BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Versione Completa   Stampa   Cerca   Utenti   Iscriviti     Condividi : FacebookTwitter
Pagine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ..., 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, [381], 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394
TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 8 aprile 2017 03:02




ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI





April 7, 2017 headlines

PewSitter


Canon212.com


One does not understand all the stopgap measures this pope has been taking that seemingly accommodate the FSSPX canonically before
their overall canonical status is regularized once and for all (if at all, one is tempted to make the caveat now, because for all the
huffing and
puffing in the Bergoglio Vatican over the past few months saying it is all but a done deal, we are getting these piecemeal and rather
dubious concessions instead)... Christopher Ferrara presents most clearly the absurd implications of the latest Bergoglian 'act of mercy'
towards the Lefebvrians...


Merciful pope issues absurd guidelines
on FSSPX marriages that fail to square
with his mercy for public adulterers

by Christopher A. Ferrara

April 7, 2017

With Pope Bergoglio’s approval, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a letter respecting “regularization” of the marriages between adherents of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). In pertinent part the letter provides that:

“to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father… has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of [SSPX] faithful…;
“the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite;
“followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society;
“Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass…”


Let us consider briefly the—one must say it—absurdity of these provisions. If the Pope is truly concerned about “reassuring the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity” in SSPX marriages, he could simply decree a radical sanation of every marriage performed by an SSPX priest to date, thus correcting any defect of form arising from lack of delegation by a local ordinary.

Then, going forward, he could simply grant a universal faculty to SSPX priests to assist at all future weddings of SSPX laity, just as he has already conceded a universal faculty to hear confessions validly even without faculties from a local ordinary.


Instead, however, Pope Bergoglio requires a diocesan or other “fully regular” priest to receive the wedding vows while authorizing the SSPX in attendance only to offer the nuptial Mass. The local ordinary is merely granted the discretion, but not given the obligation, to allow an SSPX priest to witness the vows as well if a diocesan or “fully regular” priest is not available. Hence the absurdity of the provisions, which would mean the following, given the previous grant of the universal faculty to hear confessions:
- SSPX priests can validly and licitly offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at a wedding, but cannot validly or licitly witness the wedding vows.
- SSPX priests can validly and licitly hear the confessions of the bride and groom at any time or place in the world, even in the very church where they are to be married, but cannot validly or licitly witness their vows in that same church on their wedding day.
- SSPX can offer Masses licitly only immediately following an exchange of wedding vows; otherwise all their Masses are illicit.
- SSPX can be present to hear the wedding vows of SSPX adherents, but cannot witness those vows.
- People may confess validly and licitly to an SSPX priest every week, but may not licitly attend their Masses—except at a wedding.
- SSPX priests act regularly when they hear confessions and offer nuptial Masses, but immediately lapse into irregularity whenever they witness marriage vows or offer a Mass other than a nuptial Mass.

What we have here, from the Pope who never ceases to condemn the imaginary Pharisaical legalism and casuistry of orthodox Catholics, is an example of legalism and casuistry that would make even the Pharisees blush. The power of the priesthood is sliced like salami and SSPX priests are given some of the slices while others are held back.

The sum total of these provisions boils down to a declaration by Pope Bergoglio that henceforth no SSPX marriage may be conducted validly or licitly except within the framework he has just erected. He has not regularized SXPX marriages but rather submitted them to diocesan control.


Meanwhile, Bergoglio labors ceaselessly to insure that public adulterers living in “second marriages” receive Holy Communion, having just praised the “guidelines” of the Maltese bishops pursuant to Amoris Laetitia, which mandate that sacrilegious Communion be allowed to any public adulterer who deems himself to be “at peace with God.”

But there must be no marriages for SSPX adherents who feel at peace with God in having recourse to SSPX clergy unless a designated “regular” priest is physically present to witness the vows. Those who fail to follow the letter of canon law must not be allowed any such peace of mind! Peace of mind is for public adulterers only!

That squeaking sound you hear is Pope Bergoglio turning the faucet of his boundless mercy just enough to allow a drop or two to trickle onto the parched precincts of the SSPX. The canonical Chinese water torture of these faithful Catholics continues. Meanwhile, public adulterers around the world are marching up to receive Holy Communion and thereby give the appearance of validity to “marriages” that are nothing more than “disgraceful and death-bringing concubinage,” to quote Pope Pius XI.

Pray for an end to this diabolical farce of a pontificate.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 8 aprile 2017 20:13




Today marks the first anniversary of the official release of the worse load of horse manure ever to come out of the backside
of a Jesuit horse (or ass, as you prefer). The stink is just as strong as the first day, and it is slowly but surely
expanding worldwide.

I suggest that the 8 April becomes Heresy Extermination Day; a day in which Catholics all over the words join in prayer
to ask the Lord to put an end to all and sundry heresies, particularly those coming from the Vatican.

“Catholics of the world, unite!”






TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 9 aprile 2017 07:22


Last March 23, TIME magazine’s cover featured the question ‘IS TRUTH DEAD?’ as a conscious homage to its cover ‘IS GOD DEAD’ IN March 1966. The ‘truth’ issue was far from a philosophical
question as the “God’ issue was, but a matter-of-fact query in the age of ‘fake news’ and leaders like Pope Francis and Donald Trump who do not always respect truth. Nonetheless, Aldo Maria
Valli uses the new TIME cover as a take-off for his Lenten reflection on truth...


Rediscovering the desire for the infinite
Citing Benedict XVI, the last authority to interpellate us
directly on the question of truth
Translated from

April 6, 2017

«Is Truth Dead?». The question, in red letters on black, fills the entire cover of a recent TIME magazine issue.

After the defeat of Hilary Clinton and the election of Donald Trump, the mass media in the USA doubtless have to reflect on the question. [The problem is: Do they even know what truth is, since by now, everything in the dominant mentality of the West is relative. The only absolutes are what that mentality holds, or chooses to hold and uphold here and now, depending on circumstances, since for that mentality, nothing is absolute for always. ’Truth’, like Western ethics and morality, has become purely situational.]

The most influential organs of communication not only supported Clinton 1000 percent but also depicted Trump as unqualified and even unpresentable [as a presidential candidate, let alone as President of the United States]. Except that the voters chose Trump.

And one of the figures who was responsible for placing the media on the dock [for a determinedly biased campaign reporting and polling that unanimously predicted Clinton would handily defeat Trump] was Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times, which had been in the front rank of Clinton supporters. He was compelled to apologize to Times readers for his newspaper’s ‘poor coverage’ of the 2016 presidential campaign. [A lingering irony of the Times’s heavy betting on Clinton was that by 11 pm of election night, the newspaper had reversed its pre-election odds of 95% chances for Clinton, its ongoing election count now gave her 95% odds of not winning at all. And of course, Sulzberger's apology did not last longer than the day he made it. Almost all of US media have gone on reporting only the negative about Trump - in which the media's distortion of truth and outright falsehoods are far more offensive than Mr. Trump's unfortunate penchant for stultifying hyperbole and deliberate half-truths.]

But beyond the political and social situation in the United States, TIME’s question has a significance that provides a starting point for a more general reflection.

In this our world which is so overloaded with information and already so interconnected instantaneously, can we really say that we know the truth? Or better yet, do we still believe it is possible to know the truth?

It is not difficult to be aware that perhaps the most paradoxical outcome of information overload and the world’s increasing interconnectivity is precisely the widespread impression that the truth escapes us. In the face of every reported event or statement, especially one that strikes strongly from the emotional point of view because of its inherent drama, the first question that now comes to mind is: But did it happen exactly as it is recounted?

And yet, the question does not impel us to seek the truth. Because deep within us, we recognize that the only answer we can give is that there is no ‘truth’, and that we should start by renouncing the effort to seek it.

The question of truth is central in the thinking of every man in every age. But today, at least in Western culture, it is as if we have raised the white flag of surrender. Dominated by subjectivism (for which what is ‘true’ is only that which the individual experiences at a certain moment), subjected to relativism (in which absolute truth is not pertinent to human reason that can only deal with arduous mediation between multiple and diverse ‘truths’), bombarded by information that accumulates chaotically and impelled to store in oru mind what we can of an unprecedented amount of data, then we come to just one disconcerting conclusion: It is not just that there is ‘no truth’ but that we have no use for it, and we must surrender to living in the dark.

Perhaps the last authority who interpellated us directly on the question of truth – confronting us with the tragedy that results from renouncing the quest for truth, was Pope Benedict XVI.

During his entire pontificate, the present Emeritus Pope fought for the truth in everything he said and did. Not just to show us that truth exists – and it has the face of Jesus – but to call on each of us never to give up seeking the truth.


Because, he told us, he who ceases to seek the truth is no longer authentically human – indeed, he is less than human. Because if we maintain that, through human reason, we cannot raise our sights towards the horizon of truth, that we can only be content with mediating among fragments of the truth, it is as if we are amputating ourselves of the most precious and beautiful faculty we possess.

In a couple of books that I wrote on the teachings of Benedict XVI («La verità del papa»,(The Pope’s truth) in 2010, and «Il pontificato interrotto» (The interrupted pontificate) in 2013), I sought to illustrate Joseph Ratzinger’s battle to uphold the right and duty of every individual to interrogate himself generously about truth. In all his written and oral interventions, the question of truth is a continual theme, as we can see very well, for instance in Volume 2 of his trilogy on JESUS OF NAZARETH, “From the entry into Jerusalem to the Resurrection”, which is particularly appropriate reading these days a we approach Palm Sunday and Holy Week.

To the pragmatic question of Pontius Pilate, “What is truth?”, asked with all the skepticism typical of a politician who does not believe in absolutes but only in the practical opportunities and effects of any decision, Benedict XVI echoes, “What then is truth? Can we recognize it? Can it become a criterion in our thinking and desires, in our life as an individual and in that of the community?”

Before such a question, Joseph Ratzinger responds, man today can only rely on empirical sience. And since thought has become weak – or very weak, indeed – and even political ideologies now appear like shadows without substance, what are we left with? And what can science really guarantee us?

Benedict XVI cites the case of the geneticist Francis Collins, who headed the group that deciphered the human genome. Named by Benedict XVI to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Collins is a believer for whom Darwinian evolutionism is inAdequate to explain man in his totality as body and soul. It is true, Collins says ,that we all have something in common with the anthropomorphic apes, but at the origin of everything, there is much more: a God who from the very beginning created not just things but life and the laws of life. He created life because that is how it had to be.

Collins’s is a valuable attempt to hold together physics and metaphysics, empirical science and the mystery of the soul. Nonetheless, Benedict XVI notes, we must admit that even the fact that we can read in the genetic code “the grand mathematics of creation’ does not bring us to the truth. At most, we can say that ‘functional truth’ has become visible, but “the profound truth about ourselves, who we are, where we came from, for what purpose we are in this world, and what is good or bad, cannot unfortunately be read” as we can now read the genetic code.

Rather, he notes, “with our growing knowledge of functional truth, there seems to be at the same time a growing blindness to the truth itself, about what is our true reality and what is our true purpose”.

And therefore? Benedict XVI’s response is clear. If Pilate, the pragmatic and skeptic whom we can see as the image of ourselves, thought that the question of truth was irresolvable (which is why, in political action, he entrusts himself to the logic of power, the only truth from this point of view), the Christian must affirm not only that truth exists but that it is recognizable. The truth of God became recognizable in Jesus Christ because “in him, God entered the world, and thereby raised the criterion of truth into history”.

It is an affirmation which can never be reflected upon sufficiently. As Christians, we insist, quite rightly, on the fact that God, made knowable to us in Jesus, represents a logic opposed to that of the world (weakness rather than strength, sacrifice of oneself instead of domination, goodness instead of cruelty), but this, all told, is a consequence of the moral order with respect to the fundamental novelty represented by the coming of God to the world.

The fundamental novelty is that in Jesus, we are gtiven the key to read everything. Thanks to him, who is God made visible, we are no longer blind. Thanks to him we have an identity card that says not just who we are but why we are.

This is the profound significance of redemption, a concept which in the Church today has perhaps been left too much in a secondary place.


Benedict XVI underscores it effectively: “Let us say that the non-redemption of the world consists, precisely, in the indecipherability of creation, in the non-recognition of truth, a condition that inevitably leads to the dominance of pragmatism, and thereby allows the power of the strong to become the god of this world”.

I repeat: this is a point upon which we do not reflect sufficiently. Sometimes, we believers, intimidated, or at least, made timid and disoriented in the face of the prevalence of subjectivism and relativism, end up by supporting a discourse on moral order (solidarity not selfishness, a sense of brotherhood not hostility, the spirit of forgiveness not vendetta) which is very important but risks being unfounded if it is not centered on the discourse about the truth of God.

Truth which, in Jesus and with Jesus, has been made knowable to man and has become the key to read our history, understood as that of every individual as well as that of the world. Because, devoid of its foundation of truth, the Christian proposition easily falls into nothing more than moralism.


As a father and grandfather, I ask myself: What can I do – not to teach the truth – but at least to transmit the desire to seek the truth? How can I tell those who are younger than me that this quest is well worth the trouble, and that to renounce it at the outset is not a victory for reason but its defeat?

To answer this, I turn again to Benedict XVI, especially the address he delivered on December 14, 2012, to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See. After pointing out that education occupies a priority among the challenges of our time, but that family and school – in the face of the proliferation and wide use of social networks – no longer seem to be the natural terrain for the educational process, that authority is under question everywhere, and that unfortunately, the competence of some educators “is not exempt from cognitive partiality and anthropological deficiency”, Papa Ratzinger concluded, in no half terms, that “nevertheless it is necessary to educate in truth and about truth”.

I believe that every educator should assimilate these words. Rectitude of heart and mind, says Benedict XVI, is certainly most important, but young people have need above all to be aided to raise their sights in order to seek the truth about their own selves, about creation, about life.

“They must be taught that every act by a human being must be responsive and consistent with the desire for the infinite, and that such acts accompany growth and formation in a humanity that is ever more fraternal and free of individualistic and materialistic temptations”.

The desire for the infinite! What a stupendous expression!
And this is what truly makes the difference. This is what the educator, certainly without arrogance but without bending himself to the common mentality, must seek to transmit. Because the desire for the infinite is in every man. It is not about introducing it by force – we must simply inspire it.

I see this well. In the eyes of my children and even in that of my two-year old grandson and my eighteen-year-old granddaughter.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 9 aprile 2017 19:46



Towards the 90th birthday of Benedict XVI
By Luca Caruso
Translated from


VATICAN CITY, April 7, 2017 – A lengthy applause in honor of Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI started off the first events for his coming 90th birthday anniversary, promoted by the Fondazione Vaticana Joseph Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI , and which took place in Rome on Friday afternoon, April 6, at the Aula Magna of the Istituto Patristico Augustinianum.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, currently president of the Foundation, asked Mons. Georg Gaenswein, Benedict’s private secretary, to convey ‘ideally’ the applause for him and the affection of all those who were present on the occasion.

Opening addresses were given by Fr. Giuseppe Caruso and Fr. Giuseppe Costa, director of the Vaticna publishing house LEV.

Fr. Caruso analyzed the spiritual and intellectual bonds between St. Augustine and Joseph Ratzinger, who has called the saint “a good traveling companion in the journey of my life and in my ministry”.

“Can an author build up a publishing house?” asked Fr. Costa, who answered, “Certainly! After 10 years of directing LEV, I can say that it owes to the author Joseph Ratzinger a great part of its growth and the international reputation it has today”.

In his intervention, Fr. Lombardi reviewed the various Foundation activities with the collaboration of various entities and academic institutions around the world, such as annual conventions and international symposia, meetings with students pursuing graduate studies in Rome on the theology of Jospeh Ratzinger, scholarships for deserving theology students and the annual Ratzinger Prizes for theology.

And it is all the Ratzinger Prize winners since 2011 – 13 theologians from 11 different countries – are the protagonists of the comememorative book Cooperatores Veritatis. Scritti in onore del Papa emerito Benedetto XVI per il 90° compleanno [Co-workers for the truth: Writings in honor of Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI for his 90th birthday), edited by Fr. Lombardi and Pierluca Azzaro for LEV.

Three of the Prize winners were present at the event: Fr. Christian Schaller fo Germany, editor of the 16-volume Complete Writings of Joseph Ratzinger (presented originally in German); Lebanese scholar Nabil El-Khoury, who is translating the Opera Omnia in Arabic; amd the Polish theologian Mons, Waldemar Chrstowski.

Fr. Lombardi presented the book, speaking about the essays contined in it, and underscoring the continuing great interest in the person and thought of Benedict XVI, noting that books continue to be written about him, as well as various new anthologies of his writings. These include three new biographies: “Il Papa del coraggio” (Ancora) by Mimmo Muolo, Vaticanista dofAvvenire; “Benedetto XVI. Fede e profezia del primo Papa emerito nella storia” (Edizioni Paoline) by Giovan Battista Brunori, a journalist for TG2, the daily newscast of Italian state TV’s second channel; and “Joseph Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI. Immagini di una vita” (San Paolo), by journalists Maria Giuseppina Buonanno and Luca Caruso.

Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and a member of the Scientific Committee of the Ratzignger Foundation, delivered a tribute entitled “Una sinfonia di amore e verità nella libertà. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedetto XVI testimone grato della fede pasquale” (A symphony of love and truth in freedom: Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI, grateful witness of Paschal faith).

He pointed out that Joseph Ratzigner was born on April 16, 1927, which was Holy Saturday, and was baptized just a few hours after his birth with the newly blessed paschal water.

His life was therefore from the beginning immersed in the Paschal mystery, and thus, we clearly comprehend the two key words that mark the entire life of Joseh Ratzinger as a Christian, theologian, bishop and cardinal, pope and emeritus pope – gratitude and benediction. These represent the most evident and credible manifestations of Christian life in the Paschal mystery…
Pope Benedict XVI, born and baptized on Holy Saturday, just before Easter Sunday, stands before us as a grateful witness of Paschal faith. A faith that must be announced constantly and continually to a world in which one seldom sees little of that today, nor of the difine triumph of life over death and of love over hate.

In recalling his birth and baptism, he expressly underscored that he was baptized on Holy Saturday, not Easter, the day that most profoundlt characterizes the nature of human existence ‘which still awaits Easter, which is not yet in full light but trustful that it is headed there’…

Human existence is fulfilled in our earthly pilgrimage, in the ascent from Holy Saturday to Easter. In fact, in the history of salvation, Easter Sunday and Holy Saturday are always contemporaneous. It is this contemporaneity that is at the heart of the faith and the theological thinking of Pope Benedict which can be found in the triad of love, truth and freedom.


Others present at the event included Cardinals Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals; Tarcisio Bertone, former Vatican Secretary of State; Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council on Culture; emeritus Curial chiefs Manuel Monteiro de Castro, Proper Grech, Jose Saraiva Martins and Josef Tomko; Archbishops Luis Ladaria and Guido Pozzo from the CDF; various diplomats accredited to the Holy See, as well as journalists, theologians and students in Rome.



Earlier, on March 30 and April 1, the Benedict XVI College for Philosophical and Theological Studies at the University of Heiligenkreuz (Holy Cross) in the Cistercian monastery just outside Vienna held two days of celebration in advance of the Emeritus Pope’s 90th birthday.

Leading the festivities was the monastery’s Abbot Maximilian Heim, a Ratzinger Prize winner in 2012, along with Fr. Stephan Otto Horn, coordinator of the Ratzinger Schuelerkreis, and Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.

The cardinal gave a lecture on March 31 which he later delivered at the presentation of the commemorative book Cooperatores veritatis… in Rome. He presided at a thanksgiving Mass on Sunday, April 1, after which the students of the college named for Benedict XVI [and founded after his visit to Heiligenkreuz in September 2007] released 90 white balloons in his honor.

I am somewhat surprised that John Allen and Inez San Martin left it to an editorial assistant to cover and write this story - they obviously did not think the event worth their while, but then we get the still unjaded point of view of one of their assistants, presumably a young one, who is able to write about Benedict XVI without any preconceived notions, and therefore, more honestly than her bosses might have...

New book shows interest in
Pope Benedict XVI is here to stay

by Claire Giangravè
Editorial Assistant

April 7, 2017

ROME - Priests and theologians, bishops and ambassadors, nuns and scholars braved a spring deluge on April 6 to attend the presentation of a new book dedicated to the life’s work of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI at the Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum of Rome.

Interest in the retired pope shows no sign of slowing down as his essential contributions to the Church and theology continue to be relevant today.

Three new biographies on the German pontiff have been published in Italy this week alone. Three collections of essays by the pope emeritus are also in the works. Italy’s public television, RAI, has produced two new documentaries celebrating the life of Benedict XVI.
celebrating his life.

Enthusiasm over the figure of Benedict XVI is not limited to Italy. All over the world symposiums, meetings and events take place focusing on the pope’s legacy.

At the Augustinianum, the Vatican publishing house and the Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI Vatican Foundation unveiled Cooperatores Veritatis (Co-workers of the truth), a collection of essays by all 13 winners of the Ratzinger Prize analyzing the fundamental contributions made by Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI to the life and and Magisterium of the Church.

The Ratzinger Prizes, established in 2010 by Benedict to serve as the premier international prize in theology, is given to those deemed to have done outstanding scholarly research in Sacred Scripture, patristics, and fundamental theology.

“I have witnessed while working on this project […] the vibrant interest that there is for the figure and work of Ratzinger as a theologian and as a pastor. It is not an interest that diminishes with time but rather increases with time,” said Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, president of the Ratzinger foundation, while presenting the book.

Pope Benedict’s popularity holds its own considering his pontificate fell between two of the most popular popes of all time. In April 2008 a Pew Research Center study found that 83 percent of United States citizens had a favorable view of the pope following his visit. A Pew study also found that Benedict was the main newsmaker in 32 percent of all religion stories studied from July 2007 through May 2012.

