Rorate Caeli

Pope: hermeneutic of rupture "unacceptable", in favor of a "hermeneutic of continuity and reform"

In an address to the Italian Episcopal Conference today:

[M]ay the 50th anniversary of its beginning [of Vatican II], which we will celebrate in the fall, be an occasion to deepen the study of its texts, the condition for a dynamic and faithful reception. "That which above all concerns the Council is that the sacred deposit of the Christian faith be kept and taught in a more efficacious way," Pope Blessed John XXIII affirmed in his opening address. And it is worthwhile to meditate and read these words.

The Pope charged the Fathers to deepen and present such a perennial doctrine in continuity with the millennial Tradition of the Church: "to pass on the doctrine, pure and whole, without attenuations or distortions," but in a new way, "according to what is required by our times." (Address of solemn opening of the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican II, October 11, 1962). With this key for its reading and application - according to a view, certainly not of an unacceptable hermeneutic of discontinuity and of rupture, but of a hermeneutic of continuity and of reform -, listening to the Council and making ours the authoritative indications are the path to ascertaining the ways with which the Church may offer a significant response to the great social and cultural transformations of our time, which have visible consequences also on the religious sphere.
Benedict XVI 
May 24, 212

46 comments:

Cosmos said...

I feel like these addresses are becoming more and more direct.

As problematic as VII is, it is not as if the world abandoned Christianity because of the council. It certainly did nothing to stop the bleeding in the Catholic Church, and arguably sped it up, but the trends were already there. Materialism and scienticism have made the need for God much less immediate to many, many people.

It is understandable how a man like our Pope, a man who saw his work at the Council as an authentic attempt to reach those otherwise deaf ears, would try so hard to ensure that it is interpreted in that way.

However, it is becoming clear that it failed at its purpose. Too may vagueries. Too many poison pills. Too many dubiously Catholic teachings. And maybe most importantly, a claim to be responding to the signs of the time while completely ignoring the great menace of the age, which, at the time, was hardly hiding in the shaddows, but waging war on humanity. Such an ommission gives traction to conspiracies of an infiltrated Council.

God bless the Pope and the noble work which he has begun.

Matthew said...

Then what of the more traditional-minded schema to which John XXIII referred in his opening address, those which then-Fr. Ratzinger and others quickly discarded in favor of much more liberal and ambiguous documents? Whatever one thinks of John XXIII, he began the Council with rather different schema than the ones which the Bishops approved and Paul VI promulgated.

Brother Juniper said...

"the great menace of the age, which, at the time, was hardly hiding in the shaddows, but waging war on humanity."

Television?

But seriously, to what do you refer? Many ideas enter my head and perhaps you mean the humanist-modernist-aetheist hydra that is the spirit of the age.

Gratias said...

The Church is a big tent and Benedict the Holy Father of all. The celebrations of the 50th anniversary of Vatican II and the 20th of the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church compiled by Cardinal Ratzinger in October are a small price to pay for the restoration of the Latin Mass that was forbidden for decades. With an interpretation of continuity we might be able to leave Varican II behind. The new translation of the NO mass was helpful, and the Anglican Ordinariates a surprising success. Benedict is very wise and we are very fortunate to have him.

Cosmos said...

Br. Juniper,

I meant Communism.

Matthew,

I think Ratzniger was wrong to be part of that movement, but I do not think he intended the fruits that it bore. My impression is that Ratzinger, like other great men, assumed (1) that there was an orthodox brand of the theology that they were espousing; and (2) the radical traansformations in the world required creative and radical thinking on behalf of Catholics. He probably defined his circles more narrowly than we do and ignored the modernist tendencies of some in the greater movement as excesses--just as many traditionalists ignore the extreme tendencies of some as outside of "true" traditionalism.

I think the fact that he has moved more and more back to the tradition is a sign that his heart has always been in the right place. There are many so-called "neo-conservatives" who seem every bit as holy, and intend to be just as loyal to the Church, as any Traditionalist.

jray said...

