Rorate Caeli

The joint Liberal Jewish-Liberal Catholic taskforce
against Benedict XVI

Giorgio Israel, an Italian Jewish commentator (and Math professor at the University of Rome - La Sapienza), writes today in Il Foglio about the violent attacks of the Italian rabbinate against Pope Benedict XVI. Liberal Judaism acts together with the leaders of the "Progressive" Italian Church (led by the luminaries of the Archdiocese of Milan) to undermine the reputation of Pope Benedict XVI. What matters to them (and Liberal Jews do not even mind being used by the powerful Milanese Catholics for this) is to ridicule the Pope as a "neocon" and as a spent force.

Let us pray for our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI: that he may not be afraid of the wolves, from Milan or elsewhere.


Ambrosian [Milanese] Catholicism and left wing Judaism march together to better attack Ratzingerism

by Giorgio Israel

It is significant that the violent attack in which Chief-Rabbi of Venice Richetti accused Benedict XVI of having demolished 50 years of Jewish-Christian dialogue would have appeared in the monthly of the Jesuits, Popoli

On the other hand, it is enough to stick to facts, without any recourse to the mediocre practice of hindsight, to realize that in this diatribe there are motives which have little to do with the merits [of the debate]. It should be noticed that none of the arguments proposed in opposition to the harsh attacks of the Italian rabbinate have ever been taken into consideration.

On the contrary, after the Chief-Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, praised the affirmation of the Pope according to whom, in a strict sense, interreligious dialogue is impossible - because, Di Segni says, it is better to avoid the theological dialogue - behold that Richetti then indicates it, on the other hand, as an evidence that there is no wish to dialogue!

The fact is that, while Di Segni, being cautious and wary, follows a line of rationality -"Dialogue is a process which should go on despite the difficulties. Pope Benedict XVI keeps rendering an original and decisive contribution, even though it is not always possible to share his positions"- there are those who have decided that it is necessary to battle the Pope at all costs, even at the cost of rekindling anti-Jewish sentiments which were never extinguished. 

Here we are in the presence of an internal struggle within the Catholic world in which a part of the Italian Jewish world is playing the role of the 7th Cavalry Regiment.

Afterwards, there were the polemics related to the Good Friday prayer which have led to the current suspension of the dialogue, decreed also in the words of a prohibition of [members of] the Community of meeting ecclesiastics.

Guido Guastalla and I dissented from such a suspension in a letter to Corriere della Sera (26 November 2008), with mild tone and with no shadow of polemics. 

In response, we received a violent answer signed by Rabbi Laras (President of the Italian Rabbis), by the President of the Union of Young Jews, and (a significant fact), not by the President, but by the former President of the Union of Jewish Communities, in the person of Amos Luzzatto. In this letter - in which it was urged [of us] not to bother with the dialogue, of exclusive competence of the rabbis (only "interlocutors" and "officials responsible for the religious representation") - the "capital" of the Jewish-Christian dialogue was indicated as Milan and in the persons of Cardinals Martini and Tettamanzi, on one side, and Laras and others [on the Jewish side]; and it was noticed that we were missing from this list... [sic]

In every circumstance, we always returned there, to Milan, around the Ambrosian Catholicism and a certain Leftist Judaism.
It is the ideological identity between a certain Catholicism of the Ambrosian [Milanese] style - the same [Catholicism] which watches the Islamic marches passively - and a Leftist Judaism, indifferent to being called a "degraded religious tradition" [Rorate note: words used by Martini]: what matters is to attack together the common enemy, the hated Ratzingerian neoconservatism... [sic]


  1. Rorate note: Settimo Cavalleggeri, i.e. the 7th Cavalry Regiment of the United States Army, popular Italian reference to the Battle of the Little Bighorn; in other words, part of the Italian Jewish world is fighting a battle with possible large costs for itself.

  2. Anonymous8:11 PM

    Dialogue is a complete waste of time.

  3. Anonymous8:26 PM

    Interesting that the author refers to the Holy Father's "neoconservatism". I would think that it is accurate, of course.

    Concerning Milan as the locus for the opposition to ++Benedict, one can only imagine the revolutions going on in the tomb of the former Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, and namesake of Karol Wojtyla, San Carlo Borromeo.

    I think some housecleaning is in order up there.

  4. Anonymous8:29 PM

    martini, Tettamanzi, are all perfect successors of milanese heretics like Mayfreda and Blazena Vilemina. Milan was often a place were various heresies flourished very well. If I remember correctly Innocent III thougt of launching a crusade against the city, which he significantly called brood of hell.