The pope’s popularity continues to be felt today even as he has retired to live privately within the walls of Vatican City. On the eve of his 90th birthday, Pope Benedict XVI can still pack an auditorium, be it rain or shine.

The book sets out to show Benedict’s relevance today and offers a glimpse into the reason why he has earned a special place in the hearts of Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The Ratzinger prizewinners hail from 11 different countries and though the majority are Catholic, some profess other religions and beliefs.

“Regardless of the little time available - from December to early April - all 13 (Ratzinger prizewinners) responded with enthusiasm and attention and sent their contribution to this volume,” Lombardi said.

The essays are written in their original language to honor Benedict XVI, a well-known polyglot, though a second edition is already in the works providing translations. Each scholar wrote an essay based on their specific fields and specialization, highlighting the influence that the pope emeritus had in their work.

The topics in the book vary but they all have in common the emphasis on Benedict’s unique approach. From the relationship between Jews and Catholics, to the connection between reason and faith (a stronghold of the pope’s theological contribution) to the consequences and relevance of Vatican II, all the essays are steeped in Benedict’s vision for the Catholic Church.

“At an international and global level Pope Benedict’s message will certainly continue to be of interest for many years and its richness will be distributed from editor to editor,” Don Giuseppe Costa, Director of the Vatican Publishing House, said at the event.

The emeritus pope has already left a lasting footprint, both at the theological and at the pastoral level, which is destined to have an impact on Christianity and the world in the years to come. This latest 460-page commemorative volume is one of many efforts to ensure the legacy of Benedict’s teachings.

As proven by the large number of volumes and publications on Pope Benedict XVI that are being distributed right now, publishing houses are tapping into a growing demand. Even when covering the Vatican in the media, it is known that generally articles with Benedict XVI in the title produce good traffic.

During his presentation, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, narrowed in on the reasons Benedict XVI still inspires such devotion to this day.

First of all, he said, there is Benedict’s love-based vision of Christianity. Benedict views Christianity as “the religion of love not only due to its origin but also in its deepest nature,” Koch said. “Christianity derives from the love of God, who loves us and guides us men to love and that we gift back to God and consequentially share amongst each other.”

Secondly, Koch described the “democratic” approach to faith by Pope Benedict, viewing his role as that of an interpreter and catalyst for the faith of the ‘little man.’ The mixture of these two ingredients is the secret to the infectious popularity still held today by the retired pope.

As the hundreds of participants at the book presentation made their way out into the pouring rain and flashing lightning above St. Peter’s square, one thing was clear: The teachings by Pope Benedict XVI are here to stay.



Benedict XVI: ‘Images of a life’
Translated from

April 5, 2017

On the occasion of Benedict XVI’s 90th birthday, Edizioni San Paolo in Italy released a book today entitled Benedetto XVI – Immagini di una vita, written by journalists Maria Giuseppina Buonanno and Luca Caruso.



Starting from the historic announcement of Benedict’s renunciation of the Papacy on February 11, 2013, the authors retrace backwards the principal stages of the human and spiritual biography of this ‘humble servant in the vineyard of the Lord’, illustrated by numerous photographs, some of them previously unpublished: From his infancy in Germany in the 1930s, the tragedy of Nazism and the Second World War at the end of which he was an American POW, his priestly vocation, his brilliant academic career, his participation in the Second Vatican Council, his appointment as Archbishop of Munich-Freising and his elevation to the cardinalate, his almost quarter-century as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the almost eight years of a Pontificate marked by light and shadows.

“Even if the circumstances and places changed and his garments changes from black to red to white, there is no doubt whatsoever that he who is with us in the pages of this book is always the same person and that the interior thread running through his life shows a unity of orientation and a continuity of extraordinary inspiration,” writes Fr. Federico Lombardi, president of the Fondazione Vaticana Joseph Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI in his Preface to the book.

The publisher’s blurb for the book reads:

Two journalists – Luca Caruso, head of the press bureau for the Fondazione Vaticana Joseph Ratzinger-Benedetto XVI, and Maria Giuseppina Buonano, who writes about Church affairs for the weekly magazine Oggi (Today) – narrate and illustrate the rich and complex personal, theological and pastoral life of Benedict XVI for those who know little about the emeritus Pope.

In nine chapters and 90 photos, the book seeks to illuminate anew the figure and person of the Emeritus Pope, in capturing images from the important stages of his life, from his childhood and youth, his education, his Episcopal and Vatican offices, his election as pope, his pontificate, his renunciation and his life in retirement.

The book was realized in cooperation with the Fondazione Vaticana JR-BXVI, with a preface by Fr. Federico Lombardi, and with a 90th birthday greeting from the pope’s older brother, Mons. Georg Ratzinger.




Herewith a translation of the letter:

Holy Father!
Dear Brother!


I greet you from the heart on your 90th birthday! For so many years we have gone through life together. I carry in my heart the bond that I have always felt.

Your days continue to be filled with tireless work in your service as priest, bishop and emeritus Pope. Many people are thankful for this and include you in their prayers. Your words of instruction and confirmation are received by many with great interest and welcome.

I wish you health and strength in the coming years, and above all, the rich blessing of God, in whose service you have placed yourself all your life.

Your brother Georg
Regensburg
January 18, 2017

TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 10 aprile 2017 01:16




According to Wikipedia, Church records since 1295 show that only two popes have lived beyond age 87 – Leo XIII, elected at age 67 in 1878, who died at age 93
in 1903; and Clement XII, elected at age 78 in 1730 , who died 60 days short of his 88th birthday in 1750. Benedict XVI would have been the first pope to reach
age 90 after Leo XIII... My thanks to Beatrice and her site for leading me to this item.


Mons. Gaenswein says Benedict XVI
will have a small birthday celebration
with about 50 guests on Easter Monday

by Barbara Just
Translated from
Katholisches.de
April 3, 2017

Benedict XVI turns 90 on Easter Sunday. His private secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein has revealed HOW the German emeritus pope will celebrate it.

In 2012 when he turned 85, he was still Pope, which prompted major festive initiatives from his Bavarian countrymen. His home diocese of Munich-Freising had a very special gift for him that summer. In August, A special train with at least a thousand costumed folk groups, Alpine guards, musicians and pilgrims left Bavaria to greet ‘their pope’ at his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, and the Alban hills resounded with their celebratory yodeling and the obligatory gun salute from the Alpine guards.

Five years later, the Bavarians have not forgotten their Pope, now emeritus. But their greeting in Rome will be on a far smaller scale. Bavarian provincial leader Karl Steininger will lead a small delegation of 30 Alpine Guards and musicians to Rome in order to greet Benedict XVI on Easter Monday. Sources have told this newspaper that Bavarian minister President Horst Seehofer and his wife Karin will also be there to greet the pope.

Benedict’s closest coworker, Mons. Georg Gänswein, told Catholic Radio Horeb that there will be a ‘small celebration’ on Easter Monday with about 50 invited guests from Bavaria and Rome. The Mittelbayerischer Zeitung says that the Mayor of Pentling, where Jospeh Ratzinger’s private residence was located [now a museum-conference center for the Institut Papst Benedikt XVI based in Regensburg], will be traveling to Rome, but not Mobns. Rudolf Voderholzer, Bishop of Regensburg.

Meanwhile, the dioceses of Bavaria have called on all the pastors and priests to offer prayers for Benedict XVI on Easter Sunday.

If his health permits, the emeritus pope’s brother, Mons. Georg Ratzigner, is expected to come to Rome for the occasion. Of course, he has always said that in the Ratzinger family, birthdays were not as important as the name days which were celebrated by preference. "It reminds us of our baptism and of the saint for whom we are named and who is supposed to inspire our lives”, he once told KNA.

The Katholischen Akademie of Bavaria will mark the occasion with a two-day conference in Munich on the Christian status of Europe today. The event is sponsored by the Institut Papst Benedikt XVI, the Stiftung Joseph Ratzinger-Benedikt XVI (the foundation that is the formal structure for the Ratzinger Schuelerkreis) and the Fondazione Vaticana Joseph Ratzigner-Benedetto XVI.

The topic is, of course, something that was always dear to the emeritus pope. His Schuelerkreis also discussed it at their last August seminar.

Resource persons will include the German Vice President Johannes Singhammer and former German constitutional judge Udo di Fabio; Gottfried Locher, president of the Association of Evangelical Churches in Europe; and Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich-Freising. Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, was also supposed to speak, but he had to withdraw because the dates fall on Pope Francis’s visit to Egypt.

But Koch will be present in Passau – the diocese in which Joseph Ratzinger was born – for a May 26-27 celebration in honor of Benedict XVI. He will speak about Joseph Ratzinger as “Co-worker for the truth and witness to God’s love”. Theologian Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz, a longtime Ratzinger friend, will speak about the breadth of Ratzingerian thought from his early exposure to St. Augustine to the present. Peter Seewald, with whom Benedict XVI shared his ‘Last Conversations’, published last year, will also be at the Passau event.

The Institut Papst Benedikt XVI has planned a small publishing surprise. On Monday, April 10, it will publish the oldest hitherto unpublished text by Joseph Ratzinger – his 1947 translation to German of Thomas Aquinas’s ‘Quaestio de caritate’ [which the 20-year-old seminarian did at the suggestion of his then mentor, Fr. Alfred Laepple].

When Mons. Gaenswein speaks these days, he understandably has to toe the official Vatican line because he is a Curial official, beholden to the pope (even if this pope did not name him to his position, he did keep him there where Benedict XVI had named him). He allowed himself great latitude in articulating his two popes/dual papacy hypothesis last year, but that's not what he is saying now. As to the relationship between the emeritus pope and his successor, what would have been Andreas Englisch's interest in publicly postulating that all is not as it seems???



GG goes back on his 'two popes' hypothesis,
says relations between B16 and his successor are just fine,
and that talk about a gay lobby was always exaggerated

by ANDREA TORNIELLI
From the English service of
VATICAN INSIDER
April 6, 2017

Benedict XVI’s ninetieth birthday is approaching and Monsignor Georg Gänswein, Prefect of the Papal Household and his private secretary, denies all the rumors and recent new talk about alleged pressure that led Joseph Ratzinger to resign.

Gänswein was interviewed on Matrix, an Italian late night TV show, which aired on Wednesday, April 5, 2017.

The Secretary of the Pope Emeritus responded to questions from Vatican journalist, Fabio Marchese, on the rumors about alleged pressure from the US government under President Barack Obama to push for Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation. Rumors and plots recently relaunched in some articles and interviews, from which Pope Ratzinger ended up emerging as a weak pushover.

“It’s not true, it is invented, it is a groundless statement", Don Georg said. "His renunciation was a free decision, well thought out, as well as prayed over. The things I have read recently are invented and not true. Pope Benedict is not a person who gives into pressure. Quite the contrary. When there were challenges, when both the doctrine and the people of God had to be defended, he was the one who behaved in an exemplary way: he did not flee in front of the wolves, but he resisted, and this would never have been a reason to leave the pontificate and renounce.”

In the interview, Gänswein also talks about the relationship between Francis and his predecessor: “Relations are very cordial, very good, they visit and call each other, they talk. It is clear: Pope Francis is the successor of Peter. Pope Benedict was the Pope, he renounced and now he has retired to pray. To pray means to help his successor and the Church, because the Church is not governed only by words and decisions, but also with prayer and suffering. And that is what he is doing now. There is no misunderstanding. If there are different interpretations, sometimes even a bit mischievous, this... this is life, it is the world and it is the Church. I see no confusion. I see sometimes some nostalgia and some misunderstanding; however, I do not perceive any confusion about the roles, about who is Pope.“ [As there ought never to be, or to have been!]

The secretary of Benedict XVI also answered a question about the “gay lobby” in the Vatican. “I don’t think the gay lobby is a power lobby - he said – there was an attempt to put things right and to give the necessary response.” But “the importance of this group has been exaggerated; an answer and a solution were given at the time. Speaking of power lobby is not only exaggerated, but a hundred times exaggerated."

Andrea Tornielli has, of course, a vested interest in propagating Mons. Gaenswein's affirmations of the official line.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 10 aprile 2017 03:42
April 9, 2017 headlines

Canon212.com


PewSitter

TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 10 aprile 2017 19:59


Antonio Socci has been prompted by an unwarranted attack on him for a recent critique of Bergoglio to make a quick summary of what
makes this pope so indisputably anti-Catholic...


To protest a pope who is destroying the Catholic Church
and does not defend persecuted Christians:

Neither Church tax nor applause for a pope who says Jesus ‘became the devil’ –
Just prayers for his conversion and that the Church may resist during its current ordeal

Translated from

April 9, 2017

Yesterday Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, attacked me for my last article in Libero [about this pope saying Jesus ‘became the devil’ for us]. Since it is the nth time I have received similar attacks from Avvenire, from assorted ecclesiastics and their circle – I feel authorized, at least for my part, to reject paying my church tax this year.

Indeed, no one can ask anybody to help finance any institution that has been targeting its own members for years. Especially in dishonest ways. Avvenire accuses me of having called certain statements of Bergoglio blasphemous - they claim that I do not present “any valid argument” to support my statements. As if I habitually launch irresponsible accusations against this pope for no reason at all.

The fact is that Avvenire had been very careful not to report the textual statements of the pope upon which my recent criticism was based: when he said, as reported by both Vatican Radio and L’Osservatore Romano in direct quotes, that Jesus “became sin, became the devil, a serpent, for us”.

Words unheard of before – least of all from a pope – but which Avvenire omitted in its report of the homily from which it was drawn, yet the newspaper now accuses me of attacking the pope “without any valid argument”. But that this particular statement by Bergoglio was blasphemous or scandalous is demonstrated by the very fact that Avvenire censored it from its own news report and has therefore not even tried to justify it. [If Avvenire did not report it, it means that for them, the statement was never said – regardless of the reports from the official Vatican sources – so what is there to justify?]

But in fact, the statement in question was not a mere gaffe – they are inadmissible words from a pope (we have never before had a blasphemous pope, and especially, not pronouncing a blasphemy at Mass).

Yet that statement precisely expresses a conviction of Bergoglio that is explained by that entire homily, in which he explains a Biblical passage about Moses not according to Christian exegesis [which, as in the Gospel of John, foretold the Messiah] but – perhaps he may not even realize it – by a Gnostic exegesis. It is a gnosis that ends up melding together Christ and Lucifer as ‘one’ under the sign of the serpent, a gnosis that in the anti-Christian culture of the past two centuries has been quite widespread, as illustrated by a 2003 article in 30 GIORNI by the philosopher Massimo Borghese entitled “The pact with the Serpent”.

But other previous whoppers by Bergoglio point in the same direction.

For example, last March 17, according to a news report, he said: “Inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors, but on the outside they give the picture of unity.” ][I checked: The source is ultrahyperBergoglian incensebearer nonpareil Austin Ivereigh, in a CRUX article about an Argentine female theologian Emilce Cuda entitled “The woman who knows how to read Pope Francis”
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/03/25/woman-knows-read-pope-francis/
A woman who claims the pope made the statement ‘jokingly’ to a delegation of theologians in the ff context:

She says Francis urged them to do theological ethics with a “hermeneutic of unity in difference”… a theme that recurs in the pope’s intellectual passions: creating processes in which the Holy Spirit forges new synthesis out of disparities and disagreements.

In the meeting, the pope jokingly likened this to the way the Holy Trinity functions. “Inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors,” Cuda says Francis told them, “but on the outside they give the picture of unity.”

Cuda says his comparison made her think of something more earthy attributed to Argentina’s famous leader Juan Domingo Perón. “In Peronism, when they hear cats shrieking, people outside think they’re fighting; in fact, they’re reproducing.”

Jokingly or not – and in the context it was said, not just a joke - Bergoglio seems to look at God in the ‘image and likeness’ of fallen man, with all our faults and qualities! That is certainly carrying the idea of an anthropomorphic God too far. It is, of course, a measure of Ivereigh’s inbred Bergoglianism that he does not even find the statement questionable and unacceptable for a pope to make.]

A Bergoglian line that the French site Reinformation.tv has called “a most serious blasphemy that contradicts many dogmas[Not ‘many dogmas’ but the very nature and character of God himself, the Supreme Being and Creator!] and could have an analogous Gnostic basis.

It is impossible to keep quiet when one hears or reads about a pope saying things like this. Yet these outrageous statements are not just said out of ignorance – which in itself is inadmissible in a pope. [Popes are not expected to know everything, but when they say something, their words ought to be correct and authoritative - that is the least we can expect. But if a pope happens to be as supremely hubristic as Bergoglio, he will end up saying the unacceptable whoppers that he does!]

The problem is more serious: The real fear that the summit of the Church is now occupied by a ‘party’ determined to demolish Catholicism itself as we have known it for 200-plus years. [Which is why I insist that the most accurate generic all-embracing adjective to use for this pope is ‘anti-Catholic’!]

Day after day, this pope has been, at the very least, chipping away at the structure of the cathedral of faith [occasionally, blasting holes in it!] – with each blow being part of his strategy of desacralization. [A weak synonym for what it really is: secularization of the Church to homogenize it with ‘the world’!]

Not only has he said that Jesus “became the devil”; that the Holy Trinity is a band of quarrelsome Persons who simply present a façade of agreement; that “there is no Catholic God”; that Jesus, in the episode with the adulterous woman, ‘played somewhat the fool’, that he ‘failed to uphold morality’, and that he was not ‘clean’. He has also said that Mary, at the foot of the Cross, probably lost her faith and railed against God trhat “You told me he [her Son] would reign forever! Liar! I have been deceived”. [But this is a now-familiar Bergoglio device of attributing to the divine what he himself as a human might be thinking! And almost everyone, including the most orthodox Catholic commentators, have tended to let it pass!]

A pope who has split the Church over the sacraments of the Eucharist and matrimony, sowing total confusion over teachings and practices about which the Church cannot be divided. A pope whp has delegitimized ‘mission’ by using the pejorative term ‘proselytism’ for evangelization.

A pope who does not kneel before the Blessed Sacrament, who celebrates Communist tyrants like the Castro brothers and the Beijing despots) while snobbing their victims to the point of inciting rebellion by the Cuban dissidents and even the aged and wise Cardinal Zen of HongKong.

A pope who rejoices in receiving from his comrade President Evo Mortales of Bolivia a chuspa (pouch) with coca leaves and the sculpture of Christ crucified on the ‘hammer and sickle’. A pope who says that Communists are the ones who think like Christians (i.e., Christians themselves do not think like Christians].

A pope who seems he could not care less about Christians persecuted elsewhere but is obsessed with promoting mass migration of mostly Muslims into Europe. A pope who has replaced the priority of announcing Christ with his exaltation of the migrant tides as an ‘invasion that is healthy for Europe’, making this as a dogma of his faith. Instead of exhorting the world to “open your doors to Christ”, he demands to “open your doors to all immigrants”.

A pope who has abandoned the Church’s non-negotiable principles, even as the core Catholic principles on life, the family and sexuality are being assaulted as never before, replacing them with Obamian eco-catastrophism. Who allowed St. Peter’s Basilica to be used for an animalistic sound-and-light show promoting UN goals on climate change, and who has made ‘global warming’ into one of his core dogmas.

A pope who refuses to condemn Islamic terrorism as such, who does not fail to unload daily criticisms and denunciations of Catholics who stand by Catholicism, even as he exalts all other religions especially Islam which he insists on calling Islam ‘a religion of peace’, prompting a vehement protest from Islamist scholar Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, a Lebanese Jesuit who advised Benedict XVI about Islam.

A pope who has repeatedly ignored the massive ‘Family Day’ rallies organized by Italian Catholics but praises persons like arch-abortionist Emma Bonino and former Italian President Giorgio Napolitano, a communist, as ‘great Italians’.

A pope who has named as president of the Pontifical Acdemy for Life (founded by John Paul II) and chancellor of the Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family a man like Mons. Vincenzo Paglia, who in his recent eulogy for the late Radical Party leader Marco Pannella, called him “a man of great spirituality… (of whom) our world needs more men who could speak as he did, and I hope that the spirit of Marco will help us to live in the direction he indicated” [Never mind that all his life, Pannella championed abortion on demand, divorce, euthanasia, same-sex ‘marriage’ and other anti-Catholic practices].

A pope who recently confirmed as Superior-General of the Jesuits a man like Venezuelan political activist Fr. Sosa Abascal, who said that “we really do not know what Jesus really said because there were no tape recorders in his time”, therefore so much for ‘revering’ the Word of God and Sacred Scriptures as Revelation, because everything contained therein must be reinterpreted and contextualized as needed.

For Sosa Abascal, the goal of faith is Bergoglio himself (“I identify myself with anything Pope Francis says”) because if we are not to give credence to what the Gospels say about Jesus, then the Bible itself no longer has any authority.

Bergoglio penalizes and marginalizes cardinals, bishops and religious who are solid in their Catholic faith – the deposit of faith over 2000 years – while he exalts those who are ‘married’ to the world and its ideologies.

For all these reasons – and many others – I have no intention of further contributing to the demolition of the Church by agreeing to pay my share of the annual revenue for the Italian Church [amounting to 8 euro out of every 1000 euro in annual Italian government revenue]. I would rather spend out of pocket directly, to support missionaries, works of charity and religious orders who are truly Catholic.

Moreover, the ‘church of Bergoglio’ is already aswim in funds. But since Bergoglio and his followers continue to pay lip service to ‘wanting a poor Church”, I am only too happy to accommodate them. If they wish to be poor, why continue giving them euros?

The moment we have a pope once again who reveres ‘the Catholic God’ and who defends the Christian people and their faith, then I will sign once again on my annual income tax return that I wish to contribute to the Catholic Church.

For now, we are engulfed in shadows. To paraphrase Chesterton: We do not need a Church that sinks with the world, but a Church that saves the world.