For Gratias:
Thank you so much for your comment. We should be very thankful for all the Holy Father has done, and for all he is trying to accomplish.

Brian said...

It would seem that what our Holy Father means by "a perennial doctrine in continuity with the millennial Tradition of the Church" is not the same as what Traditional Catholics mean by continuity with Tradition.

Traditional Catholics look to uphold and honor Scholasticism and the teaching of the papal documents of Pius IX, Pius X, and Pius XII, which were largely dismissed by the Council pereti, including then Fr. Ratzinger, as too cramped, rigid, and anti-Modernistic, and not in keeping with the needs of "modern man."

The scholastic mode of theological reasoning and these papal teachings characterized the traditional-minded schema; and, as Matthew indicates in his 14:30 comment, were roundly overhauled, reversed and discarded by the pereti and progressive Fathers of Vatican II.

FranzJosf said...

Cosmos and Br. Juniper:

I was thinking of the so-called Enlightenment and the French Revolution, where Communism's roots are to be found? And, in turn, the roots of the Enlightenment can be found in Reneaissance humanist, which reaches back to Plato's utopian notions? But I'm no philosopher, am I even close to the mark? Or am I wrong altogether?

R said...

I pity every traditionalist who thinks that the Tradition is somehow defined by the Scholasticism of recent vintage. Thanks be to God, it is actually much richer than that, always has been and always will be.

Hugh said...

And so "a new way" meant a totally new liturgy unprecedented in Roman Catholic liturgical history; an attempt at abrogating sacred liturgical tradition; collegiality over hierarchy; primacy of conscience over The Faith; ecumenical and interreligious dialogue over One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism in Our Blessed Lord jesus Christ; liberal modernism over Roman Catholic Tradition.
The consequence - a dechrisitianised westerndom and a church in near pastoral disorder and chronic disobedience to the magesterium of the church.
No thank you - many of us have had enough of this destructive "new way". Let us have a restoration of the old.

James C. said...

The damn Second World War made it all possible. It discredited the old order in the eyes of the progressives, who were able to harness the malaise for their revolution.

Father B said...

More and more I look at Vatican II as an event of unnecessary surgery.

Ave, Gratia Plena! said...

Never accept compromise on something so important. It is never, ever good to accept what is error thinking it to be "okay" since you got a little something good in the mix. That is like saying obamacare is okay because at least he gave that little "concession" that was not his right to keep or give anyway. It was the same with the Mass. It was OURS and it always was. Just because the pope corrected a GRAVE INJUSTICE doesn't mean we should accept the things he does that are not good.

BTW, I did not know until recently that we have the SSPX to thank for the release of our Mass from bondage. It was one of the first demands made by His Excellency Bishop Fellay that the pope do that as a sign of good will by Rome. And the Society has always given public thanks to the person who really secured the release and that is Our Lady because it came at the end of an SSPX Rosary Campaign called for that very purpose.

This pope seems to be responding to grace from so many of our prayers. It is truly amazing and with it there is much for which to be hopeful. But giving a nod to his celebrating error is not one of them.
No, the world didn't abandon Christianity because of Vatican II. Vatican II celebrated it then closed the door and put a papal seal on it.

As far as the two weapons of mass destruction put forth by the Conciliarists...the Catechism of JPII and the New American Bible...let me say this. At the time of my conversion I was quick to purchase and read both of them. I couldn't get them out of my house fast enough. The Holy Ghost was obviously not invoked in the compilation of either one and I am sure that just like at the convening and all during the Vatican II council, the Holy Ghost was intentionally ignored. Those churchmen knew full to do so would prevent them from putting forth their false ideals.

Now if our pope were to honor the anniversary of The Pascendi, now that would be something we could applaud! Too bad he chose not to when he had the chance.

Jim Paton said...

