Rorate Caeli

Fools

St. Peter's Seminary, Cardross (Scotland), private chapel
Built, 1961-1966; Seminary closed, 1980.

We offer this mass for him [Benedict XVI], so that the Lord be with him, confort him, and give him great consolation. ...

The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit. Think of Pope John: he looked like a good parish priest, and he was obedient to the Holy Spirit, and he did that. But, after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit told us in the Council? In the continuity of the growth of the Church that the Council was? No. We celebrate this anniversary, we make a monument, but do not bother. We do not want to change. And there is more: there are calls [voci, also 'voices'] wanting to move back. This is called being stubborn, this is called wanting to tame the Holy Spirit, this is called becoming fools and slow of heart.
Franciscus
Daily mass at Domus Sanctae Marthae - homily
April 16, 2013


[Source: Radio Vaticana, in Italiano]

75 comments:

New Catholic said...

Unfortunately - VERY unfortunately - the Holy See is not making available the full transcripts of these weekday homilies of the new Pope. So all we have are the Vatican Radio excerpts. The context is today's reading of Acts in the NO Lectionary, and the martyrdom of St. Stephen. But this translation is certainly accurate and the context does not change its meaning.

Dr. Mabuse said...

Great. So this is what we have to look forward to. Icy, snippy lectures about how our foot-dragging is slowing down the glorious revolution. I guess his recent scoldings about "calumny" and gossip were directed at us too. Nice to know I'm the enemy in my own church.

Henry said...

I think there are only two possibilities.

1: Pope Francis REALLY IS ignorant of the importance and value of the Traditional Mass and the fervent love that an ever-growing number of Catholics around the world celebrate daily.
(Possible because of his geography and upbringing. Does anyone know if he has even ever attended a Traditional Mass?)

2: He knows exactly what he's doing and aims to make the progressive, liberal, "God is love" mass of the 70's a permanent reality and stamp out for good the mass preferred by "stubborn fools".

If number 1 is true, we need to round up Ranjith and Burke and send them in to do some schoolin.

If it's number 2... no chance he'll win. We've waited this long, we'll go back underground and wait for God to do his work.

John Fisher said...

We want change alright~~~~
But not the 1970's show that loops round and round like a bad rerun! You see its all the spirit! By attributing it all the the spirit we no longer question anything. Its just a big "happening"! The spirit can't be defined...we dont take any blame and the spirit is the 1970's zeitgheist.

Long-Skirts said...

The Pope said:

"...this is called becoming fools and slow of heart."

fools for Christ and...

THE
SLOW
HEART

The slow heart drives in cars
Through country and through city
The Council shifts in sand
And sinks with souls a pity.

The slow heart flies in planes
From ocean coast to coast
Under Mary's mantle blue
Our solitary boast.

The slow heart travels far
Twas all in Our Lord's plan
To preserve the Holy Faith
For woman and for man.

The slow heart lives and move
The pews their families fill
The Council sinks in sand...
While the slow heart beats on still!

Karl said...

[John 18:23] Jesus answered him: If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why strikest thou me?

Dan Hunter said...

Wow,

This hurts deeply.

Because of the "old" Traditional Latin Mass, I came back into the Church.

Because of a combination of my own pride and the Novus Ordo Mass, the way that it was offered in my growing up, I apostacized.

Why does our Holy Father apparently despise the Churches patrimony?

Unknown said...

Is the Spirit not also responsible for the slow death of progressive Catholicism born out of Vatican II?

Donald said...

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

C. S. Lewis

PJ said...

"We do not want to change. And there is more: there are calls [voci, also 'voices'] wanting to move back. This is called being stubborn,"

This could very well be applied to the liberals who do not want to change the ways of the 70s and 80s. They are the stubborn ones. Resisting the changes of the reform of the reform. The new translation is a perfect example of this

Unknown said...