Steve Skojec has done more work on what this pope has said about Jesus becoming sin and worse 'becoming the devil' for us before his most recent sally into this startling and most unseemly papal exegesis, but also on what St. Paul, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas have said about the Old Testament prefiguration of the Messiah...

Pope Francis: Christ “made himself the devil”
by Steve Skojec

April 10, 2017

As a result of H. Reed Armstrong’s recent article on the influence of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac on the thinking of the contemporary Church, I found myself perusing an analysis of von Balthasar’s “Delirious Hope that All be Saved” by Dr. Christopher Malloy, professor of theology at the University of Dallas.

In the midst of that essay, one particular paragraph stood out, because it jogged my memory about something almost entirely unrelated:

And as for the related claim that Jesus took on our sins themselves – not simply the punishment due to them – here we have Balthasar coming very close to supporting, if not outright supporting, the notion of penal substitution. Perhaps Balthasar avoids claiming the Christ truly became guilty, thus freeing himself from Luther’s blasphemy on this matter.

But his assertion that Christ takes on damnation itself cannot square with the truth of hell. Hell is a place of sinful alienation, a place of aversion from the divine good. But Christ cannot become averse to the divine good. (On this topic, see Thomas Joseph White, “Jesus’ Cry on the Cross and His Beatific Vision” Nova et Vetera 5 (2007): 573-581.)

The Catholic view regarding Christ’s act is that it was atonement, a vicarious act of satisfaction. By his loving obedience, Christ offered the Father a satisfaction sufficient for the forgiveness of infinitely many persons. Thus, he died for all. However, one must receive the fruit of this redemption by being justified in order to benefit from it.


I went immediately and began searching the Internet to find Francis’s own words on this topic, which I recalled reading near the beginning of his papacy. I found the first instance here, at Vatican Radio, from June, 2013:

What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it’s not it … True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us.

When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘This is your sin, and I will sin again’. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us.

[See what I mean? It would take a fulltime job just to monitor everything this pope is reported to have said; otherwise any 'compilation' of his outrages will always come short. I do not recall ever having seen this particular quote before!]

Further searching turned up another instance at the invaluable website, The Denzinger-Bergoglio (TDB), taken from the pope’s morning meditation on March 15, 2016:

And this is the Mystery of Christ. Paul, when speaking about this mystery, said the Jesus [sic] emptied himself, humiliated himself and destroyed himself in order to save us. And (what’s) even stronger, ‘he became sin’. Using this symbol, he became a serpent. This is the prophetic message of today’s reading.

The Son of Man, who like a serpent, ‘became sin,’ is raised up to save us. […] the story of our redemption, this is the story of God’s love. If we want to know God’s love, let us look at the Cross, a man tortured, a God emptied of his divinity, dirtied [stained] by sin. [When was Jesus ever 'emptied of his divinity, diritied by sin'???] But at the same time, he concluded, a God who through his self-annihilation, defeats forever the true name of evil, that Revelation calls ‘the ancient serpent’.

Sin is the work of Satan and Jesus defeats Satan by ‘becoming sin’ and from there he lifts up all of us. The Cross is not an ornament or a work of art with many precious stones as we see around us. The Cross is the Mystery of God’s annihilation for love. And the serpent that makes a prophecy in the desert is salvation, it is raised up and whoever looks at it is healed. And this is not done with a magic wand by a God who does these things: No! This is done through the suffering of the Son of Man, through the suffering of Jesus Christ.


This strange imagery was therefore already fresh in my mind when it came to my attention that the pope had revisited this theme yet again in his morning meditation on Tuesday, April 4, 2017. The following excerpts are taken from a larger translation by Andrew Guernsey of a text as published in L’Osservatore Romano:

The Pope stated, referring to the passage from the Book of Numbers (21:4-9), “Jesus reminds us of what happened in the desert and which we heard in the first reading.” It is the moment when “the weary people, the people who cannot endure the path, turns away from the Lord, speaks evil of Moses and of the Lord, and encounters those serpents which bite and cause the death.” Then “the Lord says to Moses to make a bronze serpent and raise it, and the person who suffers a wound of a serpent, and that looks at the one of bronze, will be healed.”

“The serpent,” the Pope continued, “is the symbol of wickedness, is the symbol of the devil: it was the most cunning of the animals in earthly paradise.” Because “the serpent is the one that is able to seduce with lies”, he is “the father of lies: this is the mystery.” But then “we have to look at the devil to save us? The serpent is the father of sin, the one that made humanity sin.” In reality, “Jesus says, ‘When I am lifted up, everyone will come to me.’ Obviously this is the mystery of the cross.”

“The bronze serpent healed,” said Francis, “but the bronze serpent was a sign of two things: the sin done by the serpent, the seduction of the serpent, the cunning of the serpent; and it was also the sign of the cross of Christ, it was a prophecy.” And “this is why the Lord tells them: ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am.’

“So we can say,” the Pope affirmed, that “Jesus ‘made himself the serpent,’ Jesus ‘made himself sin,’ and he took upon himself all the filth of humanity, all the filth of sin. And he ‘made himself sin’, he made himself to rise up so that all the people might look at him, the people wounded by sin, us. This is the mystery of the cross and Paul says it: ‘He made himself sin’ and he took the appearance of the father of sin, the cunning serpent.”

“Those who did not look at the bronze serpent after being wounded by a snake in the desert,” the Pontiff explained, “died in sin, the sin of murmuring against God and Moses.” In the same way, “those who do not recognize the strength of God, who made himself sin to heal us, in that man who is lifted up, like the serpent, will die in their sin.”

Because “salvation comes only from the cross, still from this cross on which God made himself flesh: there is no salvation in ideas, there is no salvation in good will, in the desire to be good.” In reality, the Pope insisted, “the only salvation is in Christ crucified, because only he, as the bronze serpent signified, was able to take all the venom of sin and he healed us there.”

“But what is the cross for us?” is the question posed by Francis. “Yes, it is the sign of Christians, it is the symbol of Christians, and we make the sign of the cross, but we do not always do it well, sometimes we do it so so … because we do not have this faith in the cross,” emphasized the Pope.

The cross, then, he stated, “for some people is a badge of belonging: ‘Yes, I carry the cross to show that I am a Christian.’ ” And “It’s fine,” but “not just as a badge, as if it were a team, the badge of a team’; but [rather], said Francis, “as the memory of the man who made himself sin, who made himself the devil, the serpent, for us; he debased himself up to the point of totally annihilating himself.”


Christ made himself the devil?

The odd thing here is how close Francis actually is to the traditional teaching on the matter, but with a gut-wrenching twist. In the above-cited post at TDB, the Church’s understanding of this mystery is perhaps best explained in these excerpts from St. Thomas Aquinas…

– ‘He made him to be sin’, that is, ‘the victim of sacrifice for sin’
– ‘He made him to be sin’: that is, ‘he made him assume mortal and suffering flesh’
– ‘He made him to be sin’: that is, ‘made him regarded a sinner’
...
– In Christ there was no proneness towards evil, much less could there be sin


And St. Augustine:

What are the biting serpents? Sins, from the mortality of the flesh. What is the serpent lifted up? The Lord’s death on the cross. For as death came by the serpent, it was figured by the image of a serpent. The serpent’s bite was deadly, the Lord’s death is life-giving. A serpent is gazed on that the serpent may have no power. What is this? A death is gazed on, that death may have no power...

Meanwhile brethren, that we may be healed from sin, let us now gaze on Christ crucified; for ‘as Moses,’ says He, ‘lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believes in Him may not perish, but have everlasting life.’

Just as they who looked on that serpent perished not by the serpent’s bites, so they who look in faith on Christ’s death are healed from the bites of sins. But those were healed from death to temporal life; while here He says, ‘that they may have everlasting life.’

Now there is this difference between the figurative image and the real thing: the figure procured temporal life; the reality, of which that was the figure, procures eternal life. (Saint Augustine of Hippo. Tractates on the Gospel of Saint John, XII, 11)
...

This Word of God made flesh and dwelt amongst us. […] This was the way in which, though immortal, he was able to die; the way in which he chose to give life to mortal men: he would first share with us, and then enable us to share with him. Of ourselves we had no power to live, nor did he of himself have the power to die.

In other words, he performed the most wonderful exchange with us. Through us, he died; through him, we shall live. The death of the Lord our God should not be a cause of shame for us; rather, it should be our greatest hope, our greatest glory. In taking upon himself the death that he found in us, he has most faithfully promised to give us life in him, such as we cannot have of ourselves. [This is, in effect, what every Catholic learns about the meaning of Christ's unique sacrifice so that mankind might be redeemed - not that he 'became sin' but that he took on all the sins of mankind - past, present and to come - in reparation for Original Sin, so that once more, the gates of Paradise might be open for those who, by the grace of God and good works, undertake to avail of the gift of redemption.]

He loved us so much that, sinless himself, he suffered for us sinners the punishment we deserved for our sins. How then can he fail to give us the reward we deserve for our righteousness, for he is the source of righteousness? How can he, whose promises are true, fail to reward the saints when he bore the punishment of sinners, though without sin himself?

Brethren, let us then fearlessly acknowledge, and even openly proclaim, that Christ was crucified for us; let us confess it, not in fear but in joy, not in shame but in glory. (Saint Augustine of Hippo. Sermon Guelf 3 from the Office of Readings, Monday of Holy Week)


The shift is subtle, but perceptible. Christ did not literally become sin, or a sinner. Christ bore the punishment for our sins, taking on mortal flesh so that he could redeem us from sin. Christ did not literally become the devil, or even take on the form of the serpent. In Numbers 21:5-9, we see the origin of this imagery:

And speaking against God and Moses, they said: Why didst thou bring us out of Egypt, to die in the wilderness? There is no bread, nor have we any waters: our soul now loatheth this very light food. Wherefore the Lord sent among the people fiery serpents, which bit them and killed many of them.

Upon which they came to Moses, and said: We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and thee: pray that he may take away these serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.


Christ, like the bronze serpent of Moses, took the form of that which brought death to his people — the form of Adam. He was then raised up in the form of that which caused the evil, like the bronze serpent was raised up, to heal us of our sins. TDB cites Theophylus of Antioch as quoted by St. Thomas on this theme:

See then the aptness of the figure. The figure of the serpent has the appearance of the beast, but not its poison: in the same way Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, being free from sin. By Christ’s being lifted up, understand His being suspended on high, by which suspension He sanctified the air, even as He had sanctified the earth by walking upon it.

Herein too is typified the glory of Christ: for the height of the cross was made His glory for in that He submitted to be judged, He judged the prince of this world; for Adam died justly, because he sinned; our Lord unjustly, because He did no sin. So He overcame him, who delivered Him over to death, and thus delivered Adam from death.

And in this the devil found himself vanquished, that he could not upon the cross torment our Lord into hating His murderers: but only made Him love and pray for them the more. In this way the cross of Christ was made His lifting up, and glory. (Theophylus of Antioch quoted by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Catena Aurea on Jn 3:14–15)

TERESA BENEDETTA
00martedì 11 aprile 2017 18:55
April 12, 2017 headlines

Canon212.com


PewSitter


Cardinal Burke speaks out
on recent developments -
while awaiting a papal response to
his request for an audience
(not to mention a reply to the DUBIA!)

by Lisa Bourne




ROME, Italy, April 11, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Raymond Burke has revealed in a new interview that he requested an audience with Pope Francis and has yet to receive a response.

Cardinal Burke also reconfirmed that Pope Francis effectively removed him from having any governance of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta while remaining its Patron.

The American cardinal known for his Catholic orthodoxy addressed several other topics during the wide-ranging interview with InfoVaticana’s Gabriel Ariza.

He said comments by the new head of the Jesuit order that cast doubt on the validity of Christ’s words on marriage must be corrected. Cardinal Burke went on to say that a recent Vatican invitation and public welcome for a male homosexual head of state with his gay lover should not have occurred.

Other than having greeted Pope Francis at a meeting of the College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia for Christmas, Cardinal Burke said he has not spoken with the pope since meeting with him in November. Ariza clarified with the cardinal that he has asked the pope for an audience.

“But I have not spoken to him, and he has not granted me an audience,” said Cardinal Burke. “So I don’t know what he is thinking.”

Some view the pope’s actions against Cardinal Burke in the Knights of Malta controversy as retribution for the DUBIA submitted to Francis regarding his Amoris Laetitia document.

Cardinal Burke reaffirmed for Ariza how it was necessary to make the DUBIA public because of the rampant confusion in the Church about fundamental questions with regard to intrinsic moral evil, the right disposition to receive Holy Communion, and the indissolubility of marriage.

Cardinal Burke mentioned that there are additional cardinals who support the dubia beyond the four cardinals who signed it.

It is not clear whether there will be a formal public correction to Pope Francis, he said. Normally, before taking that step, the cardinals who brought the dubia would approach the pope again to tell him personally that the matter is so grave that they as Church leaders must correct it.

“And I trust that the Holy Father will respond at that moment,” continued Cardinal Burke.

The matter must be approached with “great respect and delicacy,” he told Ariza. “And I do not want to suggest a date that would in any way affect negatively the handling of the matter or would show disrespect to anyone involved.”

Asked by Ariza about the nature of his role with the Knights of Malta after Pope Francis’s February appointment of Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu as special Vatican delegate to the Knights, Cardinal Burke responded, “I have no role right now. I have a title, but I have no function.”

The journalist had first asked the cardinal whether the crisis in the Order of Malta was over. Cardinal Burke told him it was a difficult question to answer.

“For the moment, I am completely removed from any involvement with the Order of Malta,” he said. “While I retain the title of the Cardinal Patron, the Pope has made clear that the only person who can treat questions of the Order of Malta in the name of the Holy Father is Archbishop Becciu. So I don’t know.”

The world’s oldest chivalric order has been the center of turmoil for months involving the Order’s identity and sovereignty. The controversy revolved around Grand Chancellor Albrecht von Boeselager’s involvement in condom distribution via the Order’s charitable work and subsequent violation of his promise of obedience in refusing to resign when asked.

Questions have also been raised over some Knights’ involvement in Freemasonry, and a potential conflict of interest involving members of a Vatican commission appointed to investigate the Order and a very large bequest made to the Knights.

Cardinal Burke confirmed in the interview that Pope Francis had earlier directed him to expel any Freemasons within the Knights of Malta.

However, in an unprecedented and controversial move, Pope Francis took over the sovereign Order, asked its Grand Master to resign, reinstated von Boeselager and created the special delegate appointment, effectively erasing Cardinal Burke’s role as Patron.

Cardinal Burke told Ariza in regard to the disorder within the Knights of Malta that specifics of the bequest must be clarified.

“Because to any person with common sense there is something very strange going on,” he stated. “Regarding this large bequest, a part of which at least was left to the Order of Malta, there is no clear knowledge about who the donor is, what is the exact nature of the bequest, how it is being administered, and that is not right. Those things have to be clear.”

Cardinal Burke went on to say it was very strange that three people directly involved in the bequest given to the Order should be on the so-called “group” investigating the Grand Chancellor’s dismissal and ensuing recommendation that he be reinstated.

And “it does seem strange,” Cardinal Burke suggested, that shortly thereafter von Boeselager’s brother was named to the Commission of Control for the Vatican Bank.


“You had your hands tied,” Ariza queried Cardinal Burke, to which the cardinal replied, “Yes. I respect the order of the Holy Father, and I have nothing to do at the Order right now.”

The cardinal told InfoVaticana he did not know whether his removal as Cardinal Patron was an intended part of the crisis within the Knights of Malta. “Certainly, one thing is clear, that the reinstatement of the Grand Chancellor was a principal objective,” he said.

Cardinal Burke also addressed recent comments by new Jesuit Superior General Father Arturo Sosa Abascal that Jesus’s words against divorce were “relative” and subject to “interpretation.”

“This is completely wrong,” Cardinal Burke stated. “In fact, I find it incredible that he could make these kind of statements. They also need to be corrected.”

The head of the Jesuits contended that Christ’s words “must be contextualized ” because “no one had a recorder to take down his words.” Cardinal Burke termed this as “unreasonable.”

“To think that words in the Gospels, which are words that, after centuries of studies, have been understood to be the direct words of Our Lord, are now not the words of Our Lord because they were not tape recorded,” he said. “I can’t understand it.”

“It is a serious mistake that needs to be corrected,” the cardinal continued, and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), “the Pope’s organ for safeguarding the truth of the faith and morals,” can make the correction.

Cardinal Burke also criticized the recent Vatican welcome for Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel with his homosexual male partner for the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome.

Pictures were published in the media of the homosexual couple being welcomed. Bettel tweeted afterward, “It was a great pleasure and honour for me and Gauthier to be welcomed by the leader of the Catholic church.”

“I think something has to be done to address the public image that is given by such acts,” Cardinal Burke said. “In the past, the Holy See simply, in a very discreet and respectful way, refused to permit such a thing.”

Such displays send the wrong message, he said.

“We have to return to that because by openly permitting this, the very strong impression is given that now the Holy See approves such situations,” said Cardinal Burke. “So that has to be made clear.”

Similarly, the cardinal pointed to the Vatican allowing population control zealot Paul Ehrlich to speak at a biological extinction conference. Ehrlich made a presentation in February at the invitation of Pope Francis’ Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences chancellor Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.

Ehrlich is one of many individuals invited to present at the Vatican who contravene Church teaching. The cardinal said his invitation to speak is “a prime example” of the Holy See sending the wrong message.

“I think too the terms for choosing those who are invited officially to come and to speak to the conferences at the Holy See have to be clear,” Cardinal Burke said. “I don’t understand how people who have openly opposed the Church and her teachings can be invited to this kind of conference.”

TERESA BENEDETTA
00martedì 11 aprile 2017 18:57



PewSitter headlines on Islam 4/10/2017

Why don’t we use the best weapon
we could have against Islamists?

By Dave Blount


After centuries of lying low, Islam has re-emerged as an existential threat to civilization. Its vast, decentralized army of maniacs seems unstoppable. Inevitably, driving trucks through crowds of innocent pedestrians will give way to chemical, biological, and even nuclear attacks. But the cult does have an Achilles heel: it depends on its followers believing that the unbalanced seventh century cut-throat Mohammad literally spoke for God. Destroying that belief destroys the enemy.

A weapon that could help accomplish this is in our hands. Back in WWII, Hollywood took America’s side against the enemy. Imagine if it did so again, and if the federal government would drop the P.C. bullshit and admit that the enemy is not ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any other particular faction, but the underlying ideology that drives all of them. Films subsidized by the Defense Department could be cranked out one after the other telling the truth about Islam and its founder.

F. W. Burleigh, author of the highly recommended It’s All About Muhammad, could be on to something:

Imagine how [people brainwashed with a sanitized version of Mohammad] will react when they see their “prophet” recruit hitmen like a Mafia don to kill his critics, mass murder people who refuse to join his religion, enslave men, women, and children, and scream “Kill! Kill!” as he and his followers did when they attacked the caravans, towns, villages, and camps of people who rejected him and his cult. Imagine their shudders when they are shown verses of the Koran where Muhammad boasts of his criminal exploits…


There is no end to the cinematic potential of the material. … A straight biopic would be great for starters, but Muhammad’s criminal doings can be dealt with from a number of angles. In the epilogue of my book, It’s All About Muhammad, A Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet, I suggest putting Muhammad on trial for crimes against humanity.

In this scenario, he is in the docket of the accused along with his lieutenants, as occurred with Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. Muhammad’s victims are resurrected to testify about what he did to them. The myth of Muhammad as God’s voice box is thus demolished by the people he murdered, despoiled, or enslaved. The real Muhammad is shown for the psychopath that he was.

The canonical material is so vast that it can also be broken down thematically into hundreds of docudramas, one-hour treatments of History Channel quality, all of them starring Muhammad, all of them entertaining and informative.

Naturally Muslims would respond the same way they have always responded to anyone challenging their delusions: with violence. But would we have let terror threats prevent us from making movies about Nazis?

The real problem is that before we can win the hearts and minds of Muslims, we have to win over Hollywood and the federal government, both of which aggressively embrace a delusional rainbows and unicorns vision of Islam that bears no resemblance to reality. Tinseltown will not side with America against Islam — and neither will Washington.

It is wonderful to finally be rid of the over-the-top Islamophile Barack Hussein Obama. But he was only a symptom of an enduring problem. Pre-Obama, George W. Bush responded to the Islamic atrocities of 9/11 by calling Islam a “religion of peace”; anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the history of Islam or of current events knew that to be an absurd lie. Post-Obama, we read this from Secretary of Defense James Mattis, in reference to a dead al Qaeda terrorist: “The death of Qari Yasin is evidence that terrorists who defame Islam and deliberately target innocent people will not escape justice.”

Defame Islam? Yasin personifies Islam, as does every other terrorist going back to Mohammad, who proclaimed himself “victorious with terror.”

Gasps Islam expert Robert Spencer:

Mattis, and Trump, and all those in power in Washington in both parties should know this: one cannot defeat an enemy one does not understand. What Mattis says here only fosters the ignorance and complacency that has enveloped us as a thick fog for the last sixteen years.

You can stomp a cockroach on the kitchen floor, but there will still be a thousand more breeding inside the walls. Likewise, killing just one or just 100 Qari Yasins is almost futile. So long as even Mad Dog Mattis sucks up to political correctness, Islam will keep winning.


Milo Yiannopoulos creeps me out, but he sure got this right:“Muslims are like the common cold and leftists are like AIDS. It’s easy to fight off a cold… unless you have AIDS.”

Even during the Crusades, when Muslims had overwhelming numerical advantages, they had a hell of time defeating Westerners on the battlefield. Nowadays they stand no chance at all.

But terrorism is not conventional warfare by other means. It is propaganda by other means. It is only effective because of the message it sends, and how we react to it.

