tradition with a capital T.

I do pray for our Pope -- but he, as the other V2 Popes have done, is promoting errors, whether he (they) know (knew) it or not. It is slow and subtle; like the frog in the water.

More double-speak on Assisi and responsibility...

Pray for Benedict.

mundabor said...

[..... he apparently hints at not having been the initiator - hence, responsible for...]

Sorry but, no.

He **is** responsible, because it is in his power to allow this to go on or not.

Where would the Papacy had gone this past 2000 years if every Pope had considered himself not responsible for everything which other initiate and he hasn't the gut to stop.

I am afraid that this step bears all the marks of Pope Benedict's pontificate: he wants to do good and wants us to know that he means well; but when push comes to shove he hasn't the energy to do what is right at the price of a conflict.

The way he has allowed Summorum Pontificum to be neglected this almost four years is indicative of his policy: he tries to do what is right, but he never enforces it.

Mundabor

Anonymous said...

Mundabor wrote: "when push comes to shove he hasn't the energy to do what is right at the price of a conflict."

This is where you are wrong. He thinks he IS doing right. I believe that Benedict XVI has the graces, strength and authority to do what has to be done in the Church, but he is convinced that VaTican II and the theology behind it is the way to go.

===========================

Mona, God bless you for answering me. You're a kind soul.

That is what I am afraid of - the slow boil - because I have seen it happen to so many others who swear that they still hold the same faith but, after talking to them for a bit, you can quickly tell that they have imbibed the VII errors - and they don't even realize it.

Delphina

hilaron said...

@IANS: I first off want to thank you that you kept a dispassionate and somber tone in your response to me. Nonetheless I must disagree with you on several points, which I will iterate below:
- Why use the words of Holy Writ in such a manner to show a point you had? Do you not find it the least bit impious to abuse the inerrant words of Holy Writ to make a point? Just because someone else does something worse, doesn't mean we get a blank check, or does it?
- What I said was merely a reiteration of what St. John Eudes said, that bad pastors come to the Church due to our grievous sins, our perverse ideas on matters like authority and so on. The greatest punishment of God is to send bad pastors and indeed our sins are great and the sins of our immediate forefathers were so great that Ven. Pius XII (d. 1958) said that his times were worse than before the Flood. If we reduce everything to bad pastors we will only become bitter, because we can't do much about such things as laymen. I would recommend reading Jean Ousset's (RIP) "To fly from the Cross".
- Of course it's a personal sin to be careless in office. But, that was never my objection, that you should just keep your eyes closed and ignore everything. My PS? My objection was the rashness of your use of Holy Writ and applying it without proper modesty to rebuke the Holy Father publicly in a forum where he will never read the rebuke. The only ones who are actually affected by your comments are the people reading this blog, and in my estimation the result is not positive on either side of the fences.
- The critique and rebuke of superiors is not illegitimate in se. I know the teaching of St. Thomas, St. Bellarmine and Bl. Pius IX on the virtue of obedience towards the Roman Pontiff and I am certainly aware that we can be allowed to rebuke a superior for his wrongdoings and even resist their execution. My PS? What I object to is the slight-handed manner that this seems to be made in some traditional circles, myself included at times – ie. equating the wrong-doing of a Pope to the full right of a layman in saying and doing anything, without regard for proper modesty, about that Pope. I refuse to accept this. I accept willingly the organising of things like the reservations published in The Remnant, which of course includes lots of private talks. The difference is the decorum, the content, the adressee and so on. I would say a litmus test if one is on the right track is: would I say this to the Roman Pontiff in this manner if I were to write him a personal letter? Is my first motivation to actually win his heart for our considerations or is it a self-gratifying and perverse lust for misery and bitterness?
- I know things are terribly wrong, and I refuse the insinuation that by demanding some signs of modesty I am a ”Knee-Jerk Papal Loyalist”. It is a modern (and arguably social modernist) way of politics to be dismissive to authority, to be abusive in language and to be immodest and lacking in decorum when talking, either publicly or privately. Such a stance is not traditional, but rather modern. And if such a manner of proceeding with one's neighbour layman (king/politician) is the only proper manner, how much more so when dealing with those who are our superiors in religion, be they unworthy or not, governing properly or not, cowards or not, worthy of censure or not.
- I am not putting any responsibility for the hierarchy's faults onto you. That seems to me only to be a psychological defense mechanism, that enables you to carry on without thinking of how you adress or discuss the hierarchs of the Church. The hierarchy in the Church will have its dies irae for sure. You will not be charged with their failings, unless you have been negligent in praying and sacrificing for them. You will however be charged with your own sins, and I was talking about the proper modesty of the laity in discussing problems, in adressing their lawful superiors, in admonishing the Vicar of Christ.