When Konstantin Chernenko became the Soviet leader in 1984, he was characterized in the press as a "transitional figure between Brezhnev and Andropov"-- that is, something of a throwback to the old Cold War hostility we had experienced before the new openness to reform shown by Yuri Andropov.

I get the same impression from Pope Francis. If this impression is accurate, then I prayerfully await the Church's Gorbachev.

PJ said...

This could easily be applied to the liberals who are resisting the reforms of BVI. They are the stubborn one wants who don't want change, and want the mass to be the mass on the 70s and 80s.

Wormwood said...

“The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit” ??? VCII destroyed many beautiful altars and replaced them with tables. VCII made clowns in NO messes possible... Hard to believe the Holy Ghost inspired all that. The Pope refuses to see where the real problem lies.

“becoming fools and slow of heart” ... beautiful language. The clouds I see in the spiritual horizon are dark. I’ll be a fool for Christ and remain in the catacombs for now and for as long as necessary.

Hidden One said...

There are those who want to go back, and then there are traditionalists, and most traditionalists do not want to go back. I don't. If the immediately pre-Conciliar state of the Church were a good one, we would not have had the disaster that followed the beginning of the Council.

I want the Old Rite done properly, not mumbled through in great haste (as was done in certain places). I want reverence. I want humility. I want a laity that meets the standards of Blessed Cardinal Newman. I want legions of Saints.

I do not want to go back; I want to go forward in the direction Pope Benedict desired to go. (As an aside, I cannot believe that Pope Francis would call his immediate predecessor stubborn, an attempted tamer of the Holy Spirit, a fool, or one slow of heart.) I will take Pope Benedict's desired path, and this reproach of Pope Francis's will not apply to me.

Considered in its totality in both its texts and the intent of the Council Fathers, the Second Vatican Council called for a vibrant Church that would sanctify its people and successfully evangelise the world. Those three things have been given little more than lip-service since the Council, so let us traditionalists do something about it.

Thoughts At My Back Door said...

Pope Benedict talked of the Council, its continuity, and of moving forward with it in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as Francis now is.

I see this as continuity with Benedict.

I don't expect Francis to say "we really should return to the way things were before the council" just as Benedict was never going to say that. They don't want to, nor should they. They want to move forward IN ORGANIC CONTINUITY.

I think we expect too much of the pope, if we expect him to be brash and Savanarolic as pastor of the universal Church.

Grace M. said...

If I am stubborn, it is because I wish to be like a child clinging stubbornly to their parent's hand, because I know that if I let go for an instant I am not strong enough to take care of myself.

If I am slow-hearted it is because my heart belongs to God, not man, and God is the only unchanging and eternal good.

thetimman said...

Are you sure? Maybe it was in thickly-accented English, and he said that those voices were "cool", and really "show some heart".

Accents can be tricky.

Otherwise, it does seem to be a bit of a gut-punch. Interesting times, indeed.

samoftheeast said...

The LCWR, and the orders they represent, is the female version of the Jesuits. The Jesuits had a big part in making them what they are today, after the Spirit of the Council. This is why the Jesuits went to their defence, after the CDF's findings.

Our Pope was formed as a Jesuit, so he is unlikely to value anything prior to the reform of his own Jesuit order, which was carried out after the Council, in the Spirit of the Council.

Dr. Mabuse said...

I converted from Anglicanism, and reading the hopeful comments here is just like the good old days, when we used to cast the runes every time Rowan Williams opened his mouth. "It could be read as..." "What he really means is..." "If you understand the background..." all the flimsy talismans people would hold up to shield their eyes from what was really happening. The language is very plain, people. Unlike the last Archbishop of Canterbury, this pope doesn't have the reputation of a subtle and obscure academic, so there's even less excuse for straining at fanciful "positive" interpretations. The longer we clutch our binkies and hide our heads under our blankets, the more damage we'll sustain. The Anglicans waited so long, by the time they tried to fight back, the only thing left to do was to abandon the ship.

