Rorate Caeli

Editorial response: Our supreme priority is love.

Update: We reworded this post. The original content, by the very names mentioned, appeared to give a semblance of legitimacy, even if indirectly, by acknowledging the existence of a non-existent argument, a non sequitur by double association created by others. From Cicero to Küng, we have posted thousands of texts with whose contents we did not necessarily agree - much less with what these same original sources might have said or written elsewhere. This is what we do most here: we report things and translate original sources. It was, then, a non sequitur moved by irrational motives, and maybe also (the timeline seems to indicate) by ulterior motives related to a recent text we helped move out of censorship. There was, in the end, nothing Christian in the ensuing artificial uproar fanned by a small clique -- and, unfortunately, promoted by others. Tradition, which is what we cover, is wide and deep in history, and international in scope, and it is fortunately much, much greater than cliques, being rather the foundation of the "great Church" (see below).

Therefore, only the prophetic words of Pope Benedict XVI with edited related commentaty will remain. Thank you.
_______________________

We are glad to be on the same boat as the hated and despised Pope Emeritus, "without misgiving or restraint", who is more humiliated and ridiculed now than ever. It is tiresome for Traditional Catholics to be the ones who must every single day proclaim publicly they respect the Pope, pray for the Pope, pray for the Bishops, accept every single item of every single thing. Every single day, a litmus test. We do not deny anything, but must always proclaim publicly that we accept everything, even things that are not even part of any creed, but we must, to have "acceptance": please, please, do not send us to the corner!... Catholicism demands from us to denude ourselves from all ideologies - but it seems some with highly ideological pasts and agendas have a hard time grasping that these ideological tests are not for us, that for Catholics the "test" to pass is a good confession, in the hands of a merciful God by way of the Priesthood of the New Testament, hoping and praying for final perseverance. We do not want to be "liked" or "accepted" or "deemed acceptable" or respectable by a certain kind of self-righteous definition of what is acceptable, but only by Our Lord in the Confessional and in particular judgment when time comes, within the "great Church" defined by Benedict XVI:

Should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

And, if there are people who are not the meekest in Traditional communities, experience and common sense tell us that the best way for pastors to relieve the tensions is to be generous in responding to the legitimate aspirations of those who want access to the Traditional Mass. The exaggerations that spring up in persecuted communities collapse on their own as soon as love and generosity replace illegitimate prohibition. It is the obligation of pastors (bishops above all), as Benedict XVI reminded us, to educate with love.

That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. ... Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them? ...

Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love?

This is a matter we consider closed, also in the spirit of the same letter of Benedict XVI. A letter whose words, we are sure, will stand as some of the most prescient of this age.

41 comments:

Edward said...

I wish people were as zealous in rooting out heresy in the Novus Ordo as they are concerned about the SSPX. I dont go to a SSPX chapel and i can see they didn't create this disaster

Anonymous said...

Dear New Catholic,

As a Church historian recently held up by Austin Ruse as an example of the uncharitable and indeed even hate-filled behavior displayed by those who--- precisely because they do revere the divine rights and responsibilities of the Papacy---recognize that they must not whitewash each and every one of the Church's human limitations, I want to thank you for your sound comments. We are not Catholic Stalinists following a changing Party Line; we are Roman Catholics and therefore joint proponents of unchanging Faith and Reason.

God bless our Pope, our Faith, and our whole Tradition,

John Rao

Sacerdos novi ordinis said...

"The exaggerations that spring up in persecuted communities collapse on their own as soon as love and generosity replace illegitimate prohibition."

MIGHTY FINE WORDS!

Bravo NC.

Gratias said...

Thank you New Catholic for defending the Traditional Liturgy. You make a big difference.

IM said...

God bless you all :)

Lynne said...

Perhaps her tirade steams from the news you posted earlier about the book review. The review had also been posted at her site earlier but has been removed.

Oddy said...

"I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole."

Welp!

Brother Juniper said...

May I be permitted an off-topic post? Yesterday at the National Shrine in Washington D.C., Cardinal McCarrick was the celebrant at the 10:30 am Mass. He gave an excellent sermon for Divine Mercy Sunday, but mis-spoke at one key point. When he meant to say "the scourge of the Second World War," he said "the scourge of the Second Vatican Council." He did correct himself, but I could not help but smile broadly. Looking about, I saw dozens of others smiling and assumed they were fellow traditionalists. While it wasn't a Freudian Slip, perhaps the Holy Spirit was in a playful mood.

lex aedificandi said...