  5. It is the ideological identity between a certain "Catholicism of the Ambrosian [Milanese] style - the same [Catholicism] which watches the Islamic marches passively - and a Leftist Judaism, indifferent to being called a "degraded religious tradition"..."

    So St. Philip was precient, then, in not sending the Oratorians to Milan, and avoiding its subversion to the same liberal deformations we now see attacking the See of Pater, yet again. It is now plain to see that MILAN is the centre of reformist, liberal-Catholic self-hatred, the same self-hatred that infects and motivates liberal, leftist, Judaism. This liberal Catholic self-hatred was and remains the motivation behind the "reforms" of Vatican II. They are another church, IMHO, and must be confronted, although I'll settle for a return subversion should Benedict live so long. Ad Multos Annos!!

  6. Anonymous10:34 PM

    Cardinal Tettamanzi,Archbishop of Milan,reaches retirement age in two months.Who will replace him,and how soon?

  7. Anonymous11:11 PM

    What is this obsession with the Jews? What is to be gained from being tethered to them?

    I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding why the Jews insist on interfering in the affairs of the Church, and why the Church tolerates this.

  8. Why don't we in the Catholic blogosphere orchestrate a[n] [Inter]National Day of Prayer for the Jews to Convert to Catholic Christianity?

    I mean it: we pick a day, and all vow to pray rosaries, have Masses said, fast, etc. for the intention of the conversion of the Jews to Catholicism.

    Anybody with me on this?!

  9. Anonymous11:23 PM

    Realmente, os lobos uivam...


  10. Anonymous11:23 PM

    A housecleaning of Milan is indeed necessary.

    Tettamanzi will be technically out in 2 months (at 75). Hopefully Benedict XVI snaps up his resignation and replaces him with a traditionalist...not another liberal like Tettamanzi or the infamous Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, SJ who destroyed the Archdiocese of Milan with 23+ years of corruption and dissenting liturgical and theological policy.


  11. Anonymous12:33 AM

    A familiar pattern: in every Catholic-Jewish dustup, there is someone deputized (by himself or others) to play the good Jewish cop. Then someone comes around to see the Catholic combatant and tell him that if only he'll be a little reasonable, the bomb-thowers can be got off his case.

    The Pope is indeed a neoconservative; which is to say, no conservative at all.

    I don't think there's anything to be gained by adopting from the Jews tendentious babble like "self-hatred." It doesn't mean anything when applies to either Jews or Catholics; it just implies that the other guy's disagreement with you is pathological. The only significant pathology in these matters is error and sin.

  12. Anonymous1:17 AM

    No, one would have to be blind not to see that the mess out there that is so lamented here must be laid at the doors of the last two Popes.

  13. Perhaps you can clarify your comment: By the last two popes, do you mean John Paul II and John Paul I? Or Benedict XVI and John Paul II? Or perhaps, accidentally forgetting about John Paul I's one-month papacy, John Paul II and Paul VI? Or even Paul VI and Blessed John XXIII?

  14. Anonymous3:43 AM

    martini, Tettamanzi, are all perfect successors of milanese heretics like Mayfreda and Blazena Vilemina...

    You might want to add Montini to the list,,,

  15. Anonymous5:04 AM

    Paul VI but especially JP II were directly responsible for the reinterpretation of Judaism as a parallel means to salvation, a detour around Christ by our "Elder Brothers" to be acknowledged and accepted. One wonders why our Savior bothered with the Incarnation if Judaism already was sufficient. Had the God-Man used the language of these two pontificates it is probable that fraternal dialogue would have ensued and there never would have been the Crucifixion. The notion that the Jews will embrace Jesus Christ as their Messiah when He comes again in glory is ridiculous. On that dread day no one will have any choice and it will be too late. It is no wonder that the Jews are confused by the mixed signals.

  16. Paul VI but especially JP II were directly responsible for the reinterpretation of Judaism as a parallel means to salvation, a detour around Christ by our "Elder Brothers" to be acknowledged and accepted.

    What did they teach and what decisions did they make that made them "directly" responsible for the heresy that Judaism is a parallel means to salvation apart from Christ?