Thoughts At My Back Door said...

In other words, he is speaking to leftists just as much as to anyone. Thats how Benedict always directed it.

Grace M. said...

(One more thought...)

True stubbornness, Your Holiness, is continuing to operate after the experiment on the Heart of the Church has failed and the Patient is dying.

Dr. Mabuse said...

Keep on saying "Benedict said it too!" if it gives you comfort. Benedict spoke of moving forward, and President Obama's motto was "Forward!" so they're both the same, right? When Benedict said it, I felt secure because I knew him. When Francis says it, I panic, because I know he's not Benedict. You're trying to reduce a phrase or act by either pope to an isolated atom - looked at that way, maybe one CAN put a positive spin on this surly little paragraph. But viewed as the latest comment in a long life undistinguished by ANY sympathy, even verbal, for the traditional mass, it's an obvious declaration of disgust for people who refuse to surrender to the stale pieties churned out after Vatican II.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

Here we go... more rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Woody said...

The Holy Father's choice of words also indicates that he considers the Council to have been the work of the Holy Spirit. If one reads Roberto de Mattei's book, at least I get the distinct impression that the council fathers could be seen as having frustrated the Spirit on a number of occasions anyway. There is the report of one document which was heavily criticised in the hall, then all of a sudden when the vote is taken, after clear indications that the powers that be wanted it, they all followed like sheep and voted for it. Was this the action of the Spirit or instead an example of how the Council was hijacked by the Rhine group and the fathers went along with the direction given from the higher authority without having the courage to vote their convictions. Men can frustrate the designs of the Holy Spirit, and the Council is no exception to that.

Thoughts At My Back Door said...

I don't think there is any academic subtley here. He wants to move forward with the Council, which he believes was not implemented yet.

Benedict spoke of it in the same way.

We might cling to our binkies, but that is preferable to constantly rending our garments and plucking our beards whenever something is said that is not a direct citation of Bishop Williamson.

See, we can all deal in absurd hyperbole.

Thoughts At My Back Door said...

The gates of Hell are also capable of prevailing over the Anglican community.

They are not going to prevail over The Church. Perhaps that knowledge is the 'binkie' you speak of?

Just because it takes more than a fairly rote paragraph from the Pope to ruin our morning, does not mean that we are deluded fanciful frightened children.

ben ingledew said...

"And he never listens to them,
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him,

The fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round."

Mr McCartney sums up how I feel right now.

pauline cormack said...

here we go. is this the real agenda appearing. Everything from V2 is a work of the Holy Spirit and not to be critiqued?
Is Benedict's reform of the reform now toast? Does this mean Benedict was a fool to try and reconnect with tradition?
You just don't know what you are going to wake up to each day with Pope Francis. He is all over the place

txrsax said...

A bit of context may be helpful here. The Italian story mentions that the congregation was made up of employees of the Vatican City-State government as well as the President of the Vatican City-State. (Also the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem). Given all the talk of reforming the curia, the need for financial reform, and the possibility of moving a section of the Secretary of State under the President of the Vatican City-State, I suspect the language of change and not going back to an earlier time may all have a rather different meaning to these people. I doubt, for example, the Holy Father has the parish life of the United States even remotely on his mind in this context. I suspect this is much more about the need to reform business as usual at various Vatican offices.

Dr. Mabuse said...

"See, we can all deal in absurd hyperbole."

Indeed. Some of us could give lessons in it.

Whatever is left standing when the Gates of Hell are cast down will be the Church. I wouldn't take that as a promise that everything that goes by that name today will be included. Benedict said THAT too, when he said that "the church will become small". I want to be sure that I'm not in the large part that's cast away.

UnamSanctam said...

No, Holy Father, this is called "being Catholic".

UnamSanctam said...

What the heck is a "binkie"? Is this an Americanism?

Sounds like a type of chocolate biscuit.

poeta said...

UnamSanctam: A "binkie" is a "dummy."

brian said...