"That which above all concerns the Council is that the sacred deposit of the Christian faith be kept and taught in a more efficacious way," Pope Blessed John XXIII

This would concern the schema's before the periti got their way.

There is no point in BXVI quoting John XXIII because one is talking about something different. So there cannot be any continuity.

BXVI would be better trying to find continuity with the works of Martin Luther because he has as much chance of finding it with that than he has with the garbage that came out of the council.

Felix said...

How is it that this execrable Council is still idolized?

"Making an Idol of the Council"

This should be your next article. It'll talk about how, even though this idol is covered with vomit, feces, maggots, flies, roaches, and all the rest, it's still idolized.

PolPhilPhD said...

Franz, Plato's Republic isn't an endorsement of utopianism, but a rejection of it - the greatest rejection of it. It's meant to show that if we seek to make heaven on earth, we will get hell. There can be no perfect justice in this world.

The whole work is Socratic irony par excellence.

Read it in this way and the whole thing will be new to you.

PolPhilPhD said...

Franz, I forgot to add that the regime Plato truly advocated is laid out in his Laws. Curiously, outside of the Straussians, most scholars fail to recognize this (incidentally, they also fail to note his condemnation of homosexuality in Book 1 of Laws).

Plato (or rather, the Athenian Stranger) explicitly calls this regime laid out in his Laws the second best regime. As such, it's the one that - unlike that described (note: not prescribed) in the Republic - is prescribed as actually achievable.

Incidentally, I recommend the Bloom translation of the Republic and the Pangle translation of the Laws.

Matthew said...

Gratias, your desire to be thankful for what Benedict XVI is laudable.

However, he has still never publicly celebrated the TLM as Reigning Pontiff. He still offers the Bugnini-garbled mess exclusively. That is a telling fact.

P.K.T.P. said...

Gentlefolk here:

Today is the last feria in Ascensiontide, and the Pope, for obvious symbolic reasons, will not bounce back to the C.D.F. the latest Doctrinal Preamble tomorrow, on the Feast of Hildebrand, Pope St. Gregory VII. This Pope loves symbolic dates, and John Paul II signed the Campos Decree on Christmas Eve of 2001.

Benedict XVI will sign a decree of some kind this Saturday, on the Vigil of Pentecost. I make that a solid prediction. I'm not sure if an announcement will be made immediately. Normally, there is a delay so that interested parties can have advanced warning of the consequences (e.g. the Society superiors, the local bishops). Likely days for an announcement would be Thursday, 31st May, the Feast of the Coronation of our Lady (i.e. next Thursday) or on one of the three days between Trinity Sunday and Corpus Christi (Thursday, 7th June), esp. the Feast of St. Boniface, Apostle to Germany, on 5th June.

At any rate, we should know soon. The Pope will not be erecting a new jurisdiction at this point. Bishop Fellay has said already that this needs to be further negotiated, and the C.D.F. has also referred to needed further negotiations on some other matters. I've heard a predicted date in July for the structure to be established. But the Pope will acknowledge on Saturday that Society clerics are Catholic at law, and will likely vacate or expunge the 1975 suppression and 1976 suspension a divinis. That means, first of all, that it will be publicly acknowledged (as it has been privately since 2002) that Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation. But the Pope will also want to grant temporary faculties for all their Sacraments and functions, since it would be unreasonable to ask them to wait until July or so before resuming those. It will likely be the case that they will be asked not to expand activities beyond the dioceses where they currently operate until the canonical structure be erected.

If this all comes to pass, and I now firmly think that it will, it will be more important for the traditionalist movement than have been all other advances *combined*. The reason is that this reconciliation will mean that the Pope, whom the Society admits is the Vicar of Christ, will recognise the legitimacy of Society Sacraments and ministries everywhere, and its right to offer them everywhere and in no way obstructed by the local bishops. In a word, it means real freedom. S.P. gave us freedom in principle; this will confer freedom in practice. Under S.P., every priest has a right to offer the old Mass, but the local bishops can still use their considerable power to threaten and obstruct and persecute those who do--and some do so. That is about to end.