In Jesus,
David

mundabor said...

Anonmymous,

I agree with you that an additional problem is that BXVI still thinks V-II isn't really the problem.

But I am thinking of other episodes.

He has appointed Wagner for Linz and has backpedaled when the Austrian hirarchy starts to whine; he has tolerated a shameless boycott of Summorum Pontificum these four years; and he has sent Nichols to Westminster, Smith to Southwark, Niederauer to San Francisco.

In my eyes, this is nothing to do with V-II. This is merely not wanting the fight with his own local hierarchies.

Mundabor

Tradster said...

Hilaron,

The Supreme Pontiff can indeed defend himself. I am not aware of any Rorate Caeli policy that says Pope Benedict XVI is banned from this site. He can post a response and have a conversation with us. And it would be far better use of his time than pumping out books that confuse and scandalize the faithful.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

I just do not understand it, if it is not his idea, Und warum geht er ? Why is he going ?

Maybe he will say somethuing important, but I am not holding my breath.

Just don't go Holy Father, please.

Anonymous said...

Does it matter whether the Holy Father initiated the Assisi thing? He's still enthused about it so what difference does it make?

Matt

John McFarland said...

Dear Mr. Ortiz,

The conclusion that you quote from SiSiNoNo is based on the following statements by Cardinal Ratzinger in one of his books.

First His Eminence asks:

"Do we, then, still have the right to re-absorb Christology [that part of theology devoted to the study of Christ and His work] into theology [the methodical study of those truths revealed by God]? Must we not rather passionately acclaim Jesus as man and consider Christology as [a form of] Humanism, an Anthropology? Or could authentic man, simply because of the fact of being completely and authentically man, be God and could God be, precisely, authentic man? Could it be possible that the most radical humanism and the Faith in the God of Revelation merge together here to become one and the same thing?"

The answer is that dealing with these issues "has, in the ecumenical Councils of [the first five centuries of the Church], resulted in an affirmative answer to all these questions".

Do you think it is a misreading to read these words as saying that radical humanism is identical to the Faith, and that this was taught by the ecumenical councils of the first five centuries of the Church?

If so, would you please give us some idea of the proper reading?

John McFarland said...

Dear Mr. Gerasah,

Could you give us some idea of what it is that these "ultramontanists" of whom you speak believed?

Did they believe that the Pope's infallibility extend farther than the Pope thought it did, and insist that the Pope follow their views, Vatican I notwithstanding?

Did they think that the Pope had direct jurisdiction over something more than every man, woman and child?

Did they think that the Pope had political authority over more than the Papal States?

Did they think that the Pope could boss around the political authorities as regards matters that did not impinge on the rights and liberty of the Church?

I literally can't imagine what you're talking about.

Mr. Ortiz said...

"The answer is that dealing with these issues "has, in the ecumenical Councils of [the first five centuries of the Church], resulted in an affirmative answer to all these questions"."

I don't know the context, but this is surely short-hand for what Fathers from Athanasius to Augustine have said--the true humanity of Christ is the model of our humanity precisely because of its union with the Second Person of the Trinity. In other words, if you leave God out, you don't have authentic humanity--the final end of man is the vision of God, no? The Divine beatitude, no?