I find this post very heartening and am edified by the forthright defense of the trad position. Blogs like, and in particular Rorate are part of the emerging bulwark that is slowly changing the existential perspective that here to fore has been exhibited as fact.

Despite the current situation with modernists and progressives in so many positions of authority, and the dismal prospect of their positions being strengthened in the near future, God is gradually restoring His Church. Now is the time for truth to be shouted from the rooftops.

Demjanek said...

I was just in Buenos Aires visiting family...and as is said, NOT ONE MASS. I asked the seminary, the archdiocese, the internet, friends etc...nothing. When you are starving and given rotten food, eventually you will chose to starve.

Sem. Dem.

Auxiliary said...

Thank you, NC, for this defense of the SSPX.

In light of this it would be apropos for readers to go to Youtube and watch:

Bp. Bernard Fellay: On the Crisis in the Church, playlist



FalloutSurvivor said...

This speaking of the reality of the situation reminds me of the horror mentioned in the lines below. We must pull our heads out of the sand and understand the full dimensions of the crisis.

"At the close of a long life (for I was born in 1905 and I now see the year 1990), I can say that it has been marked by exceptional world events: three world wars, that which took place from 1914 to 1918, that which took place from 1939 to 1945, and that of the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. The disasters caused by these three wars, and especially by the last of them, are incalculable in the domain of material ruins, but even more so in the spiritual realm."

-Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Prologue to his Spiritual Journey

Christopher said...

Thank you for defending the Traditional Liturgy.

God Bless.

Barbara said...

Excellent! Thank you for such clarity in this time of great confusion, NC!





Mitunter said...

It is very sad. Eden is not even able to make the distinction between belittlement and denying of the holocaust. Reading Gonzalez's blog entry I didn't find any sentence, with which he denied (!) the holocaust, only some sentences, which you can read as a belittlement. But what does this say about her and her approach to the facts. It seems that here line of thinking here is
a) those facts were made known to rorate by a person she doesn't like. b) she doesn’t like other things that person has said. c) therefore, she believes the opposite of the facts. And the stupidity "Don’t get your “reliable” information about the Pope from a blog that venerates the Society of St. Pius X." Yeah, right. Because her blog entry with Google translate isn't one.

NIANTIC said...

Thank you, NC, for this editorial and thank you RC as THE blog for the defense and well being of Tradition and the Eternal Mass.

To all readers, pray for the Church and never give up nor give in. Be full of courage and hope. God IS the Victor. Pax Christi.

Beefy Levinson said...

Perhaps I'm biased, but I've always noticed that complaints about angry, bitter Trads generally outnumber actual angry, bitter Trads by a factor of hundreds.

Benedict Carter said...

Very finely written Editorial. And powerful, because true.

New Catholic said...

Lynne,

I did think it was an amazing coincidence, to say the least...

NC

Wormwood said...

Thank you for the excellent editorial, NC! Just one of the many reasons I keep coming back to the RC blog like it was a spring of pure water in the middle of the N.O. desert.

I can see a further closing of the ranks among traditionalists as the N.O. hordes unleash their weapons of "Mass" destruction.

"...Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." - Apoc 22:20

May He come sooner!

gtaylor said...

Boff is so predictably boring, spouting piffle and suggestion but no clear statement. Honest men are not so numerous.
What a bag of wind he sounds.

Modre Nebo said...

My wish is, that current pontiff turns out into either really good or real imposter, no more of this status quo, so at least the picture will be much clearer. It is a period of anguish and uncertainty kind of atmosphere, so prophetically described in Tolkiens' trilogy " Lord of the Rings", as the worst hasn't arrived yet, but it appears to be not far off either. Truely a demonic confussion in high places.

Libera Me said...

I cannot help but believe that certain Catholics who defend the indefensible in the Church and who attempt to baptize everything wordly will eventually fall in line with the spirit of the world when the real persecution begins.