We won’t win this information war until we start fighting back. Propaganda can be defeated with truth. But to get to truth, you have to get past moonbattery.



PewSitter headlines on Islam, 4/11/2017
TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 12 aprile 2017 18:56

Catching up with Sandro Magister's posts...

From Louvain To Rome,
the euthanasia of 'non-negotiable principles'

[At the very hands of 'Doctor' Bergoglio]

Adapted from the English service of

April 10, 2017

There has been an uproar over events at the Catholic University of Louvain, which has suspended and finally dismissed one of its philosophy professors, Stéphane Mercier, for having written in a note for his students that “abortion is the murder of an innocent person.”


The matter is not surprising, seeing the track record of this university which is nonetheless endowed with the title of “Catholic,” the hospital of which has for some time been openly practicing euthanasia procedures, “from 12 to 15 per year,” according to the rector of the twin Flemish university of Leuven, the canonist Rik Torfs.

[The Universite Catholique de Louvain (UCL) was founded in 1425 but suppressed from 1787-1834 during the Napoleonic period. In 1834, the institution was re-established as two separate entities, the French-speaking UCL and the Flemish-speaking Catholic University of Leuven (Flemish form of Louvain). Despite a court ruling that decided that the UCL founded in 1834 cannot be considered a continuation of the one founded in 1425, the university has nonetheless incorporated 1425 into its official logo.

For centuries, UCL was considered a premier center of educational excellence in Catholic education and theology, but in recent decades, it has adopted the ultra-liberal positions of the dominant Church hierarchy in Belgium exemplified by Cardinal Danneels. Perhaps the most prominent Louvain alumnus known to English-speaking Catholics is the Venerable Fulton Sheen, who obtained his Ph.D. from Louvain in 1923. In 1980, a few months before his death, Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador, beatified as a martyr last year, was given an honorary doctorate by the UCL.
]


But what is more striking is the substantial approval that the bishops of Belgium have given to the removal of Professor Mercier.

Also startling is the reticence of the newspaper of the Italian episcopal conference, Avvenire, which in giving a concise account of the affair - the more complete documentation of which has appeared on the blog Rossoporpora - avoided taking a position, limiting itself to this: “It remains to be understood what is the meaning of what has been stated by the spokesman of the Belgian episcopal conference.”

Not to mention the silence of Pope Francis, who however has not failed on other occasions to call abortion a “horrendous crime.”

There is in effect a significant discrepancy between how the papacy and much of the Catholic hierarchy speak out on abortion and euthanasia today and how they used to speak out.

What during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI were “non-negotiable principles” have now become realities to be “discerned” and “mediated” both in politics and in pastoral practice.


The Italian episcopal conference and its newspaper Avvenire are perfect examples of this mutation.

In February of 2009, when Italy was rocked by the case of Eluana Englaro, the young woman in a vegetative state whose life was taken when her nutrition and hydration were cut off, the current editor of Avvenire, Marco Tarquinio, wrote a fiery editorial, calling that act a “killing”.

Today, Avvenire is singing an entirely new [Bergoglian] hymn. Just consider the courteous detachment with which Avvenirerefers to and comments on the law currently under discussion in Italy on advance healthcare directives, abbreviated DAT - instructions meant to be given to physicians beforehand on what lifesaving measures to take or not take in case of loss of consciousness.

One glaring example of this change of course is given by Professor Francesco D'Agostino, professor of the philosophy of law at the University of Roma Tor Vergata and at the Pontifical Lateran University, president of the Union of Italian Catholic Journalists, honorary president of the Italian national bioethics committee, member of the Pontifical Academy for Life [at least until all the Academy members were dismissed recently preparatory to a full overhaul under its Bergoglio-appointed president Mons. Vincenzo Paglia], and editorialist for Avvenire - in short, someone who was a contemporary reference point for the Italian Church on questions of bioethics.

The letter reproduced below brings to light the sea change between what Professor D'Agostino writes today on advance healthcare directives and what he wrote on the same subject ten years ago.

The author of the letter is attorney Antonio Caragliu, of the Trieste bar, he too a member of the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists.

Two observations for better understanding his statements:
- the honorable Mario Marazziti, member of parliament since 2013 and president of the commission for social affairs that deals with the law on DAT, is a high-ranking member of the Community of Sant’Egidio, of which he was spokesman for many years [and of which the ubiquitous and increasingly infamous Mons. Paglia has been spiritual director from the beginning];
- Bishop Nunzio Galantino, secretary general of the Italian episcopal conference and with a direct connection to Pope Francis, who personally placed him in this position in 2013 and confirmed him until 2019, is de facto the sole editor of Avvenireover which he has full and compelling control.

Here is the letter.

Dear Magister,

I find it interesting to compare the editorial by Francesco D'Agostino, published in Avvenire on March 30, 2017, entitled "On DAT a good law is needed. Not everything is euthanasia. History calls for courage,” with another editorial of his, published ten years before, also in Avvenire, on April 6, 2007, eloquently entitled “Like a booby trap into euthanasia.”

In 2007 D'Agostino maintained that advance healthcare directives could be considered justified and valid only under certain conditions, among which he contemplated the following:
1. that the physician, the recipient of the advance directives, while having the duty to take them into adequate and serious consideration, should never be bound by law to observe them (just as the physician of a “competent” patient can never be turned into a blind and passive executor of this person’s requests);

2. that the refusal of treatment should not include artificial hydration and nutrition, since these should be considered “pre-medical forms of vital support, endowed with the highest ethical and symbolic value, the suspension of which would in fact carry out a particularly insidious, because indirect, form of euthanasia.” In maintaining this, D'Agostino referred to the December 18, 2003 document of the national bioethics committee on “Advance healthcare directives.”

Now, article 3 of the draft legislation currently under review by the commission for social affairs, headed by the honorable Mario Marazziti, does not respect either of these two conditions.

But in spite of this, Professor D'Agostino writes that “the draft legislation is in no way aimed at introducing into Italy a system that would legalize euthanasia.” On the contrary, only “a devious and malevolent interpreter” could reach such a conclusion, through a “forced interpretation.”

Many Catholic jurists are understandably surprised by the about-face of Professor D'Agostino, who heads their association. [Which only shows that the professor appears to be totally unprincipled - not caring that he is contradicting today what he wrote with equal fervor ten years ago. ]

It is an about-face that, in my view, could find an explanation in the position of substantial approval for the draft legislation currently under review that was expressed by the secretary general of the Italian episcopal conference, Nunzio Galantino, at the concluding press conference for the permanent council of the CEI on January 26, 2017.

On that occasion Galantino said:

“On the commission for social affairs, headed by the honorable Mario Marazziti, they are preparing a text that should be looked at with some interest. It has clearly emerged that all the power must not be attributed to the person, because self-determination dismantles the alliance between patient, physician, and relatives, and ends up being only a triumph of individualism.”

In short, for Galantino the text under review represents a good compromise - all this in line with the now well-known policy of the secretary general of the CEI, who has been careful to avoid any seeming non-identity of positions between the Church in Italy and the center-left government in office. As if to say that the action of Catholics in politics must be dictated by the views of the high churchman of the day, in this case him [as a surrogate for the Primate of Italy who is also pope], in yet another form of clericalism.

Obviously the situation is unpleasant, from various points of view.

It is to be hoped that Professor D'Agostino, the one of 2007, who is a person of proven intelligence and competence, may sort things out with the Professor D'Agostino of 2017. And then, perhaps, face up to Bishop Galantino. Without seconding him.

Warm regards,
Antonio Caragliu


Obviously, Avvenire as well as Prof. D'Agostino [and probably the rest of the newspaper's stable of writers] have come down firmly today on the side of the church of Bergoglio, articulating all its positions as best they can -where in 2007, they were all followers of the one holy Catholic apostolic Roman Church. It is sheer apostasy, and everything that appears in Avvenire must be considered in that light. The Italian bishops' conference must now be renamed the Italian bishops' conference of the church of Bergoglio.


On the first anniversary of AL:
Two bishops speak out for interpreting it
in the light of Tradition

Adapted from the English service of

April 7, 2017

Day after day, the DUBIA submitted to the pope and then made public last November by cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner on the most controversial points of “Amoris Laetitia” seem to be shared by larger and larger segments of the Church.

Limiting the review only to the cardinals and bishops who have spoken out publicly for or against the step taken toward the pope by the four cardinals, those in favor continue to be more numerous than those against.

Joining the ranks of these latter are the Italian Bruno Forte, former special secretary of the synod of bishops on the family, and the Argentine Eduardo Horacio Garcia, former vicar of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires and now bishop of San Justo.

While to those who think the DUBIA should be answered have been added - with respect to the previous count by Settimo Cielo that already had them in the lead - cardinals Wilfrid Fox Napier, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, Mauro Piacenza, and bishops Charles Chaput, already the author of “Guidelines” that made a stir, Luigi Negri, Athanasius Schneider, Tomash Peta, Jan Pawel Lenga.

But even more attention should be given to two particularly significant recent contributions, from a cardinal and a bishop who have both sided with an interpretation of AL decidedly in line with the traditional magisterium of the Church and therefore in support of the initiative of the four cardinals. [But what has been left unsaid in all this is that all those who choose to interpret AL in the light of Tradition are really bending over backwards to be charitable in giving this benefit of the doubt to the Bishop of Rome - despite abundant, overwhelming and continuing Bergoglian evidence to the contrary!]

The cardinal is John Onaiyekan, archbishop of Abuja, in Nigeria, one of the most authoritative and influential personalities of the African continent.

In an extensive interview with John Allen for the portal Crux, when asked about AL and communion for the divorced and remarried Onaiyekan replied:

“There’s nothing the pope has said where we weren’t already working more or less along that line. It may be that a man and a woman are in an irregular condition, but that doesn’t mean they’re excommunicated. We’ve always found a way of welcoming them...

On the other hand, we still let them know that receiving Holy Communion is an external expression of our faith. We cannot judge what is inside your heart, so we must make rules that determine who receives Communion and who does not. Our people are aware that this is the rule...

I like the expression of the pope that they are not, by that fact, excommunicated. [But, Your Eminence, that is what the Church has always said. Why should Bergoglio get any points for reiterating it?] Now, to say that someone is not excommunicated does not mean they can receive Communion. [Now this statement is what Bergoglio ought to have added, but one he could not possibly say honestly!]

“Is there a big debate within the Church on this matter? It’s not really true. There may be some theologians talking about it here and there, but you definitely don’t hear much otherwise, for instance from the bishops’ conferences.”


What should be pointed out is that this position expressed by Cardinal Onaiyekan is that of almost the whole African Church, as also confirmed by the Nigerian theologian Paulinus Odozor in an interview with the Tablet of March 21, according to whom the controversy that divides Catholicism elsewhere “was settled long ago” in Africa [and for orthodox Catholics everywhere else].

The bishop is that of Alcalá de Henares, near Madrid, Juan Antonio Reig Pla, who on March 20 published a note to instruct his priests and faithful on how to interpret and apply ALia” to the issue of communion for the divorced and remarried.

These persons - he writes - must be accompanied in a process similar to that of the ancient catechumens: “a path that, step by step, will bring them closer to Christ, going deeply into the Gospel of marriage, established by God in the beginning as an indissoluble union of a man and a woman. […] Only when they are ready to take this step will they receive the Sacramental absolution and the Holy Eucharist.”

For communion, “therefore, the objective conditions requested by the Teaching of the Church referring to the access to the Sacraments still apply,” the same conditions already set down by John Paul II and Benedict XVI and with which the magisterium of Pope Francis “is set in continuity.”

Such conditions imply that “when a [divorced and remarried] man and a woman for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, cannot satisfy the obligation to separate,” they must “live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples,” and only then can they receive communion.

“That is the objective requirement admitting no exceptions, and the fulfillment of which must be the aim of an accurate discernment in the internal forum. No priest must consider he has the authority to exempt this requirement.”



The complete text of the note in English, exemplary in its brevity and clarity, is on this other page of Settimo Cielo:
> Accompanying the baptized who are divorced and in a different union
magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/04/04/accompanying-the-baptized-who-are-divorced-and-in-a-differen...


One detail not to be overlooked is the reference that Reig Pla makes, as to a template, to the “Handbook” on the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” published by three professors of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, this too in perfect continuity with the traditional magisterium of the Church on the subject.

A “Handbook” extensively presented by Settimo Cielo as soon as it arrived in bookstores last January:
> A Compass in the Chaos of “Amoris Laetitia”
magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/01/24/a-compass-in-the-chaos-of-amoris-l...


It was probably the swan song of an institute that has been decapitated and handed over by this pope to a new Grand Chancellor, that grand bungler named Vincenzo Paglia.


TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 13 aprile 2017 19:55
April 12-13, 2017 headlines

Canon212.com




PewSitter



I am, of course, very unhappy, to say the least, about Mons. Gaenswein's recent statements that Benedict XVI chooses not to step into
the controversy generated by AL because 'it is something so remote from him'. Frank Walker at Canon212.com is dripping with
his now-familiar contemptuous mockery of the Emeritus Pope.

But it is really difficult to justify Gaenswein's choice of words, because how can an issue that involves a fundamental reading
of the Church teaching on the sacraments of matrimony and the Eucharist ever be considered 'remote' to any Catholic,
let alone someone who was Pope and whose reputation had always been solidly orthodox?


Until, that is, we have been led to believe by Mons. Gaenswein's statements over the past four years that Benedict XVI really does
not care at all about the havoc Bergoglio is wreaking on the faith, or worse, does not think Bergoglio is doing anything
wrong at all!
This is all so dispiriting on the eve of the Emeritus Pope's 90th birthday, one that he will be marking under the worst
kind of cloud there could possibly be. The Benedict XVI that Mons. Gaenswein makes him out to be is not at all the man I would
still like to think that he is.


A simple statement from him like "Whatever controversies may exist today about the Catholic teaching on marriage, penance and the
Eucharist, the faithful should remember that this teaching has not changed and cannot change nor can be changed" would have been
appropriate - and the least that we who admire him expect of him. In this light, Christopher Ferrara's remarks about Gaenswein's claim
are much too kind - even if he ties it up confusingly with the questions over Benedict's resignation.


The "Pope Emeritus" on Amoris Laetitia:
A devastating "no comment"

by Christopher A. Ferrara

April 13, 2017

Ever since Benedict XVI’s mysterious abdication from the papal throne — for which the faithful have received shifting and unsatisfactory explanations — we have heard again and again from Benedict’s personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, how “serene” and “peaceful” Benedict is concerning his unprecedented decision.

So serene and peaceful, according to Gänswein, that he could not care less about the Bergoglian tumult that has divided the Church as she has never been divided before — concerning a matter of the moral law as basic as the Sixth Commandment.

As the redoubtable Edward Pentin reports, in an interview with La Repubblica — the umpteenth attempt to assure us that nothing at all was amiss with Benedict’s abdication — Gänswein reveals that Benedict “received a copy of Amoris Laetitia [AL] personally from Francis, in white and autographed” and that “He read it thoroughly, but he does not comment in any way on the content.”

No comment? That response could not be more telling. If the one and only “Pope Emeritus” in Church history — a novelty Benedict himself invented — will not defend the orthodoxy of AL, his unwillingness to do so cannot be seen as anything but an implicit recognition that its content, particularly the disastrous Chapter 8, is indefensible. Otherwise, why would the “Pope Emeritus” not simply declare that the teaching of his own successor is doctrinally sound? Answer: he will not declare it because he knows he cannot do so honestly.

Instead, just as Benedict retreated from the Chair of Peter so has he retreated from the chaos that followed in the wake of his abdication. As Pentin recounts, Gänswein “said the former pope is well aware of contrasts [!] made between him and Pope Francis, but does not let them provoke him, and has ‘no intention of entering controversies that feel far away from him.’"

Far away from him? But Benedict is living in what he himself called “the enclosure of Saint Peter” in his last General Audience on February 27, 2013, the day before his renunciation of “the ministry of the Bishop of Rome” became effective. So, according to Gänswein at least, Benedict has not only renounced the papacy but has also renounced any concern about the state of the Church under Francis!

Instead, Gänswein is happy to report (as summarized by Pentin) that “the Pope Emeritus continues to watch the television news at 8pm, receives L’Osservatore Romano, and Avvenire, the Italian bishops’ newspaper, as well as Vatican press releases.”

So, if we are to believe Gänswein, Benedict is more interested in the evening news than in the ecclesial chaos Pope Bergoglio has provoked, which is “very far” from him, even though he lives in the Vatican as Bergoglio’s neighbor, whom Bergoglio trots out for public display on certain occasions.

Regarding that chaos, Gänswein will say only that "Certainly he [Benedict] is taking note of the discussion and the different forms in which it has been implemented.” Different forms? We now have a situation in which the reception of Holy Communion by people engaging in adulterous sexual relations they call “second marriages” is still considered a mortal sin in some dioceses, but is now characterized as “mercy” in others, thanks entirely to AL. But as Gänswein would have it, this disaster is “very far” from the Pope Emeritus, who nevertheless remains attentive to “the evening news at 8 pm.”

I’m not buying it. Something very fishy is going on with these repeated declarations of what Benedict thinks and feels while Benedict himself never speaks directly to the public. I detect the same fishy smell surrounding the whole event of Benedict’s abdication. Or rather, the smell of sulfur.

I believe we haven’t been told half the story of why we have a Pope Emeritus who abruptly abandoned his office only to be succeeded by a Pope for whom the term “Vicar of Christ” seems — let us be honest about this — spectacularly inapt.

I suspect the full story is to be found in the Virgin’s explanation of the apocalyptic vision of the “Bishop dressed in White,” an explanation that surely exists and just as surely has been suppressed by those whose epochal malfeasance the Third Secret very probably indicts.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 13 aprile 2017 20:12
It is that day of the year when the current Vicar of Christ on earth does before 12 persons what he chooses not ever to do in front of Christ in the Eucharist and in the Blessed Sacrament - kneel! Yes, on this day, he is miraculously able to kneel 12 times in succession and bend for a ritual footwashing and footdrying that ends with a reverent kiss on the washed foot.

Of course, that gesture is far more telegenic and attention-grabbing than 'merely' genuflecting during the Consecration or kneeling when in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. After all more than 400,000 priests and more than 5,000 bishops around the world do the latter every day, which is, of course, no reason for the pope to exempt himself from the ritual gestures of veneration and adoration for the Lord...

And yes, we know the drill: he is really serving Jesus and God in the footwashing ritual - in which every person whose foot he washes represents the suffering Christ himself, so why should I quibble that he fails to genuflect when consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ or does not kneel before the Blessed Sacrament? [Unless, of course, he feels that as the Vicar of Christ on earth, he need not show the traditional gestures of veneration and adoration to the Lord he 'represents']... Fr H has some reflections on Bergoglio's idiosyncratic inculturation of the Maundy Thursday ritual.


Pedilavium or footwashing:
Such a wealth of different meanings

The meaning of this rite, in the intention of
the current pope, has been changed


April 13, 2017

Let me explain.
HISTORY
(1) The sense which the Pedilavium appears (not invariably but) most commonly to have had in the pre-modern period was of humble service done by a superior (Bishop, Abbot) before his own subjects, and in the intimacy of their own close fellowship. Among the feet which Father Abbot washed were those of the young monk whom, perhaps, he had needed yesterday to discipline. His Lordship the Bishop did the same for a presbyter with whom - forfend the thought! - he may have had a less than cordial relationship. Perhaps an equivalent would be Papa Bergoglio washing the feet of curial cardinals including those who had disagreed with him or even presented him with unwanted Dubia!

The Lord did not, as people sometimes carelessly assert, "wash the feet of his disciples", who were many; He washed the feet of a much more limited group, the Twelve.

He did not wash the feet of the people who flocked to hear Him teach in the fields or on the Mountain or beside the Lake or in the village square, or even the feet of the Seventy He sent forth or of the women who ministered to Him; when He washed the feet of the Twelve, it was behind the closed doors of an exclusive Meeting arranged in almost 007-style secrecy. And the implication of St Peter's words was that this had not been the Lord's regular custom.

Washing the feet of a person with whom one has no relationship, no daily fellowship whether for better or for worse, empties the rite of this, historically (I think) its first, meaning. Unless a different meaning is devised, it becomes an empty, formalistic, ritual.

(2) A second meaning of some historic pedilavium ceremonies has been both the humility and the generosity of the great and the grand towards their social inferiors. Holy Condescension. This is the meaning which the rite had when it was used by sovereigns and by some up-market bishops. Food, clothing, money would often be distributed. In the twentieth century, British monarchs restored the rite in this sense, but did not revive the actual footwashing. Specially minted pieces of archaic coinage are distributed. True, the Lord High Almoner still girds himself with a towel, but that is only because this is the sort of thing which the English, a strange race, deem to be 'tradition'.

Meanings (1) and (2) both rest upon presuppositions of status and hierarchy. These are concepts now rather out of vogue. Perhaps that is why the Holy Father has dreamed up a new and completely different understanding of the rite – inculturating it, so to speak, into post-modernity.

(3) This different and new meaning which Papa Bergoglio now wishes to attach to the rite is the boundless love and Mercy of God to all, and not least to those on the peripheries of Society.

This removes any overlaps with meanings (1) and (2) (and it is very far from what the closed and exclusive intimacy of the Last Supper suggests that the Lord had in mind). But, as long as we all understand that this new meaning has nothing whatsoever to do with St John's Last Supper narrative or the Church's ancient liturgical tradition, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable Acted Parable for an innovative liturgist to dream up. No harm in a bit of imagination!!

The Pedilavium as part of the Mass of the Last Supper is, in historical terms, a very recent and completely optional importation into the Liturgy of a ceremony which (where it was done at all) used to be extra-liturgical and took varying forms. Accordingly, I cannot see why any Roman Pontiff, or, for that matter, any junior curate, should not be entitled to juggle around with it, and to give it whatever new meaning or meanings he chooses to suit his own specific social context.