Finally, the liberals, who preach 'live and let live', will actually have to operate by their own philosophy and stop playing the hypocrite. We shall now have our own little corner under the great umbrella, along with the liberals, the Neo-catatonics and the charismoronics. Eventually, the good fruit will blossom and the other trees will be cut down and cast into the fire. But our work will only be to nurture the Tree of Tradition.

P.K.T.P.

FranzJosf said...

PolPhilPhD:

Thank you for your response. I never studied Plato formally. I have The Republic on my bookshelf somewhere, and one afternoon I randomly opened it and began reading it for about a half an hour, having no idea about the irony. I said to myself, "Oh, this is where Marx got this rubbish." I put it down, I thought for ever. Now, I'll read it again in the Bloom translation.

Hugh said...

I will certainly not be celebrating the VCII. It will always remain for me one of the most destructive and painful memories of my young adolescence as I watched everything I loved so dearly in the church being deconstructed, ridiculed, removed and replaced with the lowest common denominator.
It has to be admitted that the man who currently occupies the papacy was in part responsible for such a calamity. I can not forget the utter disbelief, scandal and pain it provoked in my family. It also led to the loss of several religious communities and severe reductions in ecclesiastical activities within 25 years of its conclusions. Priests I had known closely left the priesthood, the church and some married without any permission to do so.
No, this is a cause for lamentation, sack-cloth and ashes. It is the worst event to have ever happened in the churches history.

Hugh said...

All Pope John XXIII's three years of preparations were trashed at The Councils' outset.

Hugh said...

"[M]ay the 50th anniversary of its beginning [of Vatican II]................the fall"

There is an intersting juxtaposition of those words.

PolPhilPhD said...

Franz, I'm glad. Marx and most others today completely misunderstand Plato, especially his Republic. Again, it's a total rejection of utopianism.

You might also go to The Great Courses website and get this:

Plato's Republic by Professor David Roochnik

By the way, this "hermeneutic of continuity" business is rank utopianism. As such, it's bound to be disastrous.

The solution is for BXVI to definitively proclaim V2 as a thoroughly time-bound pastoral council immersed in the blindness of adolescent enthusiasm. As such, it's to be discarded in toto as illuminating nothing.

Yes, imagine seeing this proclamation from BXVI:

"I see now that the Second Vatican Council was a thoroughly fashionable pastoral council immersed in the adolescent enthusiasm and blindness of the 1960s. I thus proclaim that this Hippie Council, to the extent that it taught anything even remotely at variance with previous Church teaching, is null and void. Thus the Hippie Council is superfluous and is to be completely discarded. It is hereby so done."

One may dream!

PolPhilPhD said...

Franz, one last thing. Here's part of something I recommended before on Plato's Republic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRnBPLV8zLY

Cheers!

Brian said...

R said,
I pity every traditionalist who thinks that the Tradition is somehow defined by the Scholasticism of recent vintage. Thanks be to God, it is actually much richer than that, always has been and always will be.

I do not know any Traditional Catholic who would say that Tradition is some how defined by Scholasticism of recent vintage, nor did my comment above suggest that.

It is, however, difficult to understand a continuity that rejects scholatism and dismisses well over a century of papal teaching, teaching which itself is clearly continous with ancient Catholic Tradition.

Tantumblogo said...

I love the Holy Father. I am grateful for the many good things he has done. But I pray he will put his words into action and show demonstrably how the many problematic aspects of Vatican II can be understood in continuity with Tradition, and not "traditiony" tradition, either. How can Guadium Et Spes 24 be reconciled with Proverbs 16:4, without redefining terms? How can we evangelize the culture when several VII documents seem to point to tolerance of, even glorying in, false religions?