Even the Fathers wrote at times in this way. The whole of their writing showed they understood the Gospel of St. John.

I believe Pope Benedict has the same Faith.

Does that mean every thing he's ever wrote is perfectly put?

Not even canonized saints pass that test.

John McFarland said...

Dear Mr. Gerasah,

You say:

"Wasn't it Ultramontanism as an attitude that led the mass of Catholics to swallow the pill of disastrous liturgical reforms so easily?"

This is I think a different issue.

There is no question but that in the wake of Vatican I, the idea took hold that the Pope's role was as a legislator, and that his legislation was what would preserve and protect the Church. The understanding of the ordinary and universal magisterium withered away, and with it any very clear understanding of its relation to the deposit of faith. In particular, the fact that magisterial authority exists for the protection of tradition withered away. Until in about my 57th or 58th year, I began to read SSPX literature, I had never, in twelve years of Catholic education or anywhere else, seen infallibility associated with anything but the action of the Pope, or of the bishops in unity with the Pope.

So when things went bad, practically no one could thing of anything to do but (1) go along or (2) quit the Church. The notion that there could be any divergence between truth and authority was just beyond almost everyone's comprehension.

And that's still the case. That's the understanding of the papacy that conservative and "soft" traditionalist converts convert to. The fact of the possibility of a split between truth and authority is as much behind their ken as it was beyond the ken of the average American Catholic in 1945; and when the fact is pressed upon them by people like me, they resist very energetically, to say the least of it.

Picard said...

Ortiz, Mc Farland:

No, Mr. Ortiz, it is not what the Fathers taught.

This quote is taken out of Kard. Ratzingers book "Einführung in das Christentum" and he really expresses there that JEsus is exactly therefore God because He is perfectly man.

As perfectly man He is GOD.

So not the Divine nature becomming man (traditional teaching of the Fathers and Councils) -- but exactly vice versa: Christ as man through beeing perfectly man becoming God therefore.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes I wish I had been born into a protestant family so I wouldn't have to deal with this stuff.

Just believe in the Lord Jesus and be saved. Case closed.

Delphina

Jordanes551 said...

Care to supply the full context of what he said in "Einführung in das Christentum"? So far every single time I've been able to read Papa Ratzinger's seemingly troubling or heretical statements in context and accurately translated, the statements turn out to be orthodox (and sometimes it appears to be deliberate mistranslation and ripping of words out of context).

Mr. Ortiz said...

Picard,

I think you're reading into what Ratzinger wrote. Or getting his English wrong--meaning no disrespect to you.

Steve said...

"When did the Church sell the Papal States, Steve?"

The Lateran Treaty was ratified on June 7, 1929.

(Six days later...)

Our Lady of the Rosary kept the promise she made at Fatima and returned on June 13, 1929 to formally request the consecration of Russia by the Holy Father with all the Bishops.

World War II started as Our Lady of the Rosary predicted at Fatima, "during the Pontificate of Pius XI".

Picard said...

I can understand you, Jordanes, but at least in this book you can not heal the text by a lectio benevolentiae.

Well, right, we would have to read more from it, to get the whole context and exact meaning of the words - - but this we must do privately, because it would be too much for posting it all here.

Well, ok., perhaps I could quote some more passages of the work. But I have it only in German - and translation is difficult. I do not know if I will find the time and perhaps it is also too much to post here, as I just said.

The context is clear in the book:

it is an explanation and interpretation of the Creed and the concrete theme discussed is Christology, the question of "if" resp. "how" is CHrist God or: how can a man be God / or God be man.

And the punchline is the inversion of the traditional teaching - a Christology not from above [to below] but from below [to above]:

Not the perfect and eternal Deity becomming/getting man by [top down-]incarnation

but vice versa the man, the human natur of Christ becomming/getting God because of his resp. her perfectness in the humanity [bottom-up].

Picard said...

Mr. Ortiz,

the original is German, not English.

I could quote you from the German original, but I do not know if you speak German?

best regards
Pic

Anonymous said...