Binkie = baby pacifier

(this will probably be the most useful thing I say today - happy to contribute.)

jesusfreak84 said...

And this man was responsible for Eastern Rite Catholics...how can he have respect for the Divine Liturgies of Sts. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great, and yet hate the TLM?

Cosmos said...

I think it is wrong to assume that he is always focused on Traditionalists. My guess is that he doesn't think about us very much at all.

G.I. Janet said...

A binky aka binkie is also another name for a security blanket. This was likely the meaning in the original post using the word.

Picard said...

Oh, how wonderful that would be for the SSPX to be under such a good Pope and under such a good head of the CDF.

If the deal were done in 2012 as planed now under those two men the SSPX could help them restore the Church. From inside.

Picard said...

pauline cormack:

No. If you did not recognize it: Benedikt said essentially the same things, he praised VII (and blamed only the "virtual" Council, the Council of the media - see here on rorate).

He ordered the fsspx to accept all the Vatican II documents and the NewMass.

It is the very same in green now.

Btw.: Even Robert Spaemann critizised the praising of the VII that was done by Rome in celebrating its aniversary. In the German newspaper "Die Welt".

Fratellino said...

Amen, Amen, Amen, Hidden One!

rosaryinonehand said...

I'm not clear on what he thinks we're not doing that the Holy Spirit told us to do at Vatican II (other than maybe correct &/or evict the liberals from their seats at the council and show them the door).

Alphonsus Jr. said...

I take this as nothing less than a declaration of war against traditionalists. So be it.

"We are fools for Christ' s sake, but you are wise in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are honourable, but we without honour."

-1 Cor. 4:10

Kent said...

I would have to agree with Dr. Mabuse. The conservative blogosphere seems to be deluding itself by believing that some sort of turn about or conversion will occur in the new papacy. This is commendable in the light of fidelity to the Pope but seems unrealistic considering many of the indicators that are popping up. We best redouble our prayer efforts and hold on for the long run.

kmd said...

Reading the Wikipedia entry for St Peter's Seminary, I have to keep reminding myself the text is not referring to the Church in general and the Council..

Determinedly modernist, brutalist and owing a huge debt to Le Corbusier, the
building is often considered one of the most important modernist buildings in
Scotland. "The architecture of Le Corbusier translated well into Scotland in the
1960s. Although the climate of the south of France and west of Scotland could
hardly be more different, Corbu's roughcast concrete style, could, in the right
hands, be seen as a natural successor or complement to traditional Scottish
tower houses with their rugged forms and tough materials", wrote Jonathan
Glancey.[4] Filmmaker Murray Grigor made a documentary about the building
entitled Space and Light, while Glasgow artist Toby Paterson has painted it.

By the time it was completed in 1966 the number of candidates entering the
seminary had decreased. As a result, the building never reached its full
capacity of 100 students. From the outset, the building was riddled with
problems, including maintenance difficulties with such a unique structure and
significant water entry; the architects and owners each blamed the other for
these problems.[citation needed]

In 1980 the building closed as a seminary, subsequently becoming a drug
rehabilitation centre. However similar maintenance problems remained and it was
finally vacated by the end of the 1980s. In 1995 a fire so badly damaged
Kilmahew House that it had to be demolished. The building was Category A listed
by Historic Scotland in 1992,[3] and in October 2005 was named as Scotland's
greatest post-WWII building by the architecture magazine Prospect.[5]

Nonetheless, the building remains a ruin. Much of the woodwork is now gone
although hints of the original design still remain.
According to the
architecture writer Frank Arneil Walker, "nothing prepares one for the sight of
the new grown prematurely old."[6] Attempts to convert and reuse it, or even
protect it from further damage, have come to nothing
– hampered by the unique
design of the building and its remote location. Plans have included building a
28-unit housing development in the building's grounds, and stabilising the
structure by stripping it back to its concrete skeleton, possibly fully
restoring a small cross-section. This is a source of concern for conservation
bodies including the Twentieth Century Society, who have placed it on their
Risky Buildings Register, arguing that this would destroy much of the remaining
fabric of the building.

servusmariaen said...