  17. Frankly speaking, the Ambrosian enemy has many unofficial NO allies in many countries throughout the world who are against the holy father. This can be evidenced in most of Europe, in several parts of Latin America and in Asia. There is chronic and systemic disobedience to Magesterial teachings as well as covert & overt opposition to what was once Roman Catholic liturgical praxis and doctrinal instruction. There is chaos in The Church which was propagated in the 1960s. There is too much modernism in this contemporary church and the support of the liberal tendency by Fr Ratzinger no less, has come home to roost. Further, many of these characters were elevated to their positions in the previous papacy.

    It is futile to massage ecclesiastical history and be revisionist. Today, Pope Benedict XVI will get no further assistance from the Kungites and Rahnerians. You are either a Roman Catholic or you are a Novus Ordo style modernist. There can be no compromise. And the liturgy follows suit with it. Attendance at various liturgies around the world very soon reinforces this reality.

    Now our neoconservative friends may be able to understand how many traditional hierarchy, clerics and lay felt when they were betrayed by this cacophanous litany of ambiguities and pastoral subterfuge when it first made its public appearance in the 1960s in Rome, disseminating itself throughout Christendom in the subsequent years.

    "Dialogue", a key post-conciliar policy, is utter nonsense - what have The Devil and Almighty God in common? What has The Church and the world got to "dialogue" about? There have been too many phenomenological twists of doctrine by our pastors in recent years. It is time for plain speaking and truth. Rome has already been banished from Europe while it has been "dialoguing" with its deaf secular & liberal NO audience. It no longer has much authority over most of its followers who frequently believe what used to be considered non-Catholic. As we often find an episcopal or clerical influence instigating such rebellion we can only look more toward the genuinely traditional Roman Catholic Church that continues to espouse obedience to the exhortations of Our Blessed Lord in The Gospels and in the Epistles of St Paul and which adheres to the consistent teachings in matters of faith and doctrine of The Roman Catholic Church Herself. Anything else is deviant.

    The hour came long ago for this pope to come over to tradition and to cease this dialogue of the absurd.

  18. As for the previous pontiff - here is an instruction that does not square at all with pre-Vatican II teaching. In fact, it is perfectly in keeping with his personal perspectives on the salvation of the Jews by their own still validated covenant with God.

    The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. “The Spirit’s presence and activity”, as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, “affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions” (n. 28).

    Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

    Source: Pope John Paul II, General Audience, Wednesday 9 September 1998

  19. Anonymous12:48 PM

    HH Pope Benedict is indeed a neo-conservative. And the neo-conservative movement is very much a secular Jewish one.

    Pope Benedict's uniquely cozy relationship with the Bush administration shows that this neo-conservatism is not just ideological but very political. His muted criticism of the war crimes being committed by Israel is scandalous, as was his and Bush's wining and dining of each other.

    Finally, many, even most, supporters of the TLM are neo-cons, at least in the USA, as are most moderators on this blog.

  20. Anonymous1:51 PM

    The mess is entirely John Paul II's doing.

    He's the one who instigated all the intensive Inter-religious dialog. Paul VI just meant it to be politically correct. John Paul II was obcessive about it.

    He's the one who instigated the two "Assisi" gatherings where all religions were brought together.
    He's the one who kissed the Koran!!! What a disgrace!!! An abomination.
    He's the one who invoked "Allah" in the Holy Land.
    He's the one who went to the "Wailing Wall" and prayed like a Jew, slipping a piece of paper in the cracks just like a Jew.
    He's the one who instigated the "World Day of Judaism" commemorated each year in the Vatican to underline Catholic respect for Jews especially after the Holocaust.
    He's the one who visited synagogues.
    He's the one who issued endless appologies to the Jews and others for so called offenses of the Catholic Church over the centuries.

    John Paul II's ecumenical and inter-religious dialog proclivities, much of which verges on obcession, is to be blamed for the crisis of Faith in the Church (where many Catholics believe that every religion is as good as any other), and for the excessive diplomatic and politically "correct" initiatives at the expense to Catholic sensibilities and Catholic Truth that will be hard to correct....because the Jews especially....but also other religions expect the same special consideration and respect from Benedict XVI and his Vatican, and the next Pope, and the next Pope etc. etc. as was given them by John Paul II....despite the fact that he was tremendously wrong in doing so.

    I would not go THAT far, but some people in the Catholic Church have now even questioned if John Paul II was truely a Catholic, because his views on other religions, his departure from Catholic Tradition, and his dramatic gestures in favor of Lutherans, Anglicans (kissing the ring of the Archbishop of Canturbury!!!!!), Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others represents such an enormous departure from Catholic thinking...even that of Paul VI (who would never have kissed the Koran).