Whether Maundy Thursday, a congested Day on which liturgically quite a lot already happens, is the most apt time for such performances, I very much doubt. Here, I have a constructive suggestion to make...

A RIGID RESTRICTION?
What puzzles me is not that Pope Francis has opted for meaning (3). This is very much in character. What I do find so incomprehensibly strange is the new restriction he has has himself placed on those whose feet are washed, i.e. his demand that they must be Christians. [As he wrote to Cardinal Sarah: "I have reached the decision ... I order that ... from among all the members of the People of God".] [Except, Fr. H, that the pope issued the new decree on 1/6/16, and then on March 24, 2016, which was the first Maundy Thursday of its application, at a reception center housing some 900 refugees outside Rome, “he washed the feet of 11 migrants and one volunteer. Of the migrants, four were Catholic youths from Nigeria, three were Coptic women from Eritrea, three were Muslims, and one was a Hindu youth from India.

So he promptly broke with his own new rule. Obviously, however, Bergoglio does not understand the phrase ‘People of God’ as referring to Christians only but to all men. But while all human beings are creatures of God – created by him – not all are necessarily ‘people of God’. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very specific about the characteristics of ‘the People of God’, and one would expect the reigning pope to know this:

Characteristics of the People of God
782 The People of God is marked by characteristics that clearly distinguish it from all other religious, ethnic, political, or cultural groups found in history:
- It is the People of God: God is not the property of any one people. But he acquired a people for himself from those who previously were not a people: "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation."
- One becomes a member of this people not by a physical birth, but by being "born anew," a birth "of water and the Spirit," that is, by faith in Christ, and Baptism.
- This People has for its Head Jesus the Christ (the anointed, the Messiah). Because the same anointing, the Holy Spirit, flows from the head into the body, this is "the messianic people."

- "The status of this people is that of the dignity and freedom of the sons of God, in whose hearts the Holy Spirit dwells as in a temple."
- "Its law is the new commandment to love as Christ loved us." This is the "new" law of the Holy Spirit.
- Its mission is to be salt of the earth and light of the world. This people is "a most sure seed of unity, hope, and salvation for the whole human race."
- Its destiny, finally, "is the Kingdom of God which has been begun by God himself on earth and which must be further extended until it has been brought to perfection by him at the end of time."

[Below, I will post what Vatican-II said about ‘the People of God’ and how the term came to be abused afterwards.]*

This was not previously the rule. Francis has in the past, for example, according to reports, himself washed Moslem feet. And the new restriction seems to me to go directly against the Pope's declared preferred meaning (3). There seems to be something of a self-contradiction here ... perhaps making it emblematic of this pontificate! [So, no, Fr H, in washing the feet of non-Christians even after his decree about limiting this to ‘the People of God’, Bergoglio was being consistent with his commendable goal not to discriminate against any human being for whatever reason -regardless of what the Church teaches about the use of the phrase ‘the People of God’. Perhaps he really ought to commission a Catechism for the church of Bergoglio incorporating his most cherished notions, many of which are anti-Catholic.]

Wouldn't it be more congruous for those symbolically served in this way to represent the entire Human Community without restricting the rite to the Baptised, indeed, without any restrictions? Should it not be open to persons of all religions and none? Dr Dawkins and the Dalai Lama? And Mass-murderers? Rapists and Paedophiles? Victims of ecclesiastical malevolent prejudice such as the Franciscans of the Immaculate? ISIS Suicide Bombers, Neo-Pelagian butterflies, and even Journalists? The Ku Klux Klan and the Cosa nostra? Quot homines tot peripheriae. [All those people on the peripheries!] [Been there, done most of that! Speaking of Cosa nostra, the pope did his footwashing this year at a maximum-security prison in which 50 out of 60 inmates are Mafia turncoats. Perhaps next year, the pope will wash the feet of 12 convicted sex-offender priests. But no women 'washees' this time – performing the pedilavium on women was really the principal feature of the January 2016 Bergoglian decree on footwashing – issued 3 years and 10 months since he started doing as pope all the things he belatedly decreed.]]

A MODEST PROPOSAL
Perhaps, indeed, Papa Bergoglio's new rite could be adopted in exchange for a custom, invented, I believe, by the late Herr Hitler and now rather boringly out of date: hugging babies with 'celebrity' ostentation. This has had its day: we need a substitute. And the Sovereign Pontiff has opportunely hit upon the makings of one.

How might his intuitions be worked up and given a formal shape? What about this:
While being driven round and round the Piazza di San Pietro, the Pope could suddenly leap sylph-like from his popemobile. His security guards would then drag out of the cheering crowd the selected individual and liberate her from her shoes and tights. The ever-faithful, ever-efficient Guido 'Jeeves' Marini would appear ex nihilo, magically, imperturbably, at his Master's side with basin, water and towel. The People's Pontiff could then take it from there.

This would have a wealth of meaning, a real profundity. It would, for example, remind the impenitent that the Eschaton, the Day of Wrath and Doom Impending, could happen unexpectedly, at any moment.

Trade would boom for Roman pedicurists.

*What Vatican II said about ‘the People of God’

The dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium devoted its chapter II to "the new People of God", "a people made up of Jew and gentile", called together by Christ (section 9). I
- It spoke of "the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh" as among those who "are related in various ways to the people of God" (section 16).
- It described in detail the qualities of this People of God in words "intended for the laity, religious and clergy alike" (section 30), while also pointing out the specific duties and functions of the different ranks of which it is composed, such as that of "those who exercise the sacred ministry for the good of their brethren" (section 13).

In 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was to become in 2005 Pope Benedict XVI, stated that the Council's choice of this term reflected three perspectives.:
- The principal one was to introduce a term that could serve as an ecumenical bridge, recognizing intermediate degrees of belonging to the Church.
- Another was to put more in evidence the human element in the Church, which is also part of her nature.
- And the third was to recall that the Church has not yet reached her final state and that she "will not be wholly herself until the paths of time have been traversed and have blossomed in the hands of God".[

Cardinal Ratzinger also declared that the term is not to be understood in way that would reduce it "to an a-theological and purely sociological view" of the Church.
Michael Hesemann wrote:

After the Council, the expression was taken up enthusiastically, but in a way that neither Ratzinger nor the Council Fathers had intended. Suddenly it became a slogan: "We are the People!" The idea of a "Church from below" developed; its proponents wanted to engage in polemics against those who held office and o carry out their agenda by democratic majority vote.

Although the theological, biblical concept of people was still the idea of a natural hierarchy, of a great family, suddenly it was reinterpreted in a Marxist sense, in which "people" is always considered the antithesis to the ruling classes. The centre of the Christian faith, however, can only be God's revelation, which cannot be put to a ballot. Church means being called by God. Joseph Ratzinger said: “The crisis concerning the Church, as it is reflected in the crisis concerning the concept ‘People of God’, is a ‘crisis about God’ - it is the result of leaving out what is most essential.”

- From Wikipedia, appropriately sourced references



TERESA BENEDETTA
10venerdì 14 aprile 2017 07:50

My remarks in the 4/13/post about Benedict XVI who Georg Gaenswein says will not step into the AL controversy at all because he feels,
as unbelievable as it sounds, that 'it is all so far removed from him', must henceforth be part of the unavoidable context of all
subsequent posts I make about the emeritus Pope. I will continue to post the positive accounts of him, without glossing over the
inevitable instances of negativity when they are expressed fairly and without malice.





The pope emeritus up close
By Fr. Antonio Tarzia
Former Director of Edizioni San Paolo
Translated from

April 13, 2017

Edizioni San Paolo is a major Cahtolic publishing house that is par t of the Italian multimedia empire run by the male order of Society of St. Paul, a congregation founded in 1914. Its female branch runs a similar publishing house called Edizioni Pauline. Famiglia Cristiana, founded in 1931, is the society's weekly general magazine, reputed to be Italy's most widely circulated in its genre.

Ninety years of grace, ninety years of Christian testimony and a life lived in the service of the community and the Church.

Among the exceptional gifts attributed by friends and his closest co-workers to the man Joseph Ratzinger, we always find his perfect mental lucidity, his impressive ability to synthesize ideas and the charity he lives daily. Of the Beatitudes cited in Matthew (5,3-10), thosewhich he embodies best are: Blessed are the meek, blessed are the pure in heart, and blessed are those who work for peace.

I can attest to all this personally, having had the honor to know him for more thn 30 years now, and to have worked with him a long time when, as a l Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger became one of the principal and most appreciated authors of Edizioni San Paolo, during the years when I was director of the publishing house.

Of his gentleness, I remember the minor contretemps at the presentation of his book RAPPORTO SULLA FEDE (later published in English as THE RATZINGER REPORT), published by us in 1985. It was a dialog with journalist Vittorio Messori, who was at the time the editor of the San paolo magazine JESUS. The book was a great publishing success. We had organized the presentation with Mons. Josef Clemens,then secretary to the cardinal, later Bishop and secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Laity [I wonder what Clemens’s position is ,now that the council has been absorbedd into the super-dicastery headed by the ultrahyperBergoglian Cardinal Farrell], with a gathering of journalists, photographers and the general public at the Augustinianum congress center in Rome.

We had a full house, including the upper levels, with many bishops and cardinals present. Uninvited but arriving preceded by a uniformed motorcycle escort was the Hon. Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, then minister of the Interior. He said good-humoredly, “I was told by the law enforcement people that there is a gathering here of cardinals and bishops. I wanted to check for myself that it was not a conclave…” Cardinal Ratzinger smiled, shook his hand and returned his greeting, but he appeared to be very uneasy about the exaggeration. [Who would have thought then that 20 years later, the cardinal would emerge pope from the first Conclave of the 21st millennium?]

His shyness was quite evident a few years later in Anacapri where we had travelled to receive the Premio San Michele for snother Ratzinger book. In the city’s Piazza Boffe, on a sunny morning, two boys were playing when the younger of the two noticed the arrival of a group of people, in the mmdist of who was Cardinal Ratzinger dressed in red with his pectoral cross.

“Who is that man? Who is he?”, the boy asked. And the older one cried out, “It is the Pope! The Pope is here!” And perhaps intimidated, they scampered away into an alley.

Psalm 8 came to my mind: “O Lord, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth! I will sing your majest above the heavens with the mouths of babes and infants!” The cardinal was red with embarrassment and sought to change the subject. But an enthusiastic discussion had developed among the group accompanying him (author Marco Roncalli, grandson of John XXIII; journalist Donatella Trotta of Il Mattino; Mons,. Clemens, and Raffaele Vaca, sponsor of the prestigious literary prize given annually). With the conclusion that if the boy’s ‘prophecy’ should ever come true, then Prof. Vaca would be obliged to put up a memorial on a wall in the piazza to commemorate the occasion.

And that was exaclty what happened in 2006, one year after the cardinal was elected Supreme Pontiff. The mayor of Ancapri surrounded by his townspeople put up the commemorative plaque in Piazza Boffe.

For over 20 years, a partnership developed between our publishing house and the cardinal. Almost every year, we published a new Ratzinger book not just for the bookstores but also for the annual Frankfurt Book Fair, the Buchmesse. Among these, we published his many official lectures given around the world ,as well as the homilies that the cardinal gave every Thursday at the weekly Mass he offered at Santa Maria della Pieta, the church of the Collegio Teutonico (German College) inside the Vatican. [Well, imagine that! Here I have been wondering all these years if anyone ever tape recorded those homilies or at least compiled the texts – and it turns out that Edizioni San Paolo did. How many, and for how long, I must now research, because I had estimated that in 22 years, assuming the cardinal as in Rome 40 weeks of every year, that would have been more than 800 homilies. I doubt any cardinal can boast of a similar record!]

His minute handwriting in perfect German was always clear and profound, well documented, and oriented towards a future of Christian peace and holiness. All these books were translated into many languages, some in an incredible number of languages. RAPPORTO SULLA FEDE in more than 15, and his autobiography LA MIA VITA (published in English as MILESTONES), published in 1997 in at least 45 languages. [On his 70th birthday, he decided to recount the first 50 years of his life, ending the account at the time he was asked by John Paul IIto come to Rome to head the CDF].

Every year, his royalties from the books were invested in charitable causes and institutions, in missions, and in orphanages and cloistered convents in Eastern Europe. One year, he failed to deliver a book as expected. He said he had made a vow because as CDF Prefect, he had just asked a priest to keep silent about a controversial teaching for one year, and he offered his vow so that the priest might have the strength to obey the order in charity and sincerity. That priest, it turns out, was the Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff. [Does it mean the cardinal made a vow not to write anything himself for a year because he had asked that of Boff? Wow!]

In 1992, I was with Cardinal Ratzinger in Bassano del Grappa when he receive an International Prize for Catholic Culture ,which came with a gold medal. Enrico Scalco, president of the prize-giving organization, also gave him, by statute, a case of grappa with personalized labels. [ [Grappa is an Italian brandy distilled from everything left over after grapes are pressed for winemaking and has 35-60 percent alcolhol by volume.]

With a complicit smile, the cardinal accepted the grappa, saying, “I will share it with my co-workers because I do not drink alcohol. But I know that the grappa of Bassano is very good”. [ [Bassano in northern Italy is where grappa was first distilled in the first century AD.[ We all knew that the cardinal only drank orange juice or tea at table, although he does drink a sip of wine or beer at official functions.

The pope’s fondness for cats is well-known. I remember that in his house in Pentling, there were two – one in bronze is on a pedestal in the garden near the fountain with the Madonna and the ‘barque of the Church’, also in bronze, with three persons on board. “They are not apostles,” the cardinal’s sister Maria told me. “They are the Ratzinger siblings – George, Joseph and me. A gift from the artist Cristina Stadler”.

The other cat, of white ceramic, is in the house, sitting guard over the piano which the cardinal plays now and then for relaxation – liturgical hymns or pieces by Mozart or Beethoven. One day, coming back from Mass, the cardinal placed his zucchetto on the cat’s head, and thereafter, the cat was referred to as ‘His Eminence, the White Cat”.

My most recent encounter with His Holiness was last March 23. I visited him at Mater Ecclesiae, where he spends his days listening to the Wrd of God and praying in thanksgiving and supplication for the Church and mankind. After an hour of affectionate chatting, over memories, current events and future projects, he asked me, “So when shall I see you again?”

“Whenever you wish, Holiness. Just have someone call me and I will come. But for sure, I will ask you for an audience in two years for a special blessing”.

“In two years --- I do not know if I will still be around,” I heard him murmur, and it seemed to me he also closed his eyes.

“Holiness, in two years, I will mark 50 years of saying Mass and I will need a special blessing”.

Looking serene, with a smile and great tenderness, he said to me: “Fifty years as priest! In that case, I will wait for it!” I kissed his hands enfolded in mine, and I left the monastery very moved and very happy.

So now, Holiness, I wish to greet you on your 90th birthday with the beautiful Jewish greeting, “May you live t0 120 like Moses!” And I might add, going beyond Leo XIII, the longest-lived pope in history, who returned to the Father;s house at the age of 93. All the best, Your Holiness!


What Fr. Tarzia does not mention is that, in fact, Edizioni Paoline has come out with a new biography of the Emeritus Pope in time for his 90th birthday. It was written by the Vaticanista of RAI's TG-2 (the primetime newscast of Italian state TV's second channel)...



Benedict XVI: The faith and prophecy
of the firs Emeritus Pope in history

by Giovan Battista Brunori
Translated from his Preface to the book

To write a book on Benedict XVI also means to answer the question: Who is Joseph Ratzinger really? Who is this man who left the papacy after having led the Church through terrible crises for almost eight years?

The idea each of us may have had of Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI may have shattered somewhat on February 11, 2013. His renunciation of the Papacy – one of the most dirompenti gestures ever in the history of the Church – projected into the modern age that which has been called ‘the last absolute monarchy on the planet’.

It was a revolutionary act, a genuine act of reform executed bu a pope who had been called ‘the standard bearer of Tradition’, also the Panzerkardinal [with its connotation of imperviousness to external attack], throwing into confusion both his progressivist adversaries as well as ‘Ratzingerians’ themselves.

It is not a simple task to write the biography of a pope who is still alive, made more difficult in that he is also the first Emeritus Pope in history, still active [???] in his retirement at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery inside the Vatican…

Therefore I have sought to attentively re-read his what has been written about his life and person, as well as his formidable body of writings, and have spoken to many personages who have known him from up close and have worked closely with him, in order to lay down the multiple pieces of a mosaic in order to show the face of a man who for years has inspired and continues to inspire lively debate – much loved and esteemed by so many faithful but who has also had many enemies.

A brilliant European intellectual who has stimulated the circulation of ideas and indicated a path to the future, relying on the sources upon which Catholic identity rests – Sacred Scriptures above all, and the Fathers of the Church, especially St. Augustine.

To a world that is increasingly uncertain and fearful, driven into a crisis of identity by mass migrations [that are changing national cultures in the West dramatically and over the short run], a world turned evil and forced to defend itself from the active hatred of terrorists who have turned their right to believe into a right to kill as their duty to that belief, Joseph Ratzinger has responded by presenting to everyone ‘the Christian difference’: that love is the true face of Christianity.

God is love, he reaffirmed in his first encyclical Deus caritas est. He sought dialog with other religions but without excluding their essential differences in [unspoken] parentheses, without renouncing the Christian identity and to the Christian claim “to have received as a gift from God, in Christ, the definitive and complete revelation of the mystery of salvation”.

But above all, he has shown what truly matters – what is both the horizon and the future of the Church – is quaerere Deum, seeking God, which was the ulterior motive of the Benedictine monks who in the difficult circumstance of the Early (Dark) Middle Ages, became the points of light – with their prayer and work in the fields and their legendary libraries which conserved the treasures of classical culture, transmitting love for culture, for the study of Scriptures and literary classics, for music and song, while promoting a spirit of welcome for strangers and collaboration among all members of society, thus laying the basis for a culture that became the roots of European and Western civilization – a Christian civilization that has now become increasingly fragile.

This is a man who changed and innovated the Church with his constant exhortation for a return to the essentials of faith, to dust off the ashes laid by time over the Christian experience that had made it more opaque, that had suffocated the original fire that had made it irresistible for most of the past 2000 years.

The clarity and linearity of the doctrine he reaffirmed was conveyed to the world by the Holy See which, however, appeared tp be a giant with feet of clay as the Roman Curia, in crisis after crisis, showed itself weak and inadequate in its task of assisting the Pope in the governance of the Church.

Thus, I have also sought to identify and describe the common thread that runs through the many acts and writings of a pope of ideas rather than gestures, of a theologian-pope and a professor-pope rather than an administrator-pope. He is a complex figure who is at the same time simple and linear, an expression of that evangelical simplicity which is the opposite of superficial simplicity but is rather the fruit of authentic spirituality.

I have sought to write the biography of a man who was ever aware he was not a ‘charismatic’ figure in the media sense, one not able to dominate the stage as his predecessor did, but who could and did move the hearts and minds of his audience with the depth of his thinking, his crystalline faith, his spiritually rich words that proposed ideas and values disseminated by the force of reason, but without arrogance nor timidity.

Therefore this is a biography of facts, of events and encounters that have marked the personal history of Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI, but also the narration of his thoughts, his reflections on the Church and the world today, his prophecies of the future, the studies into which from his seminary days he had plunged himself with enthusiasm (which I have tried to follow through its rapid and passionate course over the years) – from his Bavarian origins to his speedy rise in his academic career, and to the vertiginous succession of the prestigious offices he was called on to fulfill in the Church.

Loved by countless admirers, author of worldwide best-sellers on the faith, promoter of an ‘innovative restoration’ as historian Robert Regoli describes in his 2016 biography of the emeritus Pope, many have also feared, opposed, defamed, misinterpreted, misunderstood [or not understood at all] him.

Joseph Ratzinger has been himself ‘a sign of contradiction’, but even in the human ‘contradictions’ during his short and often difficult Pontificate, he has sown seeds destined to flourish, as will no doubt be seen more clearly when time has dispelled the fog of polemic that has often obscured [and continues to obscure] the very real achievements of his Petrine ministry.

A Pope considered by many as destined to be a Doctor of the Church. A man who held his hand firm on the tiller of the Church through stormy waters as Arcbishop, Prefect of the CDF and then as Supreme Pontiff.

A Pope who led the Barque of Peter on a course of transparency, reforming the IOR and battling priestly sex offenses, thus starting the arduous process of cleaning up the filth in the Church that he had denounced on world TV during his Good Friday Via Crucis meditations and prayers just two weeks before the death of John Paul II.


TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 15 aprile 2017 04:05
April 14, 2017 headlines

Canon212.com


PewSitter

TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 15 aprile 2017 05:58


Maike Hickson, who is probably the only native German speaker who promptly translates from the German media for the
Anglophone Catholic blogosphere, has of course not missed the story accompanying the above cover. I had actually started
translating the article itself yesterday but had only gone halfway through it, so here first is Ms. Hickson's report on it...


Yet another German journalist makes
a discerning critique of the pope

by Maike Hickson

April 13, 2017

The string of eloquent German journalists who have gradually lost patience with Pope Francis does not seem to stop. Now we have another well-known and honorably independent journalist, Matthias Matussek, who has added his own name to the list of reflective papal critics.

Matussek, who is an eloquent Catholic conservative critic and book author, currently writes for the well-established Swiss weekly magazine Die Weltwoche (This week in the world) and the German magazine FOCUS.

In the April 12 issue of Die Weltwoche – which displays on its cover a picture of Pope Francis sitting on a swinging wrecking ball [an image previously used by the UK Spectator] – Matussek characterizes Francis as “gratuitous, appealing, chumming up” and says that this pope reminds us less and less of a Pontifex Maximus. [I translated that trio of adjectives – ‘beliebig, gefällig, anbiedernd’ – as ‘arbitrary, accommodating and ingratiating’ as the most appropriate of the multiple synonyms each word has, in the context of who Bergoglio has shown himself to be these past four years].