My prayers (above all rosaries) are with Papa Francesco. However, short of a miracle, I have no illusions. I have not had any illusions since 1978 when after the dust settled and the influence of Polish traditional Catholicism did not make itself felt within the decades that followed. We can hope and MUST pray above all the most Holy Rosary. However, we must remember that we are all very much under the influence of at least the so called "Spirit of the Council". I had hoped and prayed (and continue to do so) that this papacy might bring about the much needed clarification of what actually is binding regarding Vatican II. Cardinal Siri was right. It will take a century to repair the damage of the Council. http://triregnum.blogspot.com/

KnightofChrist said...

We are all God's fools, My Lord.

D. Harold said...

See http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/04/16/pope:_2nd_vatican_council,_work_of_holy_spirit_but_some_want_to_tur/en1-683419:

It ought to make you very happy! LOL's

Edgar said...

So anyone that refuses to help bring the church down is a bad, stubborn, evil, lukewarm fool that wants to go back to the dark ages before the divine light of CVII.

Presente!!

Long-Skirts said...

The Holy Father said:

"We do not want to change."

Tradition
IS
Change

Babies every two, three years -
Teaching teens to clutch, change
gears -

Double, subtract
When souls God sends -

Tradition means…
Change NEVER ends!

LeonG said...

"The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit.."

How's that for presumption? Thousands of vocations lost
(32,000); hundreds of churches and chapels have closed; tens of thousands of Masses were lost due to reductions on Sundays; attendances have plumetted by up to 85% in some countries; religious houses and seminaries have closed by the score; the NO liturgy is ritually abused and endlessly problematic; church surveys reveal that the majority of new catholics do not know their Faith; there is no ecclesiastical discipline except for The SSPX.

Yes, a very beautiful work indeed.

Sigita Stankute said...

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/concilio-24118/

ka said...

The negative comment about "voices wanting to move back" is extremely worrying

Woody said...

Pope Francis, April 16, 2013:

Nowadays, he went on, “everybody seems happy about the presence of the Holy Spirit but it’s not really the case and there is still that temptation to resist it.” The Pope said one example of this resistance was the Second Vatican council which he called “a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit.” But 50 years later, “have we done everything the Holy Spirit was asking us to do during the Council,” he asked. The answer is “No,” said Pope Francis. “We celebrate this anniversary, we put up a monument but we don’t want it to upset us. We don’t want to change and what’s more there are those who wish to turn the clock back.” This, he went on, “is called stubbornness and wanting to tame the Holy Spirit.”

Pope Benedict XVI, December 22, 2005:

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.

In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.

Pertinacious Papist said...

The juxtaposition with the photo and its significance is particularly nice and telling.

douglassbartley said...

Please enroll me as a member of the gang of "stubborn" "fools" here who believe that stubborness in the defence of Church verities is no vice and "moderation" in those doctrines is no virtue. --Judge Bartley

Michael Sestak said...

Once again a storm is raging on the Sea of Galilee, and once again Peter is sinking beneath the waves.

Last call for the Society's dinghy.

New Catholic said...

I would never judge the content of this excerpt. Let me add, as my only other comment on this thread, that I really admire the Pontiff's homiletical style. In particular the emphatic tone, filled with repetitions (for instance, in "questo si chiama... questo si chiama... questo si chiama"), it is very biblical and appealing.

NC

Alphonsus Jr. said...

"I would never judge the content of this excerpt."

I don't understand. Please explain further.

St. Corbinian's Bear said...

Remember when you were first in love? You hung on every word. Was the beloved a little cool? What was meant by a particular tone? Oh, no, could that be anger? Why so many rings before the answer? That sounds distracted! Everything weighed like gold. The wiser course, I believe, is to watch what he does.