I will trust Dom Gueranger's understanding of Papal Monarchy over any bush league objections offered by amatuers on web sites and pamphlets. The Gallican-Jansenist streak alive and well in SSPX and sedevacanist circles is not the answer, just like it wasnt post Avignon, post the Borgias papacy, etc. This does not make one a disciple of de maistre, but more in line with the Benedictine understanding of the Papacy stemming back from the Cluniacs to Solesmes. I will gladly side with the Monks on this, even over the Schoolmen the amatuers like to lift proof texts from.

Picard said...

One essential quote Mc Farland has given us yet (now with some emphases of mine):

"Or could authentic man, simply because (!!) of the fact of being completely and authentically man (!), be God and could God be, precisely, authentic man?"

So SIMPLY BECAUSE (!!!) of beeing completely and authentically man JEsus is GOD!

--- That´s more than outlandish, isn´t it?! - It´s the inversion of the traditional top-down-teaching.

Picard said...

So there is no reading-in.

The sentence, that the then-Card. Ratzinger promoted, that Jesus is God BECAUSE He is perfectly or "completely and authentically" man

is clear -- and it is as wrong as it is clear! And it is more than simply wrong...!

John McFarland said...

Then Fr. Ratzinger's question: "could authentic man, simply because of the fact of being completely and authentically man, be God and could God be, precisely, authentic man"?

His answer: yes, and that's what the great Christological councils taught.

Mr. Ortiz maintains that

(1) God could become God by being fully man

is shorthand for

(2) the true humanity of Christ is the model of our humanity precisely because of its union with the Second Person of the Trinity

But I see no sign in (1) of the distinction between God and man that is essential to (2). The absence of that distinction is precisely the scandal of (1).

Note also that Mr. Ortiz doesn't deal with fact that the passage that I quoted in my previous comment also says yes to the question:

"Could it be possible that the most radical humanism and the Faith in the God of Revelation merge together here to become one and the same thing?"

A yes to this question doesn't merely, like (1) above, not mention the divine-human distinction of (2); its whole point is precisely to deny the distinction.

As for those of you who think they might be able to overcome the scandal from the context, I can only say: good luck.

P.S. I'm not even sure that (2) is an accurate statement standing on its own. God became man so that man might share in the divine nature, not so that man might become "more fully human" except as a consequence of that sharing. But I don't know enough to do more than raise the question.

hilaron said...

Tradster: At first I thought you were serious, but after writing a long reply I realised that I must be mistaken and you must have written this to cheer things up a bit with a good joke. So, I concede, I was actually daft enough to not get it for nearly twenty minutes. Thanks for the good humour!

In Christ Jesus, our Divine Saviour,
David, Sweden

Anonymous said...

Cruise the Groove. said...

"This is not surprising, as Cardinal Ratzinger[now the Holy Father] did not want the previous Asissi syncretistic meetings to occur."

Yes but he's pope now. Is it naive to suppose that the buck stops somewhere?

Jordanes551 said...

I can understand you, Jordanes, but at least in this book you can not heal the text by a lectio benevolentiae.

Well, right, we would have to read more from it, to get the whole context and exact meaning of the words - - but this we must do privately, because it would be too much for posting it all here.

Well, ok., perhaps I could quote some more passages of the work. But I have it only in German - and translation is difficult. I do not know if I will find the time and perhaps it is also too much to post here, as I just said.


If you and others aren't prepared to do that, then you have no business bringing it up at all. It would be unwise for those who haven't seen the entire context simply to trust that a lone sentence has been accurately translated and interpreted, given what we know about Ratzinger's difficult style and mode of thought and argument, and the tendency in certain traditionalist circles to try to find or to manufacture evidence of heresy and apostasy.

Thus, I would very much appreciate it if you or someone else could be troubled to send New Catholic transcripts of the relevant pages in German and English.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear Hilaron/David. I read your thoughtful comments and I understand your concerns even if I do not agree with them completely..