As much as I love the Holy Father, and pray for his continued health, I cannot but feel at times that he is a tragic figure, able to diagnose all the problems but unable to prescribe the cure, because doing so would require repudiation of the halcyon days of his youth. Is that uncharitable, or disobedient, to think that? I pray not. I don't think I mean it to be, but I am so very prideful.

My priest advised me not to go down this path, not to start questioning the Council, because it was above me, and too many pious people have scandalized themselves out of the Faith over it. I can't do anything to fix it. Only the Holy Father is above a Council, and only he can fix it. I pray that work begins now.

Brother Juniper said...

PKTP:

"it will be publicly acknowledged (as it has been privately since 2002) that Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation"

I apologize for my morbid curiosity (since I imagine this issue has come up many times in the past), but I am new here and this is exactly what I have most wanted to know. Where can I find out more about the Church acknowledging (since 2002) that Society Masses have a valid Eucharist and fulfil the Sunday obligation?

I have long admired the SSPX from a distance, but a restoration with the Church might change all that (the distance, not the admiration). I see from their website, that the Society is active in many areas of the Philippines that I visit often and where I plan to spend a lot of time once I am retired. I have been looking for a worthy cause to give time. Maybe the third order (though selling my wife on the idea of no TV will not be easy and I do like to watch baseball).

P.K.T.P. said...

Bro. Juniper:

An Australian traditionalist, a layman, wrote to the P.C.E.D. in 2002 asking about the status of S.S.P.X Masses. He was told that they fulfil the Sunday and holyday obligation EVEN THOUGH they are illicit (i.e. the priests offering these valid Masses have no right in law to do so). The Australian was asked not to make this finding public. He switched on his computer and immediately published.

Since then, at least fifteen (known) letters saying the same thing have been received by subsequent enquirers. I am one of them and I have such a letter in my possession.

If you want proof, just write to the P.C.E.D. yourself. In law, the findings apply only to the addressees of the letters, whereas a public admission by the Pope would have universal binding authority.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. There is something else in the letter they sent me but I'll keep that one off the blogs!

Kevin B. said...

"Reform" is well and good if we have a true understanding of what the word means. Vatican II did not give us reform; it gave us a revolution. I'm going to celebrate Vatican II's anniversary by distributing free copies of Pascendi, Mediator Dei, Humani Generis, and Ecclesiam Suam at my old Novus Ordo parish.

I am not Spartacus said...

I love Our Holy Father and I pray for him every day but the Church prior to V2 is nearly completely different than the Church I was born into in 1948 and claims about hermeneutic this and continuity that vis a vis particular conciliar documents seem to me to be an academic exercise because since the end of V2 the authorities in the Holy City of Rome have actualised the documents of V2 resulting in a praxis (a living exegesis if you will) of what was created, and intended, at the council and that praxis witnesses to an undeniable rupture in the church of pre and post V2; and everybody, Jew, Protestant, Mormon, Scientologist, Pagan, and atheist, knows it is a different church and they all reference V2 as the council that changed the church.

And, I hasten to add that when it comes to intellect, praxis, knowledge, and holiness, I am a flint strike while Our Holy Father, by comparison, is the sun.

I know that certain anniversaries must be celebrated but this anniversary, to me at least, can not pass into history fast enough.

Woody said...

Br. Juniper:

WRT the Third Order, the chaplain told me (a number of years ago) that if my wife were a TV watcher (as she was then and is maybe even more so now, for a number of reasons some of which are valid), I could still fulfill the no TV part of the Rule by simply not ever turning it on myself.

Although my T. O. postulancy has been in abeyance for some years now, I do try to follow that counsel.

Except for the MacLaughlin Group. And Real Madrid.

I trust that the Third Order will be recognized as in good standing when the reconciliation comes. I will very likely seek a revival of my postulancy, then, too, if not before.

Marty Jude said...

Cosmos said...
Br. Juniper,

I meant Communism.