Alexander adulescens said...

I must agree with Dr. Mabuse and New Catholic - the title, photograph and excerpt clearly showing us his mind here.

Take the comment about it perhaps concerning the reform of the curia, the financial ordering of the Vatican and ectera. It is enough to re-read the quotation to see that this interpretation is obviously incorrect.

The more likely suggestion that it might mean liberals themselves, living and thinking as though it is still nineteen sixty whenever it was, sadly does not work, for as others have marked well already, Franciscus has no known history of defence of tradition or hostility toward post Vatican II quality liberalism. And indeed Rorate has shown very thoroughly, even before the election to the pontificate, that the exact opposite is so.

The audacity of calling those who, as the holy apostles themsleves warned us, hold fast to what we have received and spurn novelties, imputing to us the desire to "tame" the Holy Spirit - is enough to make the blood hotter in the veins. That anyone could speak this way, knowing full well what has happened since that Council, in the very act of lauding it - speaking of the man and his private opinions and with full deference to his sacred office as Roman Pontiff: deluded.

Hopefully the next Holy Father shall be young and sober enough to cease, as even our Benedictus did, making Vatican II the key to the future and the greatest thing since the Incarnation on earth.

Orate.

adulescens

Beefy Levinson said...

With all respect your Holiness, you absolutely can and should turn back the clock if it's telling the wrong time.

poeta said...

Beefy: Or at least turn it forward until it again reads correctly.


... And if that mural is some kind of Rorschach test, I think I failed it!

K-Town USA said...

Maybe we shouldn't read too much into the language he used. It might merely be more of the "ambiguous" doublespeak from the post-conciliar era.

Handmaids of the Blessed Sacrament said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
prodigal son headed home said...

Sunday, April 14, 2013
Kasper Admits Intentional Ambiguity

Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano this past Friday. In offering some reflections on the challenges facing the Church and the continued (perpetual) problem of the "true implementation of Vatican II", Kasper, speaking with reference to the documents of the Council, stated:

"In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction." (Cardinal Walter Kasper, L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)

In the Cardinal's statements, we basically have an affirmation of a fundamental thesis of Michael Davies and most Traditionalists: that the Council documents themselves have ambiguities in them and are subject to a multitude of interpretations. This concept of Conciliar ambiguity has been denied by many conservative/pop apologists, who insist that the Council documents are plain as day and it is only the malice of dissenters pushing a false implementation that is responsible for our current confusion.

Traditionalists, however, and ironically, Kasper, too, have insisted, however, that the destruction that followed the Council can be read back into the documents themselves. Even if the Council Fathers did not intend for the disaster that followed the Council (and most agree they did not), the documents themselves were constructed in such a way as to permit progressive interpretations when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops. Contra the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation", Kasper affirms the Traditionalist critique of "imperfect documents lead to imperfect implementation." Benedict XVI had made the same point. There is an intimate connection between the documents and their implementation.

But Kasper does more than just admit that "the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict"; he goes on to state that these ambiguities, these potential conflicts, were part of an intentional program. He does not simply say the texts will bear various interpretations, but that these ambiguous passages were "compromise formulas" brought forth to placate two opposing sides, in such a way that they can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, but just as easily can be twisted by the progressives to lend seeming support to their mischief.

These are what the late Michael Davies called the "timebombs" in the conciliar texts. Davies wrote, "These 'timebombs' were ambiguous passages inserted into the official documents by the liberal periti or experts - passages which would be interpreted in an untraditional, progressivist sense after the Council closed." (Michael Davies, Liturgical Timebombs, Rockford, Ill: Tan Books, 2004, pg. 23). Davies borrowed the phrase "timebombs" from Archbishop Lefebvre's book A Bishop Speaks, which had basically put forward the same argument. In Kasper's interview, we have nothing less than an admission that there were not only timebombs, but that they were placed there intentionally, and in this he and Lefebvre are in agreement. This is a stunning admission.

