Rorate Caeli

Rorate in the Washington Post ...

One of our contributors, Kenneth J. Wolfe, has a piece published in the national section of the Washington Post today on the 50th anniversary of Vatican II. While it's amazing enough that the Post gave him this space (you'll remember he had an Op-Ed in the New York Times on the 40th anniversary of the Novus Ordo, another big win for tradition), what's more amazing is that it's currently the third-highest read story on their site today. Read below:
Vatican II at 50 
By Kenneth J. Wolfe 
Fifty years ago today the Second Vatican Council began with a clear indication of who had gained control of the Catholic Church’s direction. From the Latin Mass to meatless Fridays to the concept of salvation, numerous components of the faith were set to be reformed, led mostly by clerical academics who had served on preparatory commissions. So powerful were they that Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, a conservative who headed what is now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which the future Pope Benedict XVI would later lead), was vocally heckled and silenced by his participating colleagues. 
As described to journalist Robert Moynihan by Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, who attended the council and lives at the Vatican, Cardinal Ottaviani was addressing the 2,000 assembled bishops in October 1962: “As he speaks, pleading for the bishops to consider the texts the curia has spent three years preparing, suddenly his microphone was shut off. He kept speaking, but no one could hear a word. Then, puzzled and flustered, he stopped speaking, in confusion. And the assembled fathers began to laugh, and then to cheer...” This was on day three.

24 comments:

Whats Up! said...

Excellent and intelligent piece.

The best article I have seen in the Post, ever.

Well done

Jacobi said...

The solution must start with the proposal by Bishop Schneider for a Syllabus of Errors dealing with false interpretations of the Vatican II documents. That can only be done by another Council - or by the Pope.

Hilltop said...

the Post hates the Church so much that they do not recognize the favor they are doing for Her by printing this article that dares to criticize Her…

Andreas Timander said...

Very interesting column indeed; but is it also to be found in the printed edition of the Post?

Francis said...

For a leftwing, secular and Catholic hating rag like the Washington Post publishing Mr. Wolfe's article just shows the power of the Holy Ghost. Very well written article Kenneth.

Long-Skirts said...

Hilltop said...

"the Post hates the Church so much that they do not recognize the favor they are doing for Her by printing this article that dares to criticize Her…"

You're absolutely right!
Wonderful, Mr. Wolfe!!

JKE said...

Friends, go to the Washington Post page and post positive comments about this article appearing in their paper. Popular newspapers like this must be encouraged to keep offering such pieces.

Hidden One said...

I don't agree with everything Mr. Wolfe said, but that's par for the course when one reads something Catholic in the MSM. I hope that the article does some good.

Mary Kay said...

I hope H. H. reads this, as well as Mueller. Something has got to wake the Vatican from its stupor.

I wish I could thank you in person, Mr.Wolfe. Congratulations on an article well done.

God bless you!

Ben Vallejo said...



Rome would have reflected on the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council with or without the SSPX, although the separated SSPX may indeed have fast forwarded it. Unfortunately, the SSPX has remained obstinate and like any Protestant schismatic group, is prone to more schisms.

As for authentic ecumenism, the only real fruit is Anglicanorum coetibus and hopes for the reunion of the Orthodox have been dashed even with the mutual lifting of excommunications. Centuries of distrust cannot be undone in a span of 50 years or even by one ecumenical council, more so by one or two or even three pontificates. So why are the Traditionalists hurrying the Holy Ghost? Let Him operate on His time.

Perhaps the Traditionalists should rather hurry the SSPX to make sure they hear the Holy Ghost? After all the SSPX is the sign of contradiction in the post Vatican II Church.

Of course Traditionalists cannot all be pleased with the Anglicans coming home and an ordinary ensuring that their BCP tradition is preserved at the perceived cost of the Extraordinary Form. But that are some of the costs of an authentic ecumenism. The truth is the EF can never be a casualty of Anglicanorum coetibus. On the contrary, it complements it.