Matthew,

I think Ratzniger was wrong to be part of that movement, but I do not think he intended the fruits that it bore. My impression is that Ratzinger, like other great men, assumed (1) that there was an orthodox brand of the theology that they were espousing; and (2) the radical traansformations in the world required creative and radical thinking on behalf of Catholics. He probably defined his circles more narrowly than we do and ignored the modernist tendencies of some in the greater movement as excesses--just as many traditionalists ignore the extreme tendencies of some as outside of "true" traditionalism.

I think the fact that he has moved more and more back to the tradition is a sign that his heart has always been in the right place. There are many so-called "neo-conservatives" who seem every bit as holy, and intend to be just as loyal to the Church, as any Traditionalist.
........

I totally agree with this...it was a different era, and 'Cardinal Ratzinger', let's face it, wasn't a major advocate of the reforms, when at the CDF/Holy Office. He certainly rebuked abuses and had 'conservative' to 'trad' critiques in his writings. Also, he was loyal to the papacy. I for one was not not a 'fan' of JPII as I began to realise his 'extremes' but Card. Ratzinger was. The Beatification, for me is 'dodgy', but Benedict IS the Holy Father. He, like the rest of us, is able to change his views. He is also supposed to be a 'shepherd' of the flock; 'the servant of the servants of God' ...so he needs to think broadly and allow 'us'/the Trad's in. He needs to consider the 'unity' of the whole Church.

I just hope n pray he is given the strength [from on High] to be fair and just in equal measures, certainly with the likes of Kung.

The mainstream episcopacies, he must tread carefully, and play the great 'political moves' he is so adept at. Why? Simply because there are so many faithful he needs to attempt to protect. I'm thinking of Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Eire etc.

Oh God, please grant the necessary strengths to our Holy Father, Benedict, and grant him Many Years

Peterman said...

"blessed" John XXiii. That makes me laugh a bit.

NIANTIC said...

Yes, the official line in the Fall will be great rejoicing in V2, glorification of its documents (on a par with the Gospels I am sure)ad nauseam. The official line will of course fail to address the horrors the "spirit of V2" unleashed upon the Church and which are the real fruits.
Celebration? For all the spiritual suffering? For apostacy and the loss of faith? Devastation of the Liturgy and beautiful Churches? Perhaps prolonged pennance would be more appropriate. Lord have mercy.

Lamentably Sane said...

With regard to Vatican II, as a student of Mediaeval History, I am always struck by the fundamental chasm between it and other Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Until the 1960s, Councils defined doctrine, condemned errors and tightened ecclesiastical discipline.
Vatican II defined nothing, condemned nothing and loosened (or paved the way to a loosening of ecclesiastical discipline, under the groovy pretext of 'aggiornamento'. 'Reform' had never meant loosening, but always tightening. (Reform of Benedictine monasteries gave birth to stricter branches, such as the Cistercians, for example.)
This last difference is the most telling and troubling, I think.

FranzJosf said...

PolPhilPhD:

Again, thank you for your further information. Gee, I wish I could ask you a hundred questions.

But, I must tell you: On that day when I randomly began reading Plato, I thought to myself, "Now wait a minute, this guy can't be a keen observer of human nature." (again, misunderstanding the irony)

Having read Shakespeare and Dickens, keen observers of the human tragi-comedy, I couldn't believe that Plato, for all his lofty status, could be so wrong, could have so missed the mark. According to you, he wasn't.

So my grand theory that at the dawn of the West the seeds of modernism were sown is wrong! What's your theory?

Steve T said...

There is one thing that I know for certain which requires no interpretaion. He is the pope and we aint.

John L said...

Leaving aside the question of whether any useful reforms were ever proposed by Vatican II, the structures that existed when it happened have now all been totally destroyed. So even if there were some useful reforms in it, there is now nothing left for these reforms to be applied to. For example; the document on the training of priests actually had quite a sensible program for the reform of Tridentine seminaries. But outside the tiny traditionalist movement, there are now no Tridentine seminaries in existence. They have all been destroyed. So what is the use of the suggestions made by Vatican II for reforming them? The point can be generalised; even the useful elements of Vatican II, if any, are now out of date and totally inapplicable to present conditions.