With reference to a recent sharp critique of the pope by the British weekly Spectator, “Has the Pope Gone Crazy?”, Matussek proposes to answer the question himself:

“This [query] is not so far off as one would think: in fact, this Argentine Pontifex Maximus has uttered so many confusing, contradictory, and politically provocative things that the members of his press corps have a hard time keeping up with corrections and then recommending certain interpretations. Without judging the truthfulness of the matter here and now, frankly, how does one, for example, moderate this formulation: “Readers of newspapers are inclined toward coprophagy” – i.e., the lubricious consumption of excrement?”

To support his point, Matussek attentively – and with a vivid and sprightly style – enumerates in the following seven pages of his article many of the contradictory scandals that we here at OnePeterFive have extensively – and regrettably – reported on; thus a list of Matussek’s topics should now suffice:
– the scandal that Pope Francis reinstated the perverted priest, Father Mauro Inzoli (“Don Mercedes”) after he had been suspended;
– the pope’s outbursts of temper in smaller circles, as well as his curses, crude expressions and “crudities that are better off not published”; the fact that Pope Francis humiliates his closest collaborators – and this in an increasing fashion;
– the costly decision of the pope to live at the guest house Santa Marta which is a “method of control, in order to get informed at lunch about the happenings in the diverse camps in the Vatican;
– his harsh treatment of his opponents; for example, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke;
– his decision not to answer the justified Four Cardinals’ Dubia;
– the fact that Pope Francis often makes new laws for the Catholic Church from his own lunch table, rather than going through the channels of the Roman Curia (Matussek quotes here a high-ranking leader in the Curia);
– Francis’s problematic recent comment that it would be better to be an atheist than to be a “hypocritical Catholic”;
– the reaction of the Romans, even to the point of putting up satirical posters about Pope Francis (“The base is mobilizing against Francis - nobody understands him any more.”);
– Pope Francis as the “posterboy of the politically correct way of thinking”;
– that he has twice been on the cover of the magazine Rolling Stone;
– his stopping Cardinal Robert Sarah in his attempt to promote traditional liturgical forms, such as the praying of the Holy Mass ad orientem;
– that the Wall Street Journal declared (in December of 2016) Francis to be the “leader of the global left”;
– his pretentious way ofshowing off his humility by driving in a small used car in front of the White House during his visit to the U.S.;
– his taking Muslim refugee families back to Rome with him, after his visit at Lesbos, but not any Christian refugee families;
– that Pope Francis does not appear to care too much about his own religion (In Matussek’s eyes, the sentence of Our Lord “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; nobody will come to my Father but through Me” (John 14:6) does not seem to mean very much to the pope.)
– the recent participation of Paul Ehrlich, the promoter of abortion and population control, in a Vatican conference to which he was expressly invited;
– his inclination to give scope to liberalizing progressive ideas such as female priests and the abandonment of priestly celibacy;
– his “Who am I to Judge?” with regard to the homosexuals (“Who else will judge [immoral practices]?” answers Matussek.)
– his “agenda which could lead to the dissolution of the unam sanctam catholicam Ecclesiam given to us “by God,” against whose very gates themselves “hell shall not prevail.”
– Pope Francis and his ‘democratic’ questionnaires about marriage sent out to the world, instead of first and mainly referring to the Bible;
– his “angry” demand to all European countries to “open all borders for immigrants”;
– his neglect of Catholic doctrine - inspite of the fact that the world today increasingly demeans man and lowers him to the level of animals or even plants (Matussek quotes G.K. Chesterton’s “trees have no dogmas; beets are extremely magnanimous”!);

At the end of his breath-taking and spirited – but somewhat disheartening – overview of the recent papal scandals and misdeeds, the German journalist comes back to the truths of our Faith. Matussek defends the Catholic Faith and its truths against his own pope and reminds us that this Faith has existed visibly since the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and His Nativity.

He also explains to his non-Catholic readership that, since the Second Vatican Council, the traditional Mass as it had developed over centuries was “destroyed,” “altars were cut down” and “brutal blocks of sacrifice were put into the spaces of the altar.” Church art decayed into “semiotic delicacies”; the priest addressed the congregation “like a TV moderator”, celebrating Mass “so that people could look at his fingers, just like with a magician in a third-class variety show.”

In light of all this destruction of spiritual and visual beauty, Matussek concludes with piercing words: “The former barricade stormers - all of them now in their eighties and beyond – still hold on to their juvenile nonsense of modernization and adaptation to the Zeitgeist.” With gratitude, Matussek remembers here the act of Pope Benedict XVI to free the Tridentine Latin Mass which, since then, has attracted especially the young. “Mystery returns into the emptied out modern churches, and with it, genuine adoration and meditation.”

Matussek ends his Rundumschlag (tour de force) on a positive note, proposing to Pope Francis that he start working in the direction of restoring Tradition, rather than speculating as to whether “I [Pope Francis] might now go down the history as the pope who split the Church” – as reported by Der Spiegel last December. He adds a passage from the second letter of St. Paul to Timothy, where St. Paul instructs his disciple to “teach the Faith in season and out of season.”

Dare we hope that such wholehearted and faith-inspired articles might also help Pope Francis to convert, after a deep and candid examination of conscience?

For a taste of Mr. Matussek's colorful prose, here is the part I have translates so far:

A pope of sorts
Arbitrary, accommodating, ingratiating – Francis, the pope of the Zeitgeist (spirit of the times)
is less and less one’s idea of a Pontifex Maximus, even as he himself has remarked that for many,
he is seen as the cause of the division in the Church.

by Matthias Matussek
Translated from
DIE WELTWOCHE
April 12, 2017

With refreshing directness, the British weekly Spectator recently asked on its title page, “Has the Pope gone mad?” Which is not so far-fetched as one might think: In fact, since the beginning of his pontificate, the Argentine pope has generated so much confusion, contradiction and partisan provocations that his media-minders cannot keep up with corrections and explanations of ‘what he really meant to say’. For example, how could they ‘moderate’ a formulation like ‘media consumers tend to coprophagia’ (eating excrement)?

And how to explain contradictions such as this: At the beginning of the year, he called on the bishops of the universal Church to adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards any abuse of young people. Something which his predecessor always demanded and carried out.

But one of the over 800 priests and bishops defrocked by Benedict XVI was the Italian priest Mauro Inzoli, nicknamed ‘don Mercedes’ because of his predilection for luxury cars. But he also had a weakness for minors.

Two years after the suspension of his priestly faculties by Benedict XVI, "Don Mercedes" was back on the Roman scene. Pope Francis had lifted his penalty. But when the pedophile priest renewed his swineries even from the confessional, Italian authorities intervened and asked the pope for cooperation in their prosecution of Inzoli. But ‘zero-tolerance’ Francis apparently declined. It seems Inzoli is a friend to some of the pope’s closest friends, and well, ‘my friend’s friend is also my friend’. A rule that applies to most friendly relations in Italy.

And enemies are enemies – and it is really going very bad for this pope’s enemies. One hears that in his small circle of close associates, this pope gives vent to strong expressions, curses, and unprintable ribaldry, and that recently his outbreaks of rage have become more frequent. It is said he loves to humiliate those around him.

Humiliation, he apparently believes, is an important spiritual experience, as though it were a lesson he has drawn from the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola.

Perhaps he should have taken another rule more seriously. That which prohibits Jesuits from aiming for higher ecclesiastical office - unless the Pope expressly requires them in individual cases. Then they would be bound by the rule of obedience. But how do you deal with a Jesuit who has become pope?

Vatican insiders report that, unlike with Pope Benedict, very few refer to Bergoglio – the secular name of the current Successor of Peter – as ‘Holy Father’, and when they do, it is in an ironic way. As in, “The Holy Father has declared, in his immense wisdom, that people love to eat shit”.

The fact that he does not live in the papal apartment three stories above the Bernini colonnade but rather – at considerable financial expense – in the Casa Santa Marta, the Vatican’s four-star hotel, we now believe is not really a sign of modesty and humility, but rather a method of control. In that it enables him to be better informed about what is happening among the various factions in the Vatican.

And this pope makes short shrift of his enemies. He relieved the conservative Cardinal Raymond Burke of his Curial office as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (i.e, the Church’s ‘Chief Justice’). Recently [after unceremoniously relieving Burke of his demotion-appointment to be Patron of the Order of Malta – Bergoglio simply appointed a Vatican bishop to take over full powers as the pope’s envoy to the Order, which is the function of the Patron], he sent Burke off to the Pacific island of Guam “to adjudicate an extremely complicated case of abuse that required great expertise” [The Bishop of Guam is accused of misconduct in dealing with clerical sex abuses].

What brought on Bergoglio’s ire against Burke? Because with three other cardinals, he has opposed the Bergoglian liberalization of Church practices regarding communion for remarried divorcees.

Catholics know that marriage is a sacrament, a sign especially in our times when nearly one of every two marriages ends in divorce. The Catechism of the Catholic Church considers marriage – in which the spouses pledge to be faithful to each other ‘for better for for worse’ – indissoluble for three reasons.
First, because the essence of marital love is total and unconditional surrender of the self to each other; second, because it reflects God’s own unconditional faith to his creatures; and third, because it represents Jesus’s gift of himself to the Church with his death on the Cross. And so, a Catholic marriage is not just church bells and wedding cake, but a sacrament, a consecrated act of faith that consolidates the Gospel passage “What God has brought together, let no man take asunder” (Mt 19,6).

At first glance, Francis's document, "Amoris Laetitia," would seem to confirm traditional Church morality. The loosening of the marriage vow is hidden in a footnote with proverbial Jesuitic cunning, one is tempted to say.

It was logical that some cardinals saw the need for clarification. They formulated the DUBIA, questions answerable by a simple Yes or No, whereby the pope could easily dispel the doubts related to the five points that they wish to be clarified.

One of the DUBIA signatories is German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, a Church historian of undisputed rank. He told Der Spiegel that Sacred Scripture is not a self-service cafeteria. “According to St. Paul, we [bishops] are administrators of the divine mysteries, but without the right to dispose of them as we please”. Meanwhile, he and his three colleagues have not been answered by the pope [who, for all intents and purposes, has made it clear he does not intend to answer them at all, nor the DUBIA directly].

In any case, the Curia is not finding it easy with this ‘Sponti-Hirt’ [the German word for spontaneous is spontan, so it’s a portmanteau word for ‘spontaneous shepherd’, or more precisely, ‘shepherd of the spontaneous’] who loves formlessness and who seems to thoroughly despise his Curial associates.

A high-ranking Curial official says it has come to a point when the pope prefers to decide on Church legislation over lunch with his associates, bypassing Curial committees.

Nor can the Curia forget the way in which, at his last Christmas address to them as in the one he gave in 2014, he denounced the entire Curia as lazy, hypocritical and negligent of their duties, calling them Pharisees, which seems to be his idea of being ‘Jesus-like’.

Now, the chief pastor and teacher of the Catholic Church has declared that is “better to be an atheist than a Catholic who leads a hypocritical double life”. Meanwhile he has described himself ‘a sinner and fallible’ in public, which in itself sounds hypocritical. Should he not rather fight his own hypocrisy, and as a pastor, and ensure that even the most hypocritical ‘atheists’ can see the way back to the Church, to the faith and to truth?

Not a few cardinals are now concerned about possible successors to this pope who has said that he does not think he will be pope for longer than four or five years – a deadline that is due.

But meanwhile, the protests against him have reached the streets, so to speak. Several weeks ago, central Rome was papered with posters carrying a mocking message for the pope, as Romans have for centuries expressed themselves against popes and other leaders. It is as if the base is launching a mobile move against Francis, in ways not less cunning than he.

Before his election, which had been driven by German-speaking cardinals and Benedict-adversaries, his electors ought to have asked questions in his home diocese of Buenos Aires which he ran without gentleness or humor, pushing his policies with the subtlety of a butcher's knife.

In Rome, his pontificate began on a note that was almost ludicrous, greeting the waiting crowd with 'Buona sera' which they cheered enthusiastically. And he was quickly portrayed as a humble simple man, soon to be built up in the secular world as the poster boy of political correctness.

In fact, he has just made his second appearance on the cover of Rolling Stone, a publication not known for citing the Catechism of the Church. This time, he is quoted for his line "This economy kills!" in a flourishing capitalist media enterprise supporting the multibillion-dollar music industry of the United States. [His first Rolling Stone appearance was a Man of the Year tribute for the line "Who am I to judge?" about homosexuality.]...
[I am only halfway through my translation. To be continued...]
TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 15 aprile 2017 12:55


Fascinating exchanges over
the meaning of ‘Amoris laetitia’:
Is some clarity emerging?

by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

April 14, 2017


Pope Francis’s document Amoris laetitia has sparked sharp divisions and debates. The sides have drawn up pretty much into two camps… well… three if you count the uninformed, which is pretty large.

For the 1st anniversary of Amoris, Washington DC’s Archbishop Card. Wuerl, noted that the pastoral guidance of Amoris Laetitia, found in chapter 8, has been controversial, but explains why there is no cause for alarm:

“The hermeneutic required for a fruitful appropriation of the document’s teaching on this point is based on the understanding that none of the teaching of the Church has been changed: This includes the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage, the directives of the Code of Canon Law, and also the role of individual conscience in the determination of personal culpability…..

“The exhortation does not create some sort of internal forum process in which a marriage can be annulled, or in which the objective moral order can be changed…. Instead, the exhortation places greater emphasis on the role of the individual conscience in appropriating those moral norms in the person’s actual circumstances.”


Fr Raymond de Souza then made the sound point at the ever iffy Crux that the bishops of Malta, in their guidelines for applying Chapter 8 issued a while back (aka “The Maltese Fiasco”), the bishops of Germany and curial Cardinal Coccopalmerio think that something has changed. Whereas Card. Wuerl tries to uphold John Paul II’s teaching in Familiaris consortio, the others say Amoris revises it.

So, in simple terms within this complicated debate, there are a couple camps. One camp holds that doctrine and discipline haven’t changed, and the other holds that it has. De Souza rightly concludes that they can’t both be right.

Then, again at iffy Crux – and this is another example of why Crux is iffy – the former editor of the ultra-liberal 'Bitter Pill' (aka The Tablet), Austen Ivereigh, and now an editor for Crux – wrote a condescending rebuttal of Fr. de Souza stating:

The hermeneutic of interpretation of Pope Francis’s document on the joy of love, says Wuerl, is that the Church’s teaching on marriage has not changed. Questioning that idea, de Souza responds that Wuerl can only be right if the German and Maltese bishops are wrong.

This is a classic maneuver of those whom the cardinal accurately describes as “challenging the integrity” of Amoris. De Souza says he hopes Wuerl is right, that “nothing has changed”; but if it hasn’t, then how can the Maltese bishops say “something has changed?”

But Wuerl never says nothing has changed. He says church teaching and laws on marriage haven’t changed.

Something has changed, not in church law or doctrine, but in moral theology and the pastoral application of sacramental discipline.

This shouldn’t be necessary to say, but for the record, Amoris Laetitia throughout its nine chapters upholds, promotes and passionately seeks to restore lifelong, faithful, stable, indissoluble unions.


In response to Ivereigh’s patronizing response to de Souza comes the deft canonist Ed Peters.

Peters published simultaneously at the Catholic World Report and his own blog In The Light Of The Law a post which reveals the fatal flaw in Ivereigh’s snooty piece. Peters writes (with my emphases and comments in red):

Sever ‘canon law’ from ‘pastoral pratice’
and lots of things make sense


I am tempted to address at length Austen Ivereigh’s commentary on Fr. Raymond de Souza’s observations on Cdl. Wuerl’s statementon Francis’ document Amoris laetitia, but at a certain point the law of diminishing returns sets leaving such an exercise tedious.

So let me just say: Ivereigh is free to argue that Amoris does not undermine Church teaching on sin, but he needs to respond to those who disagree with his claim with something more than paternalistic tsk-tsk’ing [Peters also noted Ivereigh’s condescension] and, before anything else, he needs to face the simple fact that Wuerl can’t be right (as I think he is, if narrowly read) and the bishops of Malta also be right (as I think they certainly are not)—which is de Souza’s main point.

The reason Ivereigh misses de Souza’s point is, I suspect, that, deep down, Ivereigh thinks that “canon law” and ‘approved pastoral practice’ are two fundamentally different things. [This error has infected a great many people today, churchmen, newsies, etc. It is dangerous.]

Thus Ivereigh could logically hold that canon law (including the barring of divorced-and-remarried Catholics from holy Communion) has remained the same, while at the same time holding that pastors may admit such persons to holy Communion under conditions other than those already recognized by the Church (namely, separation of abodes, or a commitment to live as brother-sister where the irregular marriage is not known). Ivereigh would be right, if canon law has little or nothing to do with what pastors should really do.

At some point I hope that Ivereigh et al will sit down, look at the text of Canon 915 and the numerous ecclesial values behind it, and recognize, among other things, that degrees of personal culpability (which Ivereigh and others go on and on and on about, as if that were the central insight his adversaries lack) have nothing to do with the operation of the objectively oriented Canon 915, the main law that controls pastoral practice in this area.

Whereupon they will do one of two things: (1) accept that tradition and promote it, or (2) acknowledge that tradition and honestly call for changing it. [!] At which point all sides would be talking about the same, and the dispositive, issue.

What I fear is that, instead, Ivereigh et al, ignoring the connection that must, and usually does, exist between law and practice, will simply keep on repeating that canon law has not changed but good pastoral practice has. Which is a huge waste of time.


Peters got this exactly right.

Let’s be honest about what Amoris says and doesn’t say without verbose fan-dances which attempt to square the circle.

The ongoing debate about Amoris Ch. 8 reveals a possible approach of Pope Francis, who, so far at least, has declined to offer any clarifications. He has not, for example, responded to the Five Dubia of the Four Cardinals.

As Tracy Rowand points out in her terrific new book Catholic Theology:

If Pope Francis has sympathy for any particular approach to Catholic theology, it is that of ‘People’s Theology’. One of the most extensive articles on this subject is Juan Carlos Scannone’s ‘El papa Francisco y la teologia del pueblo’ published in the journal Razón y Fe (Reason and Faith).

In this paper Scannone claims that not only is Pope Francis a practitioner of ‘People’s Theology’ but also that Francis extracted his favourite four principles – time is greater than space, unity prevails over conflict, reality is more important than ideas, and the whole is greater than the parts – from a letter of the nineteenth-century Argentinian dictator, Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793– 1877) sent to another Argentinian caudillo, Facundo Quiroga (1788– 1835), in 1834.

These four principles, which are said to govern the decision-making processes of Pope Francis, have their own section in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium and references to one or other of them can be found scattered throughout his other papal documents. Pope Francis calls them principles for ‘building a people’.

A common thread running through each of these principles is the tendency to give priority to praxis over theory. [NOTA BENE…] There is also a sense that conflict in itself is not a bad thing, that ‘unity will prevail’ somehow and that time will remove at least some of the protagonists in any conflict.

The underlying metaphysics is quite strongly Hegelian, and the approach to praxis itself resembles what Lamb classified as ‘cultural-historical’ activity and is associated primarily with Luther and Kant rather than Marx.


The ongoing conflicts between the camps which have sharply divided over Amoris laetitia may reveal a kind of “Hegelian” approach to doing theology favored by the Holy Father: let the positions clash and, over time, things will settle down and there will have emerged a new approach, changes in doctrine, revised laws, etc.

In the meantime, Ed Peters got it right and Ivereigh got it wrong. De Souza is right to point out that both Card. Wuerl (in what De Souza cites) and the bishops of German and Malta, etc., can’t both be right about Amoris.

Lastly, I renewed my serious questions about why the Knights of Columbus would bankroll Crux if this is what Crux is determined to produce. This is the second time that Crux – with the Knights’ money – has published something troubling by Ivereigh, whom Crux employees an editor.

Perhaps it is time for Knights to think about shedding their KC insurance.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 15 aprile 2017 19:43


I must express honestly that I consider all the many tributes to Joseph Ratzinger-Benedict XVI on his 90th birthday – and in general, all those that have been published since his retirement – as tributes to who he was, not to the enormous and highly questionable enigma presented to us in the past four years through the two men who have been among his closest associates, Peter Seewald and Georg Gaenswein, who have both acritically propagated uncharacteristic thoughts and attitudes attributed to him. Uncharacteristic in being virtually offensive to the faith and truth that Joseph Ratzinger had always upheld.

I do not recognize the man I have admired most in the world – totally and unconditionally, until his Last Conversations with Peter Seewald was published - in the man whom Gaenswein now says will not get into the AL controversy because “it concerns matters which are so far removed from him”.

Nor will I seek to rationalize or explain in any way what is really behind all these developments which constitute a surrealistic nightmare for me – because no explanation comes to mind which is adequate, much less convincing. If Gaenswein is reporting the honest truth about the emeritus pope’s attitude towards Amoris laetitia (and to his successor in general), then one must question whether, in fact, Benedict XVI continues to have perfect lucidity. And/or has consciously chosen to play blind to the chaos in the Church under Bergoglio’s leadership.

I would never have thought he would get to mark his 90th birthday under these circumstances. How excruciatingly and unbearably painful all this is, even if, for now, it remains a conditional disillusion (conditional because much of it has come from Georg Gaenswein and not directly from the emeritus Pope himself).

Having said that, I do not want this nightmare to get in the way of everything good that he was (and I pray desperately to God, still is) which is the subject of all the tributes to him these days.