But Traditionalist misgivings on ecumenism is a lesser problem than the growing majority of people who express no faith. And this is where an authentic ecumenism has to do something about it, an ecumenism based on contemplation.

And so that's why you have Dr Rowan Williams and the the Patriarch Bartholomew at the Synod of Catholic bishops.

Hmm? said...

Hidden One, what don't you agree with?

sam said...

An accurate assessment free of the platitudes we have come to expect from the VII (C)hurch.

ReluctantDissenter said...

Imagine if there was a court of law, where a minority body of the jurors met prior to the conveining of the court, that they predetermined the verdict to be guilty, pressing for life imprisonment with no parole. That this minority body, then, once the court was conveined, swayed the unknowing majority of jurors, to support their premeditated verdict, what would we call that?

Gross miscarriage of justice? A travesty of justice, I would say.

The verdict of that trial would (because of the nature of the juridicial process) be binding.

But is it right? Is it just? No, it is criminal.

And just say, that this verdict had a sentence of Life with no parole. And that the juridicial authorities of the country are so convinced with the sentence of this trial, that any call for appeal is met by silent incredulity or outright "flaming".

Is this right? Is it just? No, it is criminal. Miscarriages of justice are a fact of history. Travesties of justice are a worse, and sadly are still a fact of history.

Vatican II, for anyone who has actually studied the history of it, was a travesty of justice.

Those that incredulously scoff that someone could demand an appeal (in order to appropriate the reversal of the documents of the Second Vatican Council) prolong the injustice.

"Perhaps traditionalist Catholics, led by the SSPX, are onto something when they call into question the council itself. Their solution is for the pope to simply erase all 16 Vatican II documents and restore the liturgy, teachings and discipline in place before the collapse of all that was considered good and holy in 1962."

Amen.

beng said...

Kenneth J. Wolfe
Their [ie. SSPX] solution is for the pope to simply erase all 16 Vatican II documents and restore the liturgy, teachings and discipline in place before the collapse of all that was considered good and holy in 1962.

Does Wolfe have inside knowledge to make such bold assertion?

From reading all the progress of Rome-SSPX talks, what Wolfe concludes is highly unlikely what SSPX demanded.

ReluctantDissenter said...

A response to Ben Vallejo: Part One
"Rome would have reflected on the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council with or without the SSPX," let us not presume what "Rome" may or may not do, all we have is the past to reflect upon, present to deal with, and the future to prepare for.
"Unfortunately, the SSPX has remained obstinate and like any Protestant schismatic group, is prone to more schisms." Protestants are heretics. If my former premise turns out to be correct (that VII was a Travesty of Justice), then the SSPX are simply those who are calling for appeal, there is no error in petitioning for appeal. That people who are within that body can fall into error and cause further division, is not a reason to condemn the whole. Mr Vallejo, if you were unjustly condemned to life imprisonment with no parole, would you not want those who petition for an appeal to remain "obstinate"?

"As for authentic ecumenism, the only real fruit is Anglicanorum coetibus and hopes for the reunion of the Orthodox have been dashed even with the mutual lifting of excommunications. [...] So why are the Traditionalists hurrying the Holy Ghost? Let Him operate on His time." By this are you implying that the "Traditionalists" are not taking into account the future? Well that would make them Realists! As for "hurrying the Holy Ghost", God acts now, the only thing that prevents the action of the Holy Ghost is human Free Will. There is no "hurrying the Holy Ghost", there is only man's refusal (AKA disobedience or Pride). If we let Him, who is to say that He could not do the miraculous? The Traditionalists look back at history to the bold claims of "ecumenism" and looking at the present say "this ain't working guv". What, I ask, is wrong with being a Realist?

ReluctantDissenter said...

A response to Ben Vallejo: Part Two
Perhaps the Traditionalists should rather hurry the SSPX to make sure they hear the Holy Ghost? After all the SSPX is the sign of contradiction in the post Vatican II Church.