I have recently heard the so-called lay expert apologists on EWTN radio and in certain news sites recommend that people do not cite scripture during debates about homosexual marriage--because you will inevitably lose the argument. I find this rather shocking since the Bible itself states:

"For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

One day these soft, wordly, Catholics who are so quick to dispense with everything the Church was prior to VII will take the side of a tyrannical government or the vicious wolves and betray Traditionalists with similar false and spurious accusations as Ms Eden has made today.

God Help Us!!!

Pedro said...

Dear New Catholic,
Please be assured of our support, our gratitude and our prayers.

Common Sense said...

"Ignorance of Scriptures, ignorance of Christ." St.Jerome. Good point, Libera Me.Perhaps EWTN wishes to quote from the scripts of Sts. De Lubac or Rahner and procure an universal salvation for every Tom, Dick and Hary on top of earthly paradise. Time's here, when all those, who still wish to be catholics, have to make hard choise.

Malta said...

I used to think the problem lay in changing the Holy Sacrifice of mass into a liturgical meal, ala protestant worship.

But I am now convinced that the real problem in the Church is a systemic infection of Modernism.

Lost Soul said...

After the papal election, here and there on several different blogs were scattered posts from ordinary people who LIVE in Buenos Aires or another place in Argentina. They consistently reported the same story as NC. One sloppy TLM was half-heartedly allowed, and none others, before or since.

Separate issue: I hope we don't see a Fr. Z vs. Rorate war. We have more in common than differences.

But he should be gracious enough to print a correction of errors on his website.

Bayou Ben said...

To all who are concerned:

I am posting the following in the interest of truth, justice, and charity. It will be a very long post because I am making available my own translation of Mr. Gonzalez's piece. I fear that the whole tempest began in the teapot of a misunderstood/mistranslated reading of something written in a language unfamiliar to the reader. Now, it has grown so that Christian charity has been scourged to pieces as our dear Lord.

Pray for your brothers and sisters in Christ. Do not hate them. Only the Devil wins then. RC and NC have, in my opinion, responded well.

In my original translation, I have the English in italics and the original Spanish in regular type. However, I am too ignorant of HTML code to reproduce this. I apologise in advance for the fact that it shall be more difficult to read. Finally, due to word restriction, I will post in several pieces.

--Ben

Fijo posición, por si a alguno le interesa
Marcelo González

Harto de ver como algunos manipulan y otros callan, no se sabe si por convicción o temor a ir contra lo “políticamente correcto” en ciertos ambientes, me decido a fijar posición sobre el tema.

Sick of [or “Fed up with”] seeing how certain persons are manipulating and how others remain silent, one does not know whether [they do this] out of personal conviction or of fear of going against what is “politically correct” in certain settings, I decided to fix/cement my position on this topic.

El llamado “holocausto”, que quiere decir en este caso la muerte de un número indeterminado de judíos en campos de prisioneros alemanes durante la II Guerra Mundial, ha sido manipulado con harta frecuencia como para ser ingenuos sobre la verdad de los hechos.

The so-called “Holocaust,” which means in this case the death of an undetermined number of Jews in German prison camps during the Second World War, has been manipulated with [such] sickening frequency as to have become disingenuous concerning the truth of the facts.

Sabemos que hay intereses políticos, económicos y propagandísticos en esto de fijar cifras millonarias de víctimas y sobre todo en ignorar a las otras víctimas que no fueron judíos.
El primer punto, cuantos fueron, no lo voy a discutir, porque no tengo ni deseo ni autoridad histórica para entrar en dicha polémica. Me parece lícito que otros lo hagan, siempre que aporten las pruebas del caso y no chillen cuando sufran las consecuencias.

We know that there are political, economic, and propagandistic interests [at play] in this [topic] [which are seeking] to establish figures of victims in the millions and, above all, to ignore the other victims that were not Jews. The first point, how many there were, I will not dispute/discuss, because I have neither the desire nor the historical authority to enter into said polemic. It seems to me licit/valid that others do so, as long as they provide proofs of their case and do not squawk when they suffer the consequences.

La historia, que es una materia en la cual me intereso mucho, no me permite aceptar la tesis de que en dichos campos solo hubo judíos. También hubo otros prisioneros. Y también hubo católicos, muchos sacerdotes por cierto, que resistieron al régimen hitleriano ya sea por razones doctrinales o patrióticas. Recordemos que la doctrina hitlerista está condenada por la Iglesia en muchos de sus puntos.