Cardinal Kasper affirms the positions of Michael Davies, Lefebvre and the Traditionalists? These are strange times, indeed.

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2013/04/kasper-admits-intentional-ambiguity.html?m=1

New Catholic said...

Alphonsus, it means that I feel uncomfortable judging the Pope's (any Pope's) words, much less trying to find out what his actual intentions were. I present them as they are.

UnamSanctam said...

"I am a stubborn fool!"

"No, I am a stubborn fool!"

"Neither of them is a stubborn fool! I am a stubborn fool!"

(Chorus of millions crying out, "I am a stubborn fool!"; cries from Heaven as the Saints and angels call out, "We are stubborn fools!")

Look people: Benedict XVI's "continuity" bash was doomed to failure because it called upon people to accept that orange is green. This Pope too waffles about some sort of middle course. Also doomed to go nowhere. Vatican II is finished, fatally compromised; but the Hierarchy, which has invested its entire life in it, cannot but fight to rescue it somehow. Obviously they cannot.

Let's keep our heads down, trust in God and His Son Who revealed the Catholic religion and founded the catholic Church, and let the Modernist anti-Church, which in our days shrouds Christ's Church like a gigantic black shadow and the minds of our priests, Bishops and even Popes, do its thing. We know whatever they do will end badly, for the simple reason that the doctrine is bad.

fizz wizz said...

Gay marriage legalised in many countries and some just this week. Yet the Pope saves his rebuke for those who wish to preserve the sacredness of the Mass,shameful

douglassbartley said...

New Catholic:
And yet words are more often than not the key to unlocking man’s intentions.
As to “I really admire the Pontiff's homiletical style”—ought we not look to substance rather than style?
Long Skirts:
On change: you wrote “Tradition is Change.”
The greatest enemy of progress and truth is love of novelty and resulting change. Having babies is not in any way change, as it has been going on ever since Cain and Abel were born. The real change is that babies are being destroyed by the millions.—Judge Bartley

Long-Skirts said...

douglassbartley said...

"Long Skirts:
On change: you wrote “Tradition is Change.”
The greatest enemy of progress and truth is love of novelty and resulting change. Having babies is not in any way change, as it has been going on ever since Cain and Abel were born."

Yes, I know that having babies has been going on since Cain and Abel...I'm talking about the fact that anyone who is truly a Tradtional Catholic, Orthodox, and is married and whose intent is to be open to children REALLY knows about change:

Everytime a baby comes, adopted or birthed by you there is change...moving other siblings around to make room, figuring out a better budget to have enough money for food, medical expenses, etc. New schedules for Mom & Dad to figure out how to get children to school while the babies are napping or nursing. Catholic families living a Catholic life have to change CONSTANTLY and that's why the Faith is so important and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as that is what "centers" them so-to-speak in the midst of loving chaos.

How many times did the neighborhood kids go down to our basement and see Mr. Long-Skirts putting up some dry-wall to partition off part of the space to give some older children in our family privacy and room. The neighbors would always give me a call and ask, "Are you expecting again? The kids said Mr. Long-Skirts was trying to put up some dry-wall in the basement."

Then you have to work with the teens and try and keep them close to the Faith and you have to change prayer times for the family to accomodate everyone as best as you can.

Loved trying to teach teens to drive while having contractions with my 9th but Mr. Long-Skirts was working so I had to drop what I was doing, change my schedule and hop in the car as our son had just gotten a new job and needed his driver's license to get there so I wouldn't have to take him. I remember thinking that I should put a bumper sticker on the car saying, "I'd rather be potty training."

Tradition is constantly having to live a life that changes, daily but it's the True Faith that keeps us in place. All through Jesus through Mary!

Long-Skirts said...

Long-Skirts said:

"All through Jesus through Mary!"

God sakes, you got me so discombobulated that I wrote my favorite ejaculation wrong...was supposed to be All FOR Jesus through Mary...