The following tribute is by Tracey Rowland, who holds the St John Paul II Chair of Theology at the University of Notre Dame in Australia. She is the author of Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI (Oxford University Press), and one of the most reliable scholars on the thought and work of Joseph Ratzinger.

The Ratzinger revolution
His writings will one day inspire a generation
to revolt against the West's secular consensus

by Tracey Rowland

April 13, 2017

Benedict XVI will celebrate his 90th birthday on Easter Sunday. Cardinal Joachim Meisner famously described him as a man who is as intelligent as 12 professors together and as pious as a child making his First Communion.

If one inserts the words “Joseph Ratzinger” into the Google Scholar search engine, which records academic publications, one obtains some 24,600 hits in four seconds. The words “Benedict XVI” bring up even more results – 66,100. As a comparison, Walter Kasper scores a mere 6,930 and Hans Küng 6,270. Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac score 16,900 and 13,200 hits respectively.

The only theologian of the last century I could find who trumps the 66,100 figure is Karl Barth, who has been the subject of a massive 127,000 academic articles. The Catholic theologian who came closest to Ratzinger was Karl Rahner, weighing in at 41,500 hits.

As Bavaria’s most famous son since Ludwig II enters his 10th decade of life, it is worth considering what the impact of all these publications might be in the brave new world of 21st-century Catholicism. My thought is that the publications of Ratzinger will form a treasury to be mined by future generations trying to piece together elements of a fragmented Christian culture.

Ratzinger himself emphasises that the seat of all faith is the memoria Ecclesiae: the memory of the Church. He believes that “there can be a waxing or waning, a forgetting or remembering, but no recasting of truth in time”. As a result, “the decisive question for today is whether that memory can continue to exist through which the Church becomes Christ and without which she sinks into nothingness”.

In this void of nothingness, he says, in a world without the memoria Ecclesiae, the human person strives for an autonomy that is in conflict with his nature. It is natural, normal and healthy for one’s sense of self to exist within the context of a living history and tradition. Those without such moorings often spend their entire youth trying to “find themselves” without much success and often only after years of painful experimentation.

These reflections on the importance of memory were made by Ratzinger in 1982. Earlier, in 1958, during his theological teenager phase, Ratzinger wrote an essay entitled “The New Pagans and the Church”. In it he observed that whenever people make a new acquaintance they can assume with some certainty that the person has a baptismal certificate, but not that he has a Christian frame of mind. This was a full decade before the cultural revolution of the 1960s.

Today we cannot even presume the existence of the baptismal certificate. Members of the millennial generation find themselves in a situation where they have rarely experienced a fully functional Christian social milieu. To find out about Christianity, especially the Catholic version of it, they watch documentaries and films. They interrogate older Catholics, and google information about the saints, liturgies and cultural practices.

The cultural capital that should follow as a natural endowment upon their baptism has been frittered away, buried and in some cases even suppressed by previous generations. They are like archaeologists. They discover fragments of the faith which they find attractive and then they try to work out where the fragment once fitted into a Catholic mental universe.

When a new generation arises in full rebellion from the social experiments of the contemporary era, craving a human ecology that respects both God and nature, and wanting to be something more than rootless cosmopolitans, Ratzinger’s publications will serve as Harry Potter-style Portkeys, giving creative young rebels access to the missing cultural capital – indeed, access to what Ratzinger calls the memoria Ecclesiae.

High on the list of the missing cultural capital is the realisation that from the earliest times Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, the religion according to reason. As Ratzinger expresses the principle: “Faith has the right to be missionary only if it transcends all traditions and constitutes an appeal to reason and an orientation towards the truth itself.” The lack of truth, he argues, is the major disease of our age.


One of Ratzinger’s own mentors was Romano Guardini. The Italian-born German theologian wrote that “the Church forgives everything more readily than an attack on truth. She [the Church] knows that if a man falls, but leaves truth unimpaired, he will find his way back again. But if he attacks the vital principle, then the sacred order of life is demolished.”

In particular, Guardini argued that the human will “has to admit that it is blind and needs the light, the leadership and the organising formative power of truth. It must admit as a fundamental principle the primacy of knowledge over the will, of the logos [reason] over the ethos [custom].”

Being well intentioned is necessary but not sufficient. Cardinal George Pell famously described the idea that it doesn’t matter if we make poor judgments providing we mean well as “the Donald Duck heresy”. Donald is always making mistakes but he rarely intends any harm.

Using an expression from the psychoanalyst Albert Görres, Ratzinger has argued that the mentality that wants to give priority to ethos over logos represents the “Hinduisation” of the faith.

Conversely, and with equal vigour, Ratzinger has emphasised that knowing the content of the faith, having an expert knowledge of all the doctrines, is not sufficient, unless the heart is opened by grace. The human intellect needs to search for the truth. It was made for this. But so too the human will was made for goodness, and unless the will is attracted to the good, the intellect is likely to go astray.

This is what Ratzinger means when he uses the medieval maxim “reason has a wax nose”. As most barristers know, the human intellect can be used to formulate arguments to defend all kinds of actions and propositions.

The human head and the human heart thus need to work in tandem. Both require a Christian formation. In this context Ratzinger often asserts that “love and reason are the twin pillars of all reality”. Without these twin pillars in full operational order people end up as “narrative wrecks”.

Without the truth some people are morally rudderless and engage in all manner of self-harming behaviour. There is no rationality giving unity to their actions. Others have the truth but, since they do not love, their human formation is stunted and they often cause great harm to other people.


To those who experiment with all manner of psychotherapy, drugs and Eastern mystical religions in order to discover their inner self, Ratzinger offers the advice that the human person can only find his centre of gravity from a position outside of his self. It is Christ who is the centre of gravity of every human life.

It is Christ who holds a vision not merely of a perfected humanity understood as a universal concept, but for each individual person He holds a vision of what that person could be in co-operation with the gifts of grace.

Acceptance of the Incarnation is the key to understanding humanity. The next indispensable element in a Catholic culture is the concept of sacramentality. There is, in other words, a specific way in which God relates to people through time and space. Here the idea that the human person is composed of both spirit and matter, and that God relates to both, not just to the spirit, is important.

In the sacrament of the Eucharist the mere matter of bread and wine is changed into Christ’s Body and Blood. As Ratzinger describes this moment: “The substantial conversion of bread and wine into His Body and Blood introduces within creation the principle of a radical change, a sort of ‘nuclear fission’, which penetrates to the heart of all being.”

The sacraments, as the word suggests, sacralise human life. They raise it to a higher level. They are also one of the means by which a person receives grace. They are not simply social milestone markers.

A further indispensable element of a Catholic culture is the ability to distinguish authentic Christianity from its various secularist mutations. A common temptation in the present era is for people to try and separate the fruits of Christianity from belief in the basic tenets of the faith as expressed in the Creed.

For example, kindness, patience, putting other people first, caring for one’s neighbour are all fruits of a Christian culture. Secular humanists are often keen to retain these fruits but separate them from belief in God.

This project leads on to what Ratzinger calls “political moralism”. In the absence of a strong Christian culture, the state begins to act as if it were the Church: bureaucrats, especially education department officials, set themselves up in a position analogous to priests. As an alternative to a Christian moral formation they offer various social engineering policies. We end up in the absurd situation where children as young as four are monitored for so-called sexist behaviour.

Many of Ratzinger’s publications, including the encyclical Spe Salvi, offer critiques of the new secular morality, while his earlier encyclical Deus Caritas Est can be read as a Catholic defence against the Nietzschean charge that Christianity poisoned eros (love/desire). Ratzinger does not deny that warped, puritanical versions of Christianity denigrated eros.

However, he distinguishes a Catholic account of sexuality which links eros to agape (love/charity) from those aberrant forms. He thereby provides further support for John Paul II’s Catechesis on Human Love (also known as the Theology of the Body).

This is just a short account of the many elements of an embattled Catholic culture that can be found in the mountains of publications by Ratzinger.

The discovery of Ratzinger by future generations may well lead them on to the literary and philosophical treasures of his Polish friend Karol Wojtyła and the theology of his Swiss friend von Balthasar, his French friend de Lubac, his Italian friend Luigi Giussani and an English author called John Henry Newman.

They may even find Tolkien and a writer from the Orkneys called Mackay Brown, the Norwegian Nobel laureate Sigrid Undset and an Etonian called George from the noble house of Spencer who thought there needed to be a prayer crusade for the restoration of the old faith in Britain (he is known today as Ignatius Spencer).

Through these authors, a generation tired of the banality of cheap intimacy and nominalism gone mad may rediscover the buried capital of a civilisation built on the belief that the Incarnation really did happen. They may also gradually learn to distinguish a secularised Christianity that hooked itself up to whatever zeitgeist wafted along from the real mysteries celebrated in something called the old Christian calendar.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 15 aprile 2017 20:15
Fatima in Holy Week -
Jacinta and the Crucified Lord

by Sor Lucia dos Santos
From the book Memórias da Irmã Lúcia
(Remembrances of Sister Lucia)

April 13, 2017

This comes from a letter written by the oldest of the Fatima visionaries to the Bishop of Leiria in May 1938.

Before the events of 1917, except for the bond of kinship that united us, no other particular affection made me prefer the company of Jacinta and Francisco to that of any other child.

On the contrary, her company was at times most unwanted, due to her delicate character. When faced with the smallest quarrel, as those that happen between children when they play, she would be saddened, and go to a corner...

In order to have her back playing with us, the sweetest gentleness that children are capable of at such times were not enough. It was then necessary to let her pick the game and the child with whom she wanted to play it. She already had then a heart very inclined to goodness, and the good God had granted her a sweet and gentle character that made her, at the same time, lovable and attractive.

For some reason I did not understand, Jacinta, along with her brother Francisco, had a special preference for me and came after me to play with them almost always. They did not enjoy the company of the other children and asked me to go with them near a well that was in their parents's backyard. Once we got there, Jacinta picked the games which we would play. Her favorite ones were, almost always, played on top of this well, which was covered with stones on top, under the shade of an olive tree and two plum trees...

As I said before, one of her preferred games was that of prendas. As Your Excellency certainly knows, [in this game,] the one who wins tells the loser to do anything off the top of his mind. She enjoyed asking [us] to run after butterflies until we were able to fetch one and bring it to her. At other times, she asked for some flower that she had chosen.

One day, we were playing this in my home, and it was my turn to tell her to do something. My brother was sitting down, writing near a table. I told her then to give him a hug and a kiss, but she answered:
- "Not this! Ask me to do something else. Why don't you ask me to kiss Our Lord who is there?" (It was a Crucifix hanging on the wall.)

- "Very well," I said. "Climb on a chair, bring it down and, on your knees, give it three hugs and three kisses: one for Francisco, one for myself, and one for you."

- "To Our Lord, I will give as many [hugs and kisses] as you tell me to."

And she ran to get the Crucifix. She kissed and hugged it with so much devotion that I never forgot that fact. Then, she looked attentively at Our Lord and asked:

- "Why is Our Lord nailed to a cross like this?"
- "Because He died for us."
- "Tell me how it happened." ...


Jacinta and her brother Francisco will be canonized on May 13, the 100th anniversary of the first apparition of Mary to them and their cousin Lucia.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 15 aprile 2017 20:32
Tolerance No 5
[Essence of Satanic fumes]


Maundy Thursday, 2017

I am reflecting on the process by which a Protestant church dies, and even the Only Church is severely damaged. Today, on Maundy Thursday, we will see this process at work everywhere.

First is the Fear of the Lord. People are scared of hell, and behave accordingly. They might do so according to a wrong set of rules, and be more or less culpable for it; but the Fear of the Lord is there. This is, for example, the Church of England in Jane Austen's day.

At some point the fear of the Lord goes out of the window; but the buildings, the ministers, the entire apparatus remains. At this point hell isn't part of the conversation anymore. Once hell is not feared, being good is not anymore obedience to God, but a sugary feeling of being good because it makes one feel good. The Church of England becomes the Church of Social Justice or, more broadly, the Church of Feeling Beautiful.

This is a slippery slope, though, and this desire of feeling beautiful will, after a while, not tolerate any encumbrance or obstacle. Why would one, say, condemn perversion? Because a) it's disgusting to God and b) it's disgusting to us.

But once the fear of the Lord is gone a) is out of the window, and once feeling beautiful is the moral imperative this will require willingly ignoring the disgust for perversion, covering its stench with a bigger dose of the new 'perfume', “Tolerance No 5”. [Which presumably disguises the stench of sulfur!]

In time, the new scent will be used in such doses that perversion will be forgotten altogether, helped by a new vocabulary (“gay”) and a new moral code (“inclusion”).

At this point even the Church of Social Justice is clearly obsolete, and the Church of Feeling Beautiful has taken over. Every mention of God is now either avoided, or inserted into a completely deformed, actually perverted context: God is now the Great Master Parfumier In The Sky, who encourages and inspires us to choke more and more in the fumes of Tolerance No 5, so that we may lose every conscience [be desensitized???] to the stink surrounding us.

This is now a process common to both the false churches and the Only One. Francis and a good part of the hierarchy openly peddle Tolerance No 5 to the masses exactly as an homosexual Anglican wannabe priest would. The Barque of Peter is completed invaded by it.

I smell the stink as I write this, and I know that this evening the Evil Clown will go around spreading it with a huge vaporiser, his message amplified worldwide by willing and interested (though less and less so) media.

Tolerance No 5 has already factually destroyed a lot of Protestant churches, and has reduced the so-called Church of England to such a state that if the PM were to order, today, to just shut it down, few people would notice, even fewer would complain, and after three weeks the matter would be forgotten altogether. [Not really, because the Queen of England is nominally its head and Defender of the Anglican Faith!]

Tolerance No 5 will, however, never destroy the Only Church. It will damage it, sure. It might wipe it out of entire Continents, certainly. But it will never destroy it, because a good Lord has decreed that this will never happen.

We prepare ourselves for the next spraying of the scent disguised as fragrance, do what we need to do regardless, and wait for the time when fresh air will enter the door of the Only Church again.


No accounting for strange tastes!

The first thing that flashed to my mind on seeing this was Mons. Paglia’s homoerotic mural in the Cathedral of Terni…
And next, why does the illustration for Easter looks more like an Ascension image than the Resurrection? ... Oakes Spaulding
at MAHOUND’S PARADISE has this informative comment about the artist:

…One might be pardoned for thinking it looks like the sort of cheesy macho buddy Jesus action portrait that a Christian evangelical comic strip artist might have drawn…

Actually, the artist is Victor Delhez, a quasi-surrealist who came to prominence in the 1930s. A Belgian by birth, Delhez would later live in Argentina and Bolivia. He settled in Buenos Aires and became a professor there.

The illustration used on the card is taken from a set of forty that Delhez produced on theme of the Gospels. .. I suspect that a few Catholics would find some of his work offensive. I actually like much of what I've seen, including illustrations to Lord Dunsany’s A DREAMER’S TALES.

But the particular woodcut, above, is pretty horrible, at least in the context of what it is supposed to represent. It deserves all the silly comments that Catholics are currently giving it on social media.

I blame this Argentinian pope for choosing it. Not so much Delhez…
[.QUOTE] And I knew I had come across the name of Delhez once before, also in connection with a Bergoglio greeting card. Indeed, here it is – his Christmas card in 2014:




At the time, I asked: “Is there a profound message I ought to get when an ass's ass is by far the most prominent feature, center
foreground, in a Nativity scene?”… Subsequently, of course, we have had reports about Bergoglio’s apparent fascination with poopy
metaphors and lately, his very public visit to a Port-a-potty…

Anyway, here are some reactions to Pentin’s tweet:


TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 15 aprile 2017 22:50


As I have been remiss in posting the appropriate religious reflections for Holy Week, let me try and make up a bit for that by posting
this essay which focuses ON the rites and significance of these most holy days of the Christian year.


The Easter Triduum: Entering into the Paschal Mystery
Some reflections on three days in Holy Week
that culminates with the Easter vigil

by Carl Olson

April 13, 2017

[Reprint of an essay originally written for the April 9, 2006, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper]

The liturgical year is a great and ongoing proclamation by the Church of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a celebration of the Mystery of the Word. Through this yearly cycle, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, "the various aspects of the one Paschal mystery unfold"(CCC 1171). The Easter Triduum holds a special place in the liturgical year because it marks the culmination of the yearly celebration in proclaiming the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Latin word triduum refers to a period of three days and has long been used to describe various three-day observances that prepared for a feast day through liturgy, prayer, and fasting. But it is most often used to describe the three days prior to the great feast of Easter: Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday and the Easter Vigil.

The General Norms for the Liturgical Year state that the Easter Triduum begins with the evening Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday, "reaches its high point in the Easter Vigil, and closes with evening prayer on Easter Sunday" (par 19).

Just as Sunday is the high point of the week, Easter is the high point of the year. The meaning of the great feast is revealed and anticipated throughout the Triduum, which brings the people of God into contact – through liturgy, symbol, and sacrament – with the central events of the life of Christ: the Last Supper, His trial and crucifixion, His time in the tomb, and His Resurrection from the dead.

In this way, "the mystery of the Resurrection, in which Christ crushed death, permeates with its powerful energy our old time, until all is subjected to him" (CCC 1169). During these three days of contemplation and anticipation the liturgies emphasize the sacrificial death of Christ on the Cross, and the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, by which the faithful enter into the life-giving Passion of Christ and grow in hope of eternal life in Him.

Holy Thursday and The Lord's Supper
The Triduum begins with the evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday, which commemorates when the Eucharist was instituted at the Last Supper by Jesus.

The traditional English name for this day, "Maundy Thursday", comes from the Latin phrase Mandatum novum – "a new command" (or mandate) – which comes from Christ’s words: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (Jn 13:34). The Gospel reading for the liturgy is from the first part of the same chapter and depicts Jesus washing the feet of the disciples, an act of servitude (commonly done by slaves or servants in ancient cultures) and great humility.

Earlier on Holy Thursday (or earlier in the week) the bishop celebrates the Chrism Mass, which focuses on the ordained priesthood and the public renewal by priests of their promises to faithfully fulfill their office. In the evening liturgy, the priest, who is persona Christi, will wash the feet of several parishioners, oftentimes catechumens and candidates who will be entering into full communion with the Church at Easter Vigil. In this way the many connections between the Eucharist, salvation, self-sacrifice, and service to others are brought together.

These realities are further anticipated in Jesus’s remark about the approaching betrayal by Judas: "Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all."

The sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is brought out in the Old Testament reading, from Exodus 12, which recounts the first Passover and God’s command for the people of Israel, enslaved in Egypt, to kill a perfect lamb, eat it, and then spread its blood over the door as a sign of fidelity to the one, true God.

Likewise, the reading from Paul’s epistle to the Christians in Corinth (1 Cor 11) repeats the words given by the Son of God to His apostles at the Last Supper: "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Thus, in this memorial of Jesus’s last meal with His disciples, the faithful are reminded of the everlasting value of that meal, the gift of the priesthood, the grave dangers of turning away from God, the necessity of the approaching Cross, and the abiding love that the Lord has for His people.

Good Friday - Veneration of the Cross
This is the first full day of the Easter Triduum, a day commemorating the Passion, Cross, and death of Jesus Christ, and therefore a day of strict fasting. The liturgy is profoundly austere, perhaps the most simple and stark liturgy of the entire year.

The liturgy of the Lord’s Passion consists of three parts: the liturgy of the Word, the veneration of the Cross, and the reception of Communion. Although Communion is given and received, this liturgy is not a Mass; this practice dates back to the earliest years of the Church and is meant to emphasize the somber, mournful character of the day.

The Body of Christ that is received by the faithful on Good Friday was consecrated the prior evening at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper and, in most cases, was adored until midnight or another late hour.

The liturgy of the Word begins with silence. After a prayer, there are readings from Isaiah 52 and 53 (about the suffering Servant), Psalm 31 (a great Messianic psalm), and the epistle to the Hebrews (about Christ the new and eternal high priest). Each of these readings draws out the mystery of the suffering Messiah who conquers through death and who is revealed through what seemingly destroys Him.

Then the Passion from the Gospel of John (18:1-19:42) is proclaimed, often by several different lectors reading respective parts (Jesus, the guards, Peter, Caiaphas the high priest, Pilate, the soldiers). In this reading the great drama of the Passion unfolds, with Jew and Gentile, male and female, and the powerful and the weak all revealed for who they are and how their choices to follow or deny Christ will affect their lives and the lives of others.

The simple, direct form of the Good Friday liturgy and readings brings the faithful face to face with the cross, the great scandal and paradox of Christianity. The cross is solemnly venerated after intercessory prayers are offered for the world and for all people. The deacon (or another minister) brings out the veiled cross in procession.

The priest takes the cross, stands with it in front of the altar and faces the people, then uncovers the upper part of the cross, the right arm of the cross, and then the entire cross. As he unveils each part, he sings, "This is the wood of the cross." He places the cross and then venerates it; other clergy, lay ministers, and the faithful then approach and venerate the cross by touching or kissing it.

In this way each person acknowledges the instrument of Christ’s death and publicly demonstrates their willingness to take up their cross and follow Christ, regardless of what trials and sufferings it might involve.

Afterward, the faithful receive Communion and then depart silently. In the Byzantine rite, Communion is not even offered on this day. At Vespers a "shroud" bearing a painting of the lifeless Christ is carried in a burial procession, and the faithful keep vigil before it through the night.

Holy Saturday and Easter Vigil -
The Mother of All Vigils

The ancient Church celebrated Holy Saturday with strict fasting in preparation of the celebration of Easter. After sundown the Christians would hold an all-night vigil, which concluded with baptism and Eucharist at the break of dawn.

The same idea (if not the identical timeline) is found in the Easter Vigil today, which is the high point of the Easter Triduum and is filled with an abundance of readings, symbols, ceremony, and sacraments.