I don't think you are a knee-jerk papal loyalist and I was not trying to insinuate you are. I wrote, I thought quite clearly, that I was once a knee-jerk papal loyalist.

Even after reading your comments I do think my reform of scripture helped to highlight the evil of novelty. I do not think it was sinful to have done that; and that may because I am spiritually blind on this point. And I thought my use of "reform" would be understood as a not-even-oblique reference to what passes for "reform" in this age of ages.

I did not reduce everything to bad Pastors. I acknowledged my sins while writing that my sins, and the sins of others, do not exempt the Pope from criticism nor can it explain why he does not do what he ought.

I am a grumpy old man but I don't think I am bitter.

I see an actual springtime in the SSPX, the FSSP, and the other Traditional Orders and I begin each day with prayers for, among others, the Pope and The Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Religious, and Laity of Holy Mother Church and then I am moved to great calm and joy by reading and praying the reading/prayers of the day in "The Liturgical Year."

As a Christian Catholic Militant I truly see no harm in writing honestly about the state of our Church and I think it somewhat odd to have it said that it is sinful to do such a thing; but, I do not hesitate to think that I could be wrong for I specialise in being wrong.

I do admit I am angry that The Mass and Sacraments were reformed and if that rational anger is sinful I confess I can not see it.

The Mass is the action of Jesus offering Himself, as Priest and Victim, through His Priesthood, to our Triune God as The Pluperfect Sacrifice of propitiation and any action on the part of any Pope that in any way diminishes the solemnity and beauty of this Sacrifice is the only thing, it might be said, that we can be righteously angry about.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

If anybody want to get a better understanding of Pope Benedict XVI's humanist tendencies, please listen to Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX in this interview:



The Enigma of Pope Benedict XVI

Mr. Ortiz said...

I just bought the book on Amazon to give it a full-read.

Can you show similar passages in his encyclicals?

One could, btw, easily misquote St. Paul and show how he condemns the Catholic Church.


Protestants do it all the time.

blaha said...

@IANS: Since there is only allowance for 4096 characters per post I had to cut down quite a lot of my explanations, which might have given everything a terse and unqualified sense to it.

Yes, I do think it is quite shocking to use the words of the inerrant Scriptures in ways which are irreverent, even if it were to prove a point of someone else's problem. It's like taking a Sacred Host in your hand and holding it up to display, God forbid!, just to show people how crazy things are right now! Just like the Sacred Host is the actual Body of Our Lord, so is the Holy Writ the actual words of God, which ought to be treated with the same reverence as the Sacred Host. I hope you can empathize.

I have not said it is sinful to be angry at the reforms which caused so much sufferings. I have said that we must temper the severity of justice with the meekness of Christ whenever possible and to maintain proper decorum and not indulge in self-gratifying misery nor to become spiteful and hard-hearted which always looks suspiciously at every word the Holy Father utters or every move he makes.

If we are merely complaining about the state of affairs without it amounting in some form of action to counter the evil condemned, then it is at best idle talk and therefore at minimum a venial sin, at worst we become detractors and calumniators of the Pope which is far worse. This we can see among the fringe of the SSPX (and Ecclesia Dei-groups) and more notoriously among the sedevacantists: everything is proposed as heresy, apostasy and blasphemy without even giving a moment's thought to whether that was what he meant et c. It's like, the higher you come in the hierarchy the less respect you seem to deserve according to these people, not the other way around which is the traditional way.

As I said, litmus test:

1. Would I write this to the Holy Father?
2. Are my comments contributing to action against the evil condemned?
3. Are my comments charitable and do they carry the proper respect due for the Exalted Office?

Read again Archbishop Lefebvre's letters to Pope Paul VI and I think you will get the gist of what I am trying to get at.

This was my final post in this discussion. Family priorities.

In Christ the King,
David

craig said...

If anyone here wants to accuse Cardinal Ratzinger of heresy based on a statement in one of his books, provide us with the book title and the page number, or else it didn't happen. Put up or shut up -- specific accusations require specific proof.