...now, gotta go get ready to see the Oral Surgeon to get a Wisdom tooth pulled. Because we have had so many kids can't afford root-canals so another big change in my mouth - lovely - I'm losing everything but my appetite!

ODE TO A PHARMACIST

Today an old friend
Wisdom tooth
Is going to be
Pulled out.

They're going to put
Me sound-a-sleep
So I don't scream
And shout.

Lots of silver
Sterile tools
Clinking on
A tray.

No natural stuff
Pure drugs for me
Go home to bed
And lay.

Now natural's good
Sometimes, I know
Ten kids I had
Woo - hoo!

But Pharmacists
Were made by God
'Cause death is
Natural too!!!

Sarah L said...

The changes introduced by a new addition to a family and the progression of each child from infancy to adulthood are something like the changes introduced into the liturgy for each season of the year. The changes are adjustments to the different needs and foci of each season.
Then there's a change that means a departure from the well-lit road--the one not paved with the skulls of bishops.

douglassbartley said...

Dear Long Skirts:

Thank you for your lovely reply. I understand the change of the sort of which you spoke--though surely not to the same degree as you--for we only have six children.

But on the larger question of when real change occurs, I hold to the Aristotlean view outlined in part of a new verse I’ve written:

1. REALITY: MERELY A FLUX OF APPEARANCES? PHENOMENALISM VS. SUBSTANTIALISM
2. Of Heraclitus con Parmenides,
3. Of Cratylus and Zeno’s alchemies
4. Of streams ne’er same and Flying Arrow’ s freeze,
5. Crat’s flux incessant, metastases;
6. Z’s dormancy, to flux: antitheses;
7. Next come the Stagirite’s analyses.
8. Of Cratylus’s claim that words mean nothing,
9. Because their meanings always are changing,
10. To Aristotle a soph’morick trick:
11. If meanings are ne’er the same tick-to-tick,
12. How could Cratylus maintain his view sane
13. When each time he spoke he meant just the same
14. As that which previously he had said
15. And not the opposite, reverse instead!
16. (Cratylus, prophet of our modern courts,
17. In love with changing laws of contracts, torts;
18. And worst of all, our constitution fix’d,
19. By lawless deconstruction, long deep-six’d.)
20. As for Parmenides and friend Zeno
21. (Both dead e’re the Philosopher’s how-so),
22. If everything is in statu quo
23. Where now Parmenides and compeer Zeno?
24. From Aristotle, common sense corrects:
25. Things change, but not always, in all respects.
26. Some things remain substantially the same:
27. A wood chair’s still a chair after it’s stain’d ,
28. But smashed to pieces, it becomes mere wood,
29. Perhaps fire fuel, as “Quad Tree” that once stood.
30. Change either is substantial, radical,
31. Or accidental and extrinsical.
32. Substantial when first the thing comes to be
33. Or when the thing at last ceases to be;
34. And accidental when change but partial:
35. When Sam’s tooth uproots, Sam’s not terminal,
36. For he can still say, rightly, “Sam, I am.”
37. Or when Sam crams down a whole leg of lamb,
38. With a side order of green eggs and ham,
39. His biliousness aside, still he’s Man Sam
40. For at least as long as Sam’s gluttony
41. Plunges him not nether to eternity. --Judge Bartley

Vox Ratione said...

Hmmm... Was not the Holy Spirit the driving force behind all pre-conciliar traditions too? Considering Mass attendance has dropped precipitously in the wake of Vatican II, I don't know how it can claim primacy.

Sarah L said...

While we're being told that Vatican II ought be interpreted in light of Tradition, it more often happens that we're encouraged, by word and example, to do the opposite and to evaluate all pre-Vatican-II writings according to the superior light of Vatican II. It's not surprising that most folks figure it's a waste of time to even read anything written before Vatican II, since the latter has effectively eclipsed all that came before it.