History, which is a subject in which I take great interest, does not permit me to accept the thesis that in said camps there were only Jews. There were also other prisoners. And, there were also Catholics, certainly many were priests, who resisted the Hitler regime for doctrinal or patriotic reasons. We should remember that Hitler’s doctrine/teaching is condemned by the Church on many of its points.

Bayou Ben said...

Las leyes raciales de Alemania y sus naciones aliadas o sometidas, aunque aplicadas con distinto grado de entusiasmo, fueron claramente contrarias al derecho. Si algún motivo hubiese habido para aislar a una comunidad, nunca este motivo podía haber sido la raza. Y si no fue la raza, me pregunto porqué los judíos convertidos al catolicismo fueron incluidos en dichas detenciones.

The laws concerning race in Germany, as well as those nations allied to or subject to Germany, although they were applied with various grades of enthusiasm, were clearly unjust [against the right]. If there had been any motive to isolate a [particular] community, such motive never could have been race. And, if it were not race [as some argue], I ask myself why Jews who had converted to Catholicism were included in the above-mentioned detention [camps].

En los EE.UU. la comunidad japonesa fue internada en campos de prisioneros en California durante el tiempo que duró la guerra. ¿Era necesaria esta medida? El Estado norteamericano entendió que sí, por razones de seguridad. Bien, hasta ahí puedo acompañar en teoría una medida de dicha naturaleza.

In the United States, the Japanese community was forced into prison camps in California during the time that the war lasted. Was this measure necessary? The North American State understood that yes, for reasons of security, [it was necessary]. Okay, up to that point I can agree in theory with a measure of such type.

Bayou Ben said...

También puedo comprender que las condiciones de vida fuesen bien distintas en un país no afectado por la guerra en su territorio, rico en alimentos y combustible, y por lo tanto no racionado, como lo fue el bloque del Eje, en particular en los últimos años.

I can also understand that the conditions of life were very different in a country that was not affected by the war in its own territory, rich in food and fuel, and for that reason not rationing these things, as the Axis powers were forced to do, in particular in the final years.

Es decir, que pueden haber muerto muchos prisioneros a causa del hambre y las malas condiciones sanitarias y que estas muertes no fuesen necesariamente producto de la voluntad de quienes regían dichos campos, al menos en todos los casos.

What I mean is that perhaps many of the prisoners [could be said to have] died because of hunger or the poor sanitary conditions and that these deaths were not necessarily a product of the will of those who directed these camps, at least, not all of them.

Pero resulta evidente, por la documentación que la Santa Sede ha ido desclasificando en los últimos años, que Pío XII, (a quienes algunos estúpidamente llaman “el papa de Hitler”) protestó activamente contra estas persecuciones, he hizo lo posible por aliviarlas por medio de una activa diplomacia y auxilios materiales concretos. No todo el mundo sabe que el Papa Pacelli recibió un emocionado agradecimiento de parte de muchísimos judíos emigrados con la ayuda de la Santa Sede, como lo reconoce hasta Golda Meir.

However, it remains evident, proven by documentation that the Holy See as been declassifying in these last few years, in which Pius XII (whom some stupidly call “Hitler’s Pope”) actively protested against these persecutions and did what was possible to alleviate them [those in the camps] by means of diplomatic action and concrete material helps. Not everyone knows that Pope Pacelli received an emotional expression of gratitude from a great number of Jews who had emigrated with the help of the Holy See, as even Golda Meir recognized.

Bayou Ben said...

Y decir que todo lo actuado por el Eje fue un cruel plan de exterminio sistemático es tan inaceptable como afirmar que los internados en dichos lugares vivían en un campo de recreación.
Es decir, que el “holocuento” viene en dos versiones, la judía y la antijudía. Y la verdad de los hechos es la víctima más notoria. Y lo seguirá siendo, porque se sabe que este tema no puede ser discutido, porque los autores de una versión, la más rentable, la del holocuento projudío tienen todos los medios para acallar un debate abierto y racional.