The rest of us, or at least those of us here not predisposed to find the Pope less Catholic than ourselves, have no use for unsourced allegations. We can fact-check specific claims.

Mr. Ortiz said...

Craig,

Amen!

Jordanes551 said...

We can fact-check specific claims.

If we can get to the bottom of this allegation, I'll prepare a post or series of posts on it for Rorate Caeli, whatever the results of our study may be. I would appreciate it very much if Picard and/or Mr. Ortiz would email New Catholic (newcatholic at gmail dot com) with transcripts of the relevant pages. Thanks.

Jordanes551 said...

"When did the Church sell the Papal States, Steve?"

The Lateran Treaty was ratified on June 7, 1929.


That was not a sale of the States of the Church, most of which had been unlawfully annexed by the Kingdom of Italy in November 1860. The remaining territories (Latium, including Rome) were conquered in September 1870 and officially annexed the followed October. The Church did not acquiesce to this theft until 7 June 1929, when Italy agreed to return one square mile of the territory it had stolen, and then paid an indemnity to the Church to make amends for having stolen the rest of the States of the Church. Calling that indemnity a sale is entirely false.

rezzoni said...

"Calling that indemnity a sale is entirely false."

Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X would have never agreed to a such cheap compromise. The Lateran treatis with the fascists is no reason of joy.

Mr. Ortiz said...

Jordanes,

Sure thing--I should have the book in a couple of days.

Scrooge said...

Anthony,

Do you know anything better than posting links to articles by the SSPX attacking the modernist straw man Benedict XVI?

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

"Anthony,

Do you know anything better than posting links to articles by the SSPX attacking the modernist straw man Benedict XVI?
"

No.

John McFarland said...

Scrooge,

Can you give us a few examples of the SSPX's misrepresenting the teachings of the Holy Father?

My considered opinion is that those who deny the Holy Father's progressivism either (1) don't have enough philosophy and theology to understand what they are looking at or (2) don't want to understand what they are looking at.

I encourage you to give a few examples proving me wrong.

Since there is already a group dealing with then Fr. Ratzinger's "Introduction to Christianity," you might want to look at recent critiques in the SSPX's Angelus magazine of the Holy Father's teachings. You can get a year's online subscription for eighteen bucks. I'll reimburse you if you tell me where to send the check.

Mr. Ortiz said...

I have some pages numbers for the quotes from Intro to Christianity, but they don't match my edition.

However:

Ratzinger's organization of the book lends itself to misreading for a certain reason--he formulates for pages at a time positions he does not agree with.

Case in point: "For reasons that can no longer be estabished, Jesus was condemned to death and died a failure. Afterward, in a way that can no longer be clearly perceived, the belief in the Resurrection arose, the notion that he lived on or at any rate still signified something." (Introduction to Christianity, p. 213.)

This is the kind of thing bandied about as if it was something the Pope believed, and still believes.

It is not, and was not. It is a theory he calls "A Modern Stock Idea of the "Historical Jesus"" which begins on p. 212 and ends on p. 215, with the words: "...the whole theory is absurd, even if today hordes of people believe it..."

Many, many folks who bash this Pope do so, in my opinion, based on similar mis-readings.

I don't have a degree in theology or philosophy, but do know how to read a book, and quote fairly. And I think many quotations from Intro to Christianity---including a criticism from an SSPX Bishop--misread the book by quoting positions that are not Ratzinger's but precisely the opposite.

Mar said...

To David,

With all due respect please consider what the Church has taught.

Luke 17:1-2 - And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come. It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.

Catholic teaching also states that sodomy is one of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

There is also the teaching of the Church in regard to the sins of another. The following are four ways (out of nine) how one becomes an accessory to the sins of another.

1. By consent - have I permitted any of those who are under my control, to commit it?

2. By concealment.

3. By silence.

4. By defense of the ill done - have I justified the evil doer, or their evil actions; have I defended false religions?

Put your hand on your heart and tell me that these things have not been widespread in the Church at very high levels in recent times. Yes, there have been evil deeds among the members of the Church – even at high levels – in previous times. But we are talking about the here and now.