    Unfortunatly, we have to lay this mess at the feet of John Paul II.
    Benedict XVI doesn't have the courage or will to cancel it, or supress it, or stifle it.
    But many in the Vatican do. Many Cardinals are so infuriated at Jews, that they are cancelling out the policies of John Paul II without Benedict XVI doing anything. Their words and deeds are cancelling out the "special relationship" Jews thought they deserved from the Catholic Church.
    BRAVO TO CARDINAL RAPHALEO MARTINO for his brave words in igniting the end of a "special relationship" between Catholics and Jews regarding the barbarious slaughter by Israel in Gaza.

    To his discredit, Benedict XVI has not singled out Israel by name, nor cancelled his trip to Israel as he should do.

    The joint taskforce of Jews/Liberal Catholics against Benedict XVI is a reaction to these Cardinals, and to small gestures of Benedict XVI that hints at putting an end to this "special relationship".

    The best thing Benedict XVI could do, which would cancel it altogether, would be two things:

    1). declare the late, great Pope Pius XII first as "Venerable Pius XII", and then beatify this great Pope.

    2). cancel his trip to Israel in protest for the slaughter in Gaza.

    Also, to cancel out the liberal Catholics, Benedict XVI should appoint a CATHOLIC to the See of Milan immediatly after Tettamanzi turns 75 in March.

  21. One should never forget that these liberal "Jews" have absolutely no moral authority to speak for Jews and/or Judaism. Zionism et al., is not Judaism.

    Their opinions on Judaism is about as important as the opinions on Christianity as protestants.

  22. Methinks we are our own worst enemies with respect to the complaints raised by the Jews. If we were to simply go about our business and ignore them, we'd be much better off. Unfortunately, we have hierarchs that insist on coddling them, even to the point of changing our liturgical prayers so as not to offend them. Egads, it boggles the mind!

  23. Somebody alleged: many, even most, supporters of the TLM are neo-cons, at least in the USA, as are most moderators on this blog.

    I don't know how you could possibly know that. As for the political views of the Rorate Caeli moderators, I can only speak for myself: I'm a Jacobite monarchist. (Take note of the icon.)

  24. Anonymous4:56 PM

    There have to be several doctoral candidates preparing papers on the sudden extreme evolution of the Judeo-Catholic relationship since the early seventies. It would take a doctoral study to amass all the joint resolutions, pronouncements or statements that this "dialogue with our Elder Brethren" (not our "Separated Brethren") has produced either directly through Vatican venues or encouraged and tolerated on the diocesan level. Ignoring the canonical prohibitions of joint prayer with the Jews from Apostolic times, specifically in their synagogues, the clear message by Papal example down to parochial joint Passover celebrations has been the novel notion that Judaism is currently a respected, optional path to salvation rather than a stubborn rejection of the God-Man. It is for this reason that the Jewish leadership is scratching their heads today when even the current Pope has prayed in their synagogue. Pope John Paul II's placing his written prayer in the Western Wall at Jerusalem may have been just the dramatic gesture of a former actor but it sent a clear message to Jews. At least they have been consistent.

  25. Anonymous5:27 PM

    The Apostles were evicted from the synagogues because they preached Christ as the Messiah. Recent Popes have felt no such need either because it would be insulting to their hosts or superfluous.

  26. Anonymous5:40 PM

    We live in a confusing time when all good things are hijacked and corrupted through propaganda until they mean nothing at all, or even the opposite of what they originally signified. Examples are civil rights, international law, and individual liberty. All of these things were noble and morally compelling in certain historical contexts but have become so tangled with evil causes that we currently have a justified kneejerk reaction against their invocation. I am sure that “dialogue” between the warring factions of old Europe would have been very salutary, and that “official” dialogue between heads of state, industry, and culture is always necessary when different civilizations interact, but the usefulness of dialogue is certainly not universal, and its most dubious application is to religion. In English at least, “dialogue” has a bureaucratic connotations which are perfectly suited for the nonsense that currently goes on under its banner. Two sides posture, put out official statements, and then react to the public reactions, all in the name of public relations. I think this Pope has been very good about defining his terms (ie.- this is what authentic Catholic dialogue actually is…), but at some point the pastor in him may have to trump the academic and shut-down use of the term altogether. “Dialogue” has become destructive in a culture that hates truth, embraces relativism, and rejects all Christian attempts at persuasion as proselytizing. We simply were not commanded to go out and dialogue with the nations, but rather to preach, compel, and convert. Dialogue may be a limited means to that end, but there is no doubt that it has become the end in itself to many Catholics of prominence and power, and therefore, must be abandoned in its present form.