And [Yet?] it is said that to say that everything done by the Axis [powers] was a cruel plan of systematic extermination is as unacceptable as to affirm that those who were detained in the said-camps lived in a recreation/resort facility. That is, the Holocaust Story comes in two versions: the Jewish and the anti-Jewish. And the truth of the facts is the most conspicuous victim [of all]. Moreover, it will continue being so, because it is well known that this topic may not be discussed, because the authors of one version, the most profit-making version (that of the pro-Jewish Holocaust Story), have many ways to silence an open and rational debate.

Pero pasando a la parte que realmente importa a los católicos en su Fe, puesto que lo otro es discusión histórica, resulta mucho más importante de considerar, e inaceptable, que algunos altos jerarcas de la Iglesia den por buena una versión, la políticamente correcta, con el agravante de asignarle –esto es lo peor- un valor teológico: “no se puede ser católico y negar el holocausto”.
Esto es un disparate, una herejía y una estupidez. Ningún hecho histórico puede convertirse en una verdad de Fe católica. Las verdades de Fe que tienen un cumplimiento histórico ya han sido definidas y en buena medida cumplidas. La Encarnación, la Redención, y en el futuro el Juicio de la Naciones precedido por el reinado del Anticristo.

Nonetheless, passing on to the part that really matters to Catholics in their Faith, given that the other is an historical discussion, it is much more important to consider, and [it is] inacceptable, that some high-up hierarchs of the Church [simply] accept as correct [only] one version, the politically correct one, with the added irritant of assigning it—and this is worse—a theological value: “one cannot be Catholic and deny the holocaust.” This is an absurdity, a heresy, and a stupidity. No historical fact/happening can become a truth of the Catholic Faith. The truths of the Faith that have an historical fulfillment have already been defined and in good measure [already] accomplished. The Incarnation, the Redemption, and in the future the Judgment of the Nations preceded by the reign of the Antichrist.

JAK said...

The points made in this post are well taken.

My question, however, is: who is Dawn Eden and why does it matter what she thinks?

There are a million "Catholic" blogs out there and many of them will have similar thoughts. But why bother with them?

Bayou Ben said...

Puede ser que para los judíos, para los que siguen una línea teológica bastante poco tradicional, la muerte de XXX cantidad de judíos en los campos del régimen hitlerista sea un sucedáneo de la venida del redentor. El “mesías” no es un hombre, dicen, sino el padecimiento de nuestro pueblo que da origen a la reconstrucción del Estado de Israel. Bueno, no voy a meterme en teología judía. Por cierto que no todos participan de esta teoría.

It may be that for the Jews, for those who follow a theological line of that is rather untraditional, the death of a certain [undefined] quantity of Jews in the camps of the Hitler regime is a substitute for the coming of the Redeemer. The “Messiah” is not a man, they say, but rather the suffering of our people that provides the origin of the reconstruction of the State of Israel. Okay, I am not going to put myself in the middle of Jewish Theology. Yet, it is certain that not everyone buys into this theory.

Lo disparatado es que desde la Iglesia Católica se pretenda asumir esa teoría, en paralelo con la doctrina de la doble vía de redención (una para los judíos y otra para los gentiles) conocida como la “Iglesia Noáquida” y bien difundida entre el clero y los obispos. Herejía de cabo a rabo. Y cierro este punto.

The absurdity [of it all] is that, even on the part of some in the Catholic Church, this theory is merely assumed [to be true], as a parallel to that doctrine of the “two ways” of salvation (one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles) known as the “Church of Noah” and even defended among the Clergy and Bishops. [Such a theory] is a heresy from beginning to end. And, [here] I close this point.

Aparte, me parece interesante hacer un ejercicio intelectual sobre una conjetura histórica: supongamos que Hitler hubiese ganado la guerra. ¿Deberíamos haber aceptado los católicos como artículo de Fe que el Führer era un nuevo profeta enviado por Dios para salvar a la humanidad del comunismo?

Distinct from that question, it seems interesting to me to make an intellectual exercise about an historical conjecture: let us suppose that Hitler had won the war. Would we, as Catholics, have had to accept as an article of the Faith the position that the Furher was a new prophet sent by God to save humanity from Communism?

Imaginen a un supuesto Pío XIV, o a sus cardenales y obispos sosteniendo esta doctrina como “de FIDE”. Me pregunto si los enemigos del “holocuento” no habrían suscripto semejante disparate.