Mr Vallejo, you have made a very grave error; "to make sure they hear the Holy Ghost" is to imply that only those that are consenting to everything the mainstream Church believes/practices can be "sure they hear the Holy Ghost". Are you, therefore, sure that you hear the Holy Ghost. Who are you to suggest that they may not be hearing the Holy Ghost? No, sir, this is not Christian Charity (1 Cor 13:4).

"And have you not read this scripture, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner." (Mk 12:10) Seriously, Christ was a sign of contradiction, and the Church is meant to be a faithful imitator of Christ, which means that we are meant to be signs of contradiction. Now if the mainstream Church is doing it's damnedest to reconcile itself with the world and the SSPX are a sign of contradiction, well... I shall leave you to make your own conclusion...

"Of course Traditionalists cannot all be pleased with the Anglicans coming home and an ordinary ensuring that their BCP tradition is preserved at the perceived cost of the Extraordinary Form[...]" Are you therefore saying that there is no room to question? That we must all unquestioningly celebrate every Papal decision? Well what about Summorum Pontificum? Do you see Bishops and Lay people unquestioningly embracing that? "By their fruits you shall know them" Mt 7:16

"But Traditionalist misgivings on ecumenism is a lesser problem than the growing majority of people who express no faith[...]" Are you therefore intimating that Traditionalists are not or are less concerned with the growing majority of people who express no faith?! You might get "flamed" on that one!

As for "ecumenism is based on contemplation." Mr Vallejo, the Contemplation of what?

Ecumenism is not based on contemplation, it is based upon Truth. Unity can only be acheived in the Truth, and I hasten to remind you that, only the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches the fullness of Truth.

Ecumenism is sham if it is not based upon the Truth and so that's why you have Dr Rowan Williams and the the Patriarch Bartholomew at the Synod of Catholic bishops.

God bless you Sir.

JM said...

Truth without spin. In the pages of the POST.Hooray and thank you.

Luciana Cuppo said...

Excellent article. Will de Mattei's Vaticano II. La storia mai scritta and Gherardini's Il Vaticano II. Alle radici d'un equivoco soon be translated to English?

Get real. said...

Wolfe's article doesn't do us any favors. It exhibits a lot of the behaviors for which non-Trads rightly criticize us.

It is untrue and borders on calumny to say that the FSSP rejects the Novus Ordo Missae. Byzantine Rite priests do not say the Novus Ordo, either, but neither they nor the FSSP reject rites approved by the supreme authority of the Church.

Mike said...


The Church is not going to "erase" anything.

It could, prudently, ignore certain documents that have not worn well on the 50 years; it could remove indults that distort the Roman rite; it could even mandate an EF Mass in every parish in the world; or get rid of Mass offered facing the people.

It's shame the article did end on realistic hopes and suggestions.

Kenneth J. Wolfe said...

Get real -- "rejects" with definition 1B: to refuse to hear, receive, or admit : rebuff, repel

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reject

Do you know of any FSSP priests who hear a novus ordo? Offer a novus ordo?

One can reject something while acknowledging it exists. I reject "On Eagle's Wings," but I recognize Father Michael Joncas and his horrible compositions exist.

Jacob said...

I've been trying to copy and paste the different books suggested in the comments of the WaPo article by Mr. Wolfe, but due to my computer skirting the border of being obsolete, my browser keeps crashing. Could someone post them here in the comments?

I already have 'The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber' and need to buckle down and get through it.

Thanks and God bless.

Get real. said...

Qq. Do you know of any FSSP priests who hear a novus ordo? Offer a novus ordo?

Rr. Yes. No.

Mirari said...

What would it mean to erase the 16 documents of the council? What process would this entail? Is there any historical precedent for such and act by the magisterium?

I must admit that an ecumenical council that defines no dogma is historically unprecedented, so perhaps a historical unprecedented erasure would be possible. Would not a more prudent policy be to simply ignore the pastoral guidelines of the council, return to preconciliar guidelines, and interpret any of the council's doctrinal assertions in light of Tradition, rather than make a point of erasing the council? That said, I do not see the postconciliar ambience or spirit disappearing for a very long time or without divine intervention (viz., secrets of Fatima and Akita).