  27. Anonymous7:59 PM

    "Somebody alleged: many, even most, supporters of the TLM are neo-cons, at least in the USA, as are most moderators on this blog."

    That may well be the case in the USA (and among the small coterie of neo-con Damien Thompson's followers in the UK), but not generally the case in the rest of the world, thank God.

    Hence US traditionalists are so easily scandalised by the "radical" attitudes of Australian and European traditionalists.

  28. So why not have a day of fasting and praying for the conversion of the Jewish people?

  29. Anonymous12:25 AM

    Why not just get rid of all these ridiculous "World Day of Judaism", "World Youth Day" etc. etc.

    Time was we had "Mission Sunday" 1x a year which everyone knew the vital purpose of that to spread the Catholic Faith, and "World Day of Prayer for Vocations", which purpose is obvious.

    But now we have "World Day of Judaism" gotta be joking. Pointless for the Catholic Church A total waste of time.

    If you listen real carefully, I think you can hear the rest of the world laughing...

  30. I agree that the revival of the TLM is riding on the back of American neo-conservatism more than a genuine embrace of tradition. Damian Thompson's blog is typical of the confusion here is the UK.

    The problem in Europe is the collapse of paleo-conservatism which in the case of the UK took place under Thatcher. Blair finished the tradition off. This seems to have happened elsewhere in Europe also. Now the tradition only exists in the USA and Sarah Palin, for example, was a phenomenon which couldn't happen outside of the USA.

    As for the Holy Father, it is difficult to take his conservatism too seriously and recent episcopal appointments in the UK for example, suggest there has been no change at all.

  31. Anonymous4:32 PM

    Paul Haley had the best comment of all :
    "Methinks we are our own worst enemies with respect to the complaints raised by the Jews. If we were to simply go about our business and ignore them, we'd be much better off."

    Yes indeed. Ignore the Jews, and go our own way.
    The same should also apply to the Protestants. We've changed our Mass and threw our centuries of Catholic beauty and tradition to accomodate them. It was wrong from day one, just as it continues to be wrong today.
    And we're still reaping the bad fruit from it all.

  32. Anonymous7:39 PM

    I suggest faithful traditional Catholics start a grass-roots movement/petition/protest to pressure the Vatican and Benedict XVI to do away with this appeasment of Jews.

  33. Anonymous11:06 PM

    Let's be very careful so that we are not labeled "anti-semitic", a paramount concern of a German Pope one would think. I've always found it amusing that the term has been confiscated to where the semitic Arabs are the greatest "anti-semites". Respect for freedom of conscience is not at issue here. What is at issue is the lamentable fact that the fundamental belief that the Church is the New Israel is no longer taught or understood by the masses. It is edifying how St. John of Damascus in his "On Heresies" lists Judaism as a "Christian" heresy, a belief in Christ as NOT the Messiah, much less Divine. Of course no one seems to use the term "heresy" (erroneous belief) any longer either.

  34. Anonymous12:53 AM

    I've always found it amusing that the term has been confiscated to where the semitic Arabs are the greatest "anti-semites".

    -I'm not sure where you come from "Anonymous" but I can assure you that anti-semitism (or other types of racism/bigotry) is never amusing.

    As to the comment itself, the term was originally designated to refer to Jews, not semitic peoples, so I'm not sure what the point is that you are making? Would you prefer anti-Jewish prejudice instead?

    As to the topic at hand, it bears some careful examination. I'm not really that familiar with Richetti, but I'm aware he has something like 300 approx. folks in his community and that he is in conflict with another Jewish sect which is trying to move into his turf. The rabbi would be better suited to tending to his people and avoiding getting involved in these sorts of conflicts.

    It would also behoove Catholics to consider the fact that there are now more Muslims than Catholics in the world and what the long term implication is this for Christianity. Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople are lost, let us hope Rome is not next.

  35. Anonymous1:27 AM

    I find it hard to blame any politician for just about anything of significance in a democracy. You get what you want, and in a democracy with a capitalist economy, you get all you want, whatever you want, which usually means leisure, frolic, and we just don't want to hear about abortion. Capitalism does its materialistic job very well, and free-speech democracies leave no excuses for bad leaders.