The souls and bodies of minors have been harmed by the actions of evil people. But there are also those 'little ones' whose faith is of a sincere and simple kind, who believe with all their heart, but who are unable to make fine theological distinctions, nor yet find their way around the veritable forest of Church 'teaching' – much of it conflicting - which starts with the interpretation of Church statements, then goes on to explanations of interpretions, then to interpretations of explanations, and so on in a downward spiral.

Who can escape from this morass?

At present I am in a European country visiting my elderly aunts who are devout church-goers. Up until fairly recent times the situation there was not as bad as in some other European countries, but now that the old timers who guided the faithful in the perilous Soviet times have died, and the 'new guard' have taken over, the Church is going down the same path as the worst of them at a rate of knots.

When I was talking with my aunts (individually) about the Blessed Sacrament and how only the Catholic Church has the True Presence they did not believe me – and they are women who have been educated at the highest level. They do not believe me because they have been taught certian things by highly educated members of the hierarchy.

Absolutely heart-breaking! Please pray for them.

Mar said...

Mr. Ortiz said...Case in point: "For reasons that can no longer be estabished, Jesus was condemned to death and died a failure. Afterward, in a way that can no longer be clearly perceived, the belief in the Resurrection arose, the notion that he lived on or at any rate still signified something." (Introduction to Christianity, p. 213.)...

It is not, and was not. It is a theory he calls "A Modern Stock Idea of the "Historical Jesus"" which begins on p. 212 and ends on p. 215, with the words: "...the whole theory is absurd, even if today hordes of people believe it..."

I wonder if at any point the Holy Father addresses the question as to why exactly hordes of people believe this absurd theory. One would think that for the sake of evangelization this question should be examined very thoroughly.

Mr. Ortiz said...

Ratzinger's organization of his works lends itself to misreading for a certain reason--he formulates for pages at a time positions he does not agree with.

Case in point, from Introduction to Christianity: "For reasons that can no longer be estabished, Jesus was condemned to death and died a failure. Afterward, in a way that can no longer be clearly perceived, the belief in the Resurrection arose, the notion that he lived on or at any rate still signified something." (Introduction to Christianity, p. 213.)

This is the kind of thing bandied about as if it were something the Pope believed, and still believes.

It is not, and was not. It is a theory he calls "A Modern Stock Idea of the "Historical Jesus"" which begins on p. 212 and ends on p. 215, with the words: "...the whole theory is absurd, even if today hordes of people believe it..."

Many, many folks who bash this Pope do so, in my opinion, based on similar mis-readings.

I don't have a degree in theology or philosophy, but do know how to read a book (I have authored one, a novel), and quote fairly. And I think many quotations from Intro to Christianity---including a criticism from an SSPX Bishop, perhaps the one referenced in this post--misread the book by quoting positions that are not Ratzinger's but precisely the opposite.

hilaron said...

Mar: I am fully aware of the Church's teaching on the participation in other people's sins. How does that teaching justify treating one's superiors as one's inferiors? Read again Leo XIII, St. Gregory the Great, and so on. Read the letters of His Grace Marcel Lefebvre for a good example. There is indeed a great danger in "justly reproving what is wrong [in superiors]" because we may then be lead "by pride into greater faults". And the proud will not enter Heaven, but will be cast into the torments of Hell. Kyrie eleison!

When have I ever said to shut a blind eye, when have I said we should not defend the Faith and promote it amongst our neighbour Catholics, when have I said we should not oppose evil? You are drawing a straw-man, dear Mar, and it is even more conspicuous since I added that I don't subscribe to the notions which you now perceive. But the one-sidedness of many a Traditionalist seems to blind us to the different sides of the matter: the righteous reproach of evil vs. the righteous subordination of one's intellect and will to that of one's superiors as long as it is not in contradiction to the dicates of God, even when they are unworthy carriers of office (cf. St. Gregory the Great).

In Christ,
David