Imagine if such a doctrine were maintained to be de fide by a possible Pius XIV, or one of his Cardinals or Bishops. I wonder whether the enemies of the “Holocaust History” would not have forwarded a similar folly.

Bayou Ben said...

Concluyendo: que estoy tan harto del holocuento de unos como de otros. Y si bien actúan con razón los segundos al rechazar la herética proposición de que “no se puede ser católico sin creer en el “holocausto”, no los veo tan dispuestos a admitir lo contrario: que se puede ser católico y admitir el holocausto. Porque, en tal caso, se podrá incurrir en un error de juicio histórico (no mayor que el de ellos), pero que no afecta ningún artículo de Fe. Mientras que ellos parecen decir que es imposible ser católicos sin rechazar el holocausto. Lo cual es un disparate.
Y esta es mi posición, por si a alguno le interesa.

In conclusion: I have to say that I am just as tired of one version of Holocaust Story as I am of another. And, if it is true that the second group [the anti-Jewish version] acts well, with reason, to reject the heretical proposition that “one cannot be Catholic without believing in the ‘Holocaust’”, I still do not see them very disposed to admit the contrary: that one can be both Catholic and admit the Holocaust. Because, in such a case [that one could be both Catholic and accept the Holocaust], one might involve oneself in an historical error (no greater that the error [of the other camp]), but [at least] this does not affect any article of the Faith. While, it seems that this [second, "denier"] group says that it is impossible to be Catholic unless you reject the Holocaust. That is an absurd folly. So, this is my position, in case it interests anyone.

CitySeminarian said...

Thanks New Catholic for the posting of the self-contradictory Boff interview (I would have commented under the interview, but couldn't find the comments box): I have shared the link on my blog blogofacityseminarian, along with my own comments. Cheers again.

Ann Nonym said...

I do not understand Ms. Eden's goal. I would have thought she would understand how one feels when persecuted as a minority!
In France, if you go to the Tridentine Mass, you are automatically viewed as extremist/Fascist.
You are categorized as being intolerant, inflexible, principled (yes, this is bad in France), self assured, condescending, snob, intransigent, racist, and bigot.
You do not have to open your mouth, and look at someone.
You only have to wear a veil or kneel for the Consecration, and you are meat for the guillotine.

Erin Pascal said...

Thank you for clearing things up with this informative post. Never lose hope and don't forget to pray for the Church and for the people. God bless us all!

ElFrancoLoco said...

I don't understand what Mr. González or Bp. Williamson think the Church stands to gain when they publicly minimize pagan atrocities.

Do we deny the Armenian Genocide, or the Holodomor? No. So why this fixation on downplaying the Holocaust?

The optics are like this: Christ looks bad when his people urinate on a mass grave. Criticizing Nostra Aetate is hard enough without this being the backstory. This is not an era in which people are capable of making fine distinctions.

thetimman said...

New Catholic,

Thank you for your site and your voice. Do not be discouraged. I am wearied by the constant judgmental smugness of the ignorant. But what can we do but go on and preach the Gospel in season and out of season?

Jordanes551 said...

Thanks to "Bayou Ben" for providing a translation of Marcelo Gonzalez's statements on the Holocaust. It is helpful to have his full statement in context. It is, of course, against Rorate Caeli's policy to permit comments that espouse anti-Semitism or that promote Holocaust denial or revisionism. While not anti-Semitic, Mr. Gonzalez's comments on the Holocaust, which do amount to a downplaying Holocaust revisionism, would normally not be permitted in our comment boxes, but an exception is made in this case for the sake of understanding. As New Catholic has said, we do not condone or agree with much of the content of his remarks on this subject -- but neither do we agree with ad hominem attempts to discredit or smear us because the things we report are not agreeable to others.

Sal said...

The exaggerations that spring up in persecuted communities collapse on their own as soon as love and generosity replace illegitimate prohibition.

This.
I have seen it myself in our long-standing EF community. The atmosphere after being allowed to purchase a property of our own and becoming a real parish is almost miraculously improved.

Mea culpa- before that I had had to occasionally take a break from the community, not having acquired the virtues to deal with "exaggerations".