    I don't even blame "the mainstream media" since in a liberal open society there's nothing to stop a counter-media from arising, and in fact there is one, albeit not as popular as the mainstream media. I'm not even sure the church could have prevented the erosion of Christian culture in the West, although it might have slowed it down if it had not joined in on the party. And I don't think Popes John and Paul were in the minority. They were more liberal than the ecclesiastical middle, true, but Archbishop Lefebvre's autobiography clearly indicates the middle was quite liberal by the time of VC II. It was just a matter of time before the church went hard left.

    The problem seems to me to be one of post-World War II prosperity. As far as I can tell, the church of poverty, penance, and chastity, and all things sacrificial, never has been able to sell many tickets in lengthy periods of extreme prosperity.

    If anything is missing from this oft-repeated cycle of prosperity-weakening-catastrophy-strengthening-prosperity ... are those great saints to publicly warn us with their reminders of reality in an inspiring way. But then, that was what Our Lady did, didn't she? And the church hierarchy ignored her, didn't they? Wonder what's next.

  36. Anonymous12:00 PM

    The notion of a semite being "anti" another semite is amusing to me. Of course prejudice is wrong, but thank you for reminding us. Son of Trypho is correct about Islam. One wonders then why nobody reminded the previous Holy Father before he kissed the Koran.

  37. Anonymous11:05 PM

    Against this blog's recommendation and my own best judgement, I have wasted my time reading Benedict's last 22 December speech to the Curia, where amongst other pearls, there is the following astonishing statement:

    "Lastly, we must remember the Synod of Bishops. [...] A valuable contribution was also made by a rabbi who spoke on the sacred Scriptures of Israel, which are our own sacred Scriptures as well.
    An important moment for the Synod, and indeed for the journey of the Church as a whole, was when Patriarch Bartholomew, in an insightful analysis, offered us an approach to the Word of God in the light of the Orthodox tradition."

    So, I'd say Benedict doesn't really seem afraid of wolves at all. On the contrary, he actually looks pretty comfortable in their midst....

    Perhaps good Bishop Tissier would say that a better prayer, with regard to Benedict, would be to ask God for his conversion, not just courage.

  38. So, I'd say Benedict doesn't really seem afraid of wolves at all. On the contrary, he actually looks pretty comfortable in their midst....

    You say that like it's a bad thing.

  39. Anonymous4:21 AM

    The attacks on the pope are pinpricks; that is to say, they are intended to be pinpricks. This so-called task force knows full well that the man who misleadingly called the Mass of St. Pius V the extraordinary form of the liturgy of which the mass of Paul VI is the ordinary form is on their side in all essentials. The attacks are a reminder to him that while he can dine and drink with the Trads, he still needs to be circumspect, even in his cups. Such attacks also serve a secondary purpose: making Trads feel chuffed. Our guy, they cry, is getting screamed at by the bad guys; so three cheers for our guy!

    A great many Trads have been led down the garden path by the pope and by Vatican II-admiring "conservatives." Hearing voice after voice and reading blog after blog, they have come to believe that the distinguishing marks of the Tridentine Mass are beauty, solemnity, and reverence (converts are, sadly but understandably, among the most gullible of all). Using these terms and these alone, formal equivalence between the True Mass and the false mass is then asserted by the pope and eagerly seconded by the well-meaning but unwary. Using doctrine--the proper standard--one can postulate no common ground between these irreconcilables.

    Why have so few challenged the pope to explain or at least comment upon the widely reported statements of the Vatican II periti (of which he was one) that the council and the Novus Ordo Missae were a clean break with the past? Put plainly albeit a bit rudely, were you deceiving us then, Holy Father, or are you deceiving us now?

  40. I am astonished at some of the comments here. Is there a resurgence of anti-Semitism brewing among some of you?

  41. Among some traditionalist Catholics, sadly, yes.

  42. This really worries me, too, Prima. We have tried to be impartial in the moderation of comments (since we are often accused of "censorship"), but the manifestations which sound inappropriate are worrisome.

  43. Anonymous10:37 PM

    New Catholic/Prima/Jordanes

    Agreed - I'm constantly dissapointed to see comments which are particularly insensitive towards Jews, often amongst traditional Catholics. Often, the threads need to be shut down because they get so toxic and offensive.

    Its particularly dissapointing for people like myself who are Jewish (ethnic) and Catholic as it discourages us when we hear our relatives/friends etc being so disparaged.

  44. Son of Trypho,

    Please do not take some of these comments (and those of Bishop Williamson) as representative of those of us who love the Gregorian Rite. Those of the Jewish faith were the "first to hear the Word of God" as faithful Catholics acknowledge, and are our brothers and sisters.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!