Imrahil said...

Dear @James C.,

the interesting thing about the Second World War is that it could not actually have discredited the Old Order, only - by some strange happenings - did do so in fact.

The USSR, Germany (yes!), Italy (yes!), were certainly "New Order" (internal New Order enmities nonwithstanding). What concerned the nearest approximants to Old Order, a couple were occupied by Germany (thinking especially about Austria, but also perhaps Luxemburg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway). Another of them, Hungary, was a part of the Axis, though a critical one, and ended up in being occupied as well. Another of them, Nationalist Spain, had the undeniable birth defect to have won the Civil War with Hitler's aid. Another of them, Portugal, was neutral and Allied-friendly.

Ora et Labora said...

Your Holiness Benedict XVI,

I believe you are the Succesor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ and so as a Catholic I trust that you receive the divine assistance promised by Christ to His Church to lead it until the Lord Himself calls you to His presence.

I am sure that the Papacy is blessing for you, but at this present time in history is also a very heavy burden.

Holy Father, if you feel alone and hurt by all the attacks thrown at you don't fear or loose courage because Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother are with you, and for whatever is worth so are my prayers for you!!!



Mary Help of Christians pray for us!!!

Knight of Malta said...

...V2 as a thoroughly time-bound pastoral council immersed in the blindness of adolescent enthusiasm. As such, it's to be discarded in toto as illuminating nothing.

Phil, indeed!

It's not just that VII is a moribund, inconsequential council, and did nothing but to waste time and energy, but its ultimate consequence is that it ended-up destroying the liturgy, and imploding the Church in terms of vocations, and in terms of the vocations existing, frankly, attracting a plethora of homosexuals to the priesthood.

Brother Juniper said...

“they fulfil the Sunday and holyday obligation EVEN THOUGH they are illicit”

Now isn’t that an interesting distinction! Let us hope that soon such a paradox is unnecessary.

“Finally, the liberals, who preach 'live and let live', will actually have to operate by their own philosophy and stop playing the hypocrite. We shall now have our own little corner under the great umbrella, along with the liberals, the Neo-catatonics and the charismoronics. Eventually, the good fruit will blossom and the other trees will be cut down and cast into the fire. But our work will only be to nurture the Tree of Tradition.”

I see you are a poet as well as a philosopher. I had to copy this paragraph into the commonplace book I have kept all my life.

“Cosmos said...
Br. Juniper,
I meant Communism.”

Of course, how stupid of me not to think of that first. That work was left for others who, happily, set up communism to implode from within. The remaining outposts of communism are disturbingly stubborn and deserve our prayers.

And, Woody, thanks for the insight into Third Order actuality.

As mentioned above, I am new to RORATE CÆLI. Since everyone here seems to know a lot more than me, you can imagine the fun I am having.

Knight of Malta said...

Off-topic, for those of you who are not aware of it, and love the Douay-Rheims Bible, please see Haydock's Commentary Version.

someone said...

P.K.T.P.- and nothing has today happened... maybe tomorrow? Is it really more possible that it will happen May/June than after holidays?

Mary Kay said...

I've never written here, although I enjoy the commentaries. I just want the readers to know that in the late 1980s or 90's, a group of SSPX Mass attendees in Hawaii (The Hawaii 7, I believe they were labeled) were being sued by their archbishop, related to a Catholic radio show hosted by one of the 7: Patricia Morley. I honestly can't recall who in Rome wrote back to solve the problem. He said that attending Mass at a SSPX chapel does fulfill the Sunday obligation, and that the faithful were allowed to contribute to the support of their priest.
I think if you google the name of the late Patricia Morley, you will find this information ... or do some research on a SSPX site. It was hailed as wonderful news for those of us who attended SSPX Masses.