The Easter Vigil, the Church states, ranks "the mother of all vigils" (General Norms, 21). Being a vigil – a time of anticipation and preparation – it takes place at night, starting after nightfall and finishing before daybreak on Easter, thus beginning and ending in darkness. It consists of four general parts: the Service of Light, the Liturgy of the Word, Christian Initiation, and Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The Service of Light begins outdoors (or in a space outside of the main sanctuary) and in darkness. A fire is lit and blessed, and then the Paschal candle, which symbolizes the light of Christ, is lit from the fire by the priest, who proclaims: "May the light of Christ, rising in glory, dispel the darkness of our hearts and minds."

The biblical themes of light removing darkness and life overcoming death suffuse the entire Vigil. The Paschal candle will be placed in the sanctuary (usually by the altar) for the Easter season, then will be kept in the baptistery so that when the sacrament of baptism is administered the candles of the baptized can be lit from it.

The faithful then join in procession back to the main sanctuary. The deacon (or priest, if no deacon is present), carries the Paschal Candle, lifting it three different times and chanting: "Christ our Light!" The people respond by singing, "Thanks be to God!" Everyone’s candles are lit from the Paschal candle and the faithful return in procession into the sanctuary.

Then the Exultet is sung by the deacon (or priest or cantor). This is an ancient and beautiful poetic hymn of praise to God for the light of the Paschal candle. It may be as old as Saint Ambrose (d. 397) and has been part of the Roman tradition since the ninth century. In the darkness of the church, lit only by candles, the faithful listen to the song of light and glory:

Rejoice, O earth, in shining splendor,
radiant in the brightness of your King!
Christ has conquered! Glory fills you!
Darkness vanishes for ever!


And, concluding:
May the Morning Star which never sets
find this flame still burning:
Christ, that Morning Star,
who came back from the dead,
and shed his peaceful light on all mankind,
your Son, who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.


The Liturgy of the Word follows, consisting of seven readings from the Old Testament and two from the New Testament. These readings include the story of creation (Genesis 1 and 2), Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22), the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14 and 15), the prophet Isaiah proclaiming God’s love (Isaiah 54), Isaiah’s exhortation to seek God (Isaiah 55), a passage from Baruch about the glory of God (Baruch 3 and 4), a prophecy of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 36), Saint Paul on being baptized into Jesus Christ (Rom 6), and the Gospel of Luke about the empty tomb discovered on Easter morning (Luke 24:1-21).

These readings constitute an overview of salvation history and God’s various interventions into time and space, beginning with Creation and concluding with the angel telling Mary Magdalene and others that Jesus is no longer dead; "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here."

Through these readings "the Lord ‘beginning with Moses and all the prophets’ (Lk 24.27, 44-45) meets us once again on our journey and, opening up our minds and hearts, prepares us to share in the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup" (General Norms, 11).

Some of the readings are focused on baptism, that sacrament which brings man into saving communion with God’s divine life. Consider, for example, Saint Paul’s remarks in Romans 6: "We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life."

Easter is in many ways the season of baptism, the sacrament of Christian initiation, in which those who formally lived in darkness and death are buried and baptized in Christ, emerging filled with light and life.

From the early days of the ancient Church the Easter Vigil has been the time for adult converts to be baptized and enter the Church. After the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word, catechumens (those who have never been baptized) and candidates (those who have been baptized in a non-Catholic Christian denomination) are initiated into the Church by (respectively) baptism and confirmation.

The faithful are sprinkled with holy water and renew their baptismal vows. Then all adult candidates are confirmed and general intercessions are stated. The Easter Vigil concludes with the Liturgy of the Eucharist and the reception of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Crucified and Risen Lord. For as Eastern Catholics sing hundreds of times during the Paschal season, "Christ is risen from the dead; by death He conquered death, and to those in the graves, He granted life!"
TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 16 aprile 2017 13:52





ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI







April 16,2017, EASTER SUNDAY
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS


The Resurrection, from left: Duccio, 1308; Fra Angelico, 1400; Titian, 1520; El Greco, 1590s; Di Giovani, 15th-cent.

Greek Orthodox and Russian icons; extreme right, Coptic icon.
Below, left, Johann Tischbein the Elder, 1763; right, Raphael, 1502. [NB: The Tischbein painting, which is at the Hamburger Kunsthalle, illustrated Benedict XVI's Easter greeting card in 2012.


JESUS'S RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD
by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI
from JESUS OF NAZARETH, Vol. 2

“If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:14-15).

With these words Saint Paul explains quite drastically what faith in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ means for the Christian message overall: it is its very foundation. The Christian faith stands or falls with the truth of the testimony that Christ is risen from the dead.

If this were taken away, it would still be possible to piece together from the Christian tradition a series of interesting ideas about God and men, about man’s being and his obligations, a kind of religious world view: but the Christian faith itself would be dead.

Jesus would be a failed religious leader, who despite his failure remains great and can cause us to reflect. But he would then remain purely human, and his authority would extend only so far as his message is of interest to us.

He would no longer be a criterion; the only criterion left would be our own judgment in selecting from his heritage what strikes us as helpful. In other words, we would be alone. Our own judgment would be the highest instance.

Only if Jesus is risen has anything really new occurred that changes the world and the situation of mankind. Then he becomes the criterion on which we can rely. For then God has truly revealed himself.

To this extent, in our quest for the figure of Jesus, the Resurrection is the crucial point. Whether Jesus merely was or whether he also is – this depends on the Resurrection. In answering yes or no to this question, we are taking a stand not simply on one event among others, but on the figure of Jesus as such.

Therefore it is necessary to listen with particular attention as the New Testament bears witness to the Resurrection. Yet first we have to acknowledge that this testimony, considered from a historical point of view, is presented to us in a particularly complex form and gives rise to many questions.

What actually happened? Clearly, for the witnesses who encountered the risen Lord, it was not easy to say. They were confronted with what for them was an entirely new reality, far beyond the limits of their experience. Much as the reality of the event overwhelmed them and impelled them to bear witness, it was still utterly unlike anything they had previously known.

Saint Mark tells us that the disciples on their way down from the mountain of the Transfiguration were puzzled by the saying of Jesus that the Son of Man would “rise from the dead”. And they asked one another what “rising from the dead” could mean (9:9-10). And indeed, what does it mean? The disciples did not know, and they could find out only through encountering the reality itself.

Anyone approaching the Resurrection accounts in the belief that he knows what rising from the dead means will inevitably misunderstand those accounts and will then dismiss them as meaningless.

Rudolf Bultmann raised an objection against Resurrection faith by arguing that even if Jesus had come back from the grave, we would have to say that “a miraculous natural event such as the resuscitation of a dead man” would not help us and would be existentially irrelevant (cf. New Testament and Mythology, p. 7).

Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’s Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us. For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors. For the world as such and for our human existence, nothing would have changed.

The miracle of a resuscitated corpse would indicate that Jesus’s Resurrection was equivalent to the raising of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17), the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:22-24, 35-43 and parallel passages), and Lazarus (John 11:1-44). After a more or less short period, these individuals returned to their former lives, and then at a later point they died definitively.

The New Testament testimonies leave us in no doubt that what happened in the “Resurrection of the Son of Man” was utterly different. Jesus’s Resurrection was about breaking out into an entirely new form of life, into a life that is no longer subject to the law of dying and becoming, but lies beyond it – a life that opens up a new dimension of human existence.

Therefore the Resurrection of Jesus is not an isolated event that we could set aside as something limited to the past, but it constitutes an “evolutionary leap” (to draw an analogy, albeit one that is easily misunderstood). In Jesus’s Resurrection a new possibility of human existence is attained that affects everyone and that opens up a future, a new kind of future, for mankind.


So Paul was absolutely right to link the resurrection of Christians and the Resurrection of Jesus inseparably together: “If the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. . . . But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:16, 20).

Christ’s Resurrection is either a universal event, or it is nothing, Paul tells us. And only if we understand it as a universal event, as the opening up of a new dimension of human existence, are we on the way toward any kind of correct understanding of the New Testament Resurrection testimony.

On this basis we can understand the unique character of this New Testament testimony. Jesus has not returned to a normal human life in this world like Lazarus and the others whom Jesus raised from the dead. He has entered upon a different life, a new life – he has entered the vast breadth of God himself, and it is from there that he reveals himself to his followers.


For the disciples, too, this was something utterly unexpected, to which they were only slowly able to adjust. Jewish faith did indeed know of a resurrection of the dead at the end of time. New life was linked to the inbreaking of a new world and thus made complete sense.

If there is a new world, then there is also a new mode of life there. But a resurrection into definitive otherness in the midst of the continuing old world was not foreseen and therefore at first made no sense. So the promise of resurrection remained initially unintelligible to the disciples.

The process of coming to Resurrection faith is analogous to what we saw in the case of the Cross. Nobody had thought of a crucified Messiah. Now the “fact” was there - and it was necessary, on the basis of that fact, to take a fresh look at Scripture. We saw in the previous chapter how Scripture yielded new insights in the light of the unexpected turn of events and how the “fact” then began to make sense.

Admittedly, the new reading of Scripture could begin only after the Resurrection, because it was only through the Resurrection that Jesus was accredited as the one sent by God. Now people had to search Scripture for both Cross and Resurrection, so as to understand them in a new way and thereby come to believe in Jesus as the Son of God.

This also presupposes that for the disciples the Resurrection was just as real as the Cross. It presupposes that they were simply overwhelmed by the reality, that, after their initial hesitation and astonishment, they could no longer ignore that reality. It is truly he. He is alive; he has spoken to us; he has allowed us to touch him, even if he no longer belongs to the realm of the tangible in the normal way.

The paradox was indescribable. He was quite different, no mere resuscitated corpse, but one living anew and forever in the power of God. And yet at the same time, while no longer belonging to our world, he was truly present there, he himself.

It was an utterly unique experience, which burst open the normal boundaries of experience and yet for the disciples was quite beyond doubt. This explains the unique character of the Resurrection accounts: they speak of something paradoxical, of something that surpasses all experience and yet is utterly real and present.

But could it really be true? Can we – as men of the modern world – put our faith in such testimony? “Enlightened” thinking would say no.

For Gerd Lüdemann, for example, it seems clear that in consequence of the “revolution in the scientific image of the world . . . the traditional concepts of Jesus’s Resurrection are to be considered outdated” (quoted in Wilckens, Theologie des Neun Testaments 1/2, pp. 119-20).

But what exactly is this “scientific image of the world”? How far can it be considered normative? Hartmut Gese in his important article “Die Frage des Weltbildes”, to which I should like to draw attention, has painstakingly described the limits of this normativity.

Naturally there can be no contradiction of clear scientific data. The Resurrection accounts certainly speak of something outside our world of experience. They speak of something new, something unprecedented – a new dimension of reality that is revealed.

What already exists is not called into question. Rather we are told that there is a further dimension, beyond what was previously known. Does that contradict science? Can there really only ever be what there has always been? Can there not be something unexpected, something unimaginable, something new?

If there really is a God, is he not able to create a new dimension of human existence, a new dimension of reality altogether? Is not creation actually waiting for this last and highest “evolutionary leap”, for the union of the finite with the infinite, for the union of man and God, for the conquest of death?


Throughout the history of the living, the origins of anything new have always been small, practically invisible, and easily overlooked. The Lord himself has told us that “heaven” in this world is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all the seeds (Matthew 13:31-32), yet contained within it are the infinite potentialities of God.

In terms of world history, Jesus’s Resurrection is improbable; it is the smallest mustard seed of history.

This reversal of proportions is one of God’s mysteries. The great – the mighty – is ultimately the small. And the tiny mustard seed is something truly great.

So it is that the Resurrection has entered the world only through certain mysterious appearances to the chosen few. And yet it was truly the new beginning for which the world was silently waiting. And for the few witnesses – precisely because they themselves could not fathom it – it was such an overwhelmingly real happening, confronting them so powerfully, that every doubt was dispelled, and they stepped forth before the world with an utterly new fearlessness in order to bear witness: Christ is truly risen.


Always worth re-reading! For which one can say a second Alleluia besides the Easter cry of jubilation.





OUR THOUGHTS, PRAYERS AND LOVE

ARE WITH YOU ALWAYS!







April 16, 2017

Joseph Ratzinger celebrates his ninetieth birthday today.

Blessed John Henry Newman notoriously rejoiced that so few popes had been clever; the purpose of a pope,
he insisted, is to be a barrier against innovation.

Benedict XVI, one of God's choicest gifts to His Church in two millennia, was that most rare of things:
a very clever pope who courageously set his hand and mind to the dangerous labour of building up
the broken places.


AD MULTOS ANNOS! PLURIMOSQUE ANNOS!!!





From Lella's blog, thanks to the indefatigable Gemma, a birthday video...







Not to forget the saint of the day:

ST. MARIE BERNARDE (BERNADETTE) SOUBIROUS (France, 1844-1879), Visionary and Virgin
One of the most popular of modern saints, Bernadette was a virtuous and sickly peasant girl of 14 who had not even made her first Communion when 'a lady appeared to her on February 11, 1848, in a rocky grotto beside the river Gave in the Pyrenean village of Lourdes. She saw her 17 times more. The Lady identified herself on one of the earlier apparitions, 'I am the Immaculate Conception', a term which meant nothing to the unlettered girl. [Pope Pius IX would not declare the dogma of the Immaculate Conception until 1858). The Marian apparitions at Lourdes attracted worldwide attention. After initial skepticism, the Church gave credence to her story, and she soon was hounded for her fame. She entered a convent in Nevers where she worked humbly despite her chronic sickliness and professed her vows before she died at age 35. Meanwhile, Lourdes had grown into the most visited shrine on earth. Bernadette was canonized in 1935. When her body was exhumed before her beatification, it was found to be incorrupt and is venerated at the convent in Nevers.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 16 aprile 2017 22:41
This is not an April Fool's Day joke, as we are 15 days away from that now...

Scalfari lays a whopper
of an Easter egg-norance


On his facebook page today, Antonio Socci shares this whopper of a blooper which would be hilarious were it not so
embarrassing for the blooper-maker!

The passages marked are, on the left: “The pope has created a new definition of the one God: God is love”.
On the right, “Recently, he created a new definition of the one God which is the ‘novelty’ [introduced by] His Holiness:
He calls God Love. This definition of God has never been heard before.”



April 16, 2017

One must laugh in the face of such a display of ignorance. Scalfari seems not to know even the ABCs of Christianity. [But Scalfari has always vaunted himself as being a most thorough scholar and connoisseur of the New Testament!]And yet we all know that the whole of the New Testament is centered on the concept first expressed by St John: “GOD IS LOVE” (1Jn 4,16). Words written 2000 years before Bergoglio.

Is Scalfari just discovering now what Christians have always known, or is he feigning that this is a revolutionary novelty so that he can attribute the merit to his idol, the Argentine pope?

Scalfari is also thereby feigning ignorance that a pope named Benedict XVI made the Johannine citation ‘DEUS CARITAS EST’ the title of his first encyclical, which only happens to be by far the best-selling encyclical of all time (the first-ever best-selling encyclical, in fact)!

As a former journalist, I do have a practical comment to make. I know Scalfari is the founder and editor of La Repubblica, the newspaper where this whopper appears. But is there no one on the editorial staff who had the guts to point out to him that he is simply ALL WRONG in the premise for his article??? Was misplaced 'respect' for him worth the unspeakable embarrassment of displaying his ignorance (real or feigned) about a fact known to the whole Christian world??? And do you think Scalfari will correct himself in a future issue of his paper?

TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 17 aprile 2017 20:40


It turns out there is quite a crop of tributes to B16 on his 90th birthday. I will start out with those that are already in English.

One of the best, for its specific focus, comes from a Cameroonian priest who is pursuing a doctorate in theology at Boston College (not what you might call
a bastion of Catholic orthodoxy but rather of heterodoxy) while teaching at the college's Woods School. Judging from his essay of appreciation for Benedict XVI,
however, the priest keeps his own counsel, regardless of his current milieu...

One expects more tributes as we move on from the Emeritus Pope's milestone birthday to the 12th anniversary on April 19 of his election to the Chair of Peter...


Father Benedict: Friend of Jesus Christ
by FR. MAURICE ASHLEY AGBAW-EBAI

April 17, 2017

On April 18, 2005, two days after he had just celebrated his 78th birthday, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger delivered the homily Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice to the College of Cardinals gathered at St. Peter’s Basilica, Rome.

As Dean of the College of Cardinals, it was Ratzinger’s responsibility to highlight to his brother cardinals some spiritual yardsticks that could guide their discernment as they entered into conclave to elect Peter’s Successor.

While the buzz word of Ratzinger’s masterful homily became his denunciation of what he styled the “dictatorship of relativism,” the central nexus of Ratzinger’s homily, I believe, lay elsewhere.

He was not a prophet of doom unleashing canons of denunciation on culture, but a lover who was eager to share the love of his life, Jesus Christ, because he was convinced that encountering Jesus of Nazareth was a more liberating and joyful experience than atheistic secularism could offer. In other words, the central nexus of Ratzinger’s homily was an invitation to a friendship with Jesus Christ.

Commenting on the Gospel text from John, “I no longer speak of you as slaves…. Instead, I call you friends” (Jn 15: 15) [a text he often quotes in relation to the priesthood and his own ordination back in 1951], Ratzinger identifies two essential qualities regarding friendship with Jesus Christ:

Firstly, there are no secrets between friends, evidenced by Christ entrusting the body of his Church into the hands of weak mortals, in this context, those charged with the solemn responsibility of electing the Bishop of Rome.

Christ has made known to them the knowledge of God. He has made known to them everything he has learnt from his Father. Above all, he has entrusted the mysteries, the sacramental economy into their hands. We speak in his name, “This is my Body”; “I absolve you from your sins,” etc.

Because the Lord has made us his friends, we have been invited into his power, into his relationship with the Father, so that from this encounter and intimacy, we become active agents of bringing about God’s liberating love to our world that is so much in need of God’s love, and yet often unconscious of this need.

The second reading that Ratzinger gives to friendship with Jesus is the communion of wills: idem velle — idem nolle, same likes, same dislikes: “You are my friends if you do what I command you” (Jn 15: 14).

To be a friend of Jesus is to allow one’s discernment and consciousness to be shaped by Jesus Christ. It is to love what Jesus loves. It is to strive to live daily God’s will. I cannot be a friend of Jesus if my choices, preferences and likes contradict the manifest and revealed will of Jesus.

For Ratzinger therefore, I am a friend of Jesus if I am completely open and transparent with Jesus, and daily seek to live a Christ-like life.

As Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger developed this theme of friendship with Jesus Christ especially in his homilies at priestly ordinations in which he presided as Bishop of Rome. To be a friend of Jesus Christ invites one into a greater intimacy of knowledge and communion, for friendship demands intimacy and knowledge.

Father Benedict’s new ministry of prayer on behalf of the whole Church certainly mirrors to us his intimacy with Jesus of Nazareth, the love of Benedict’s life.

To be a friend of Jesus Christ as seen in the life of Benedict XVI, clearly has an ecclesial dimension. How could it be otherwise in Joseph Ratzinger! As Benedict himself said in his Chrism Mass Homily in 2008, “being friends with Jesus is par excellence always friendship with his followers. We can be friends of Jesus only in communion with the whole Christ, with the Head and with the Body; in the vigorous vine of the Church to which the Lord gives life.”

Friendship with Jesus Christ is friendship with the Church of Jesus Christ, because owing to the intrinsic link between the Church and Christ, the community of the Church is not an accidental product of time that could perhaps have emerged in its concreteness in a later time that was unrelated to Christ.

Friendship with Jesus Christ likewise implies modelling one’s life after the hypostatic union of Christ, not primarily in terms of the union between Jesus’s humanity and divinity as taught by Council of Ephesus in 431, but in the sense of the identification of mission and person in Jesus of Nazareth.

In Jesus, person and mission coincide, to the extent that to be a friend of Christ is to radically orient one’s life in a pragmatic, existential manner that is caught up in the never completely discernable transcendence that defines and shapes the openness with God, with Christ as the model of mission and person.

In large part, Benedict’s deep sense of the symbolic, of a 'usable' anthropology, is built on the conviction that his life is simply a standing for Another, a “representative” of Another, a being-in-reference to Another, a symbolic intercommunication meant to keep the window of the world open to the refreshing and life-giving breath of God.

Because Benedict believes that mission cannot be severed from person, what mattered was not his own person as Joseph Aloysius Ratzinger. He responded to the call of the Lord as a priest, and the consequence of that response was to cease to live for himself.

Like his mentor, Augustine of Hippo, Benedict’s fruitful priestly life was a search for the face of his friend, Jesus Christ, as he himself wrote in the introduction into his trilogy on Jesus – a classic that will be with the Church for ages to come.

And still following Augustine, Benedict, as is evident from his Last Testament, found himself, in finding Jesus. It became clear to this Son of Bavaria, with the passage of time, that he was not the only one searching, but Jesus was searching for him as well, even antecedent to Benedict’s conscious search for the Lord.

Benedict discerned the a priori love that Jesus has for him [as he does for each of us], a realization that led him to see love as the very being of God.

With Augustine, his theological and spiritual master, Benedict discerned his life as a gift of love, and he was certain that God’s love would never abandon him, since God had fashioned everything in measure, weight, and number (Wis 11:20).

The search for God, for the face of the love of his life, became for Joseph Ratzinger, the bedrock of genuine anthropology. Christology, as a systematic treatment of the person and work of Jesus, was not his intention, as Benedict forcefully wrote in the foreword to the second volume of his trilogy on Jesus.

The reason was simple: Christology, notwithstanding the gains made by the historical-critical method, is often subjected to a sterile demythologization and conceptualization-sounding verbalism in which Jesus of Nazareth becomes someone left in the past, perhaps in stacks of university libraries.

Benedict’s sole desire was not a systematization of Jesus, but to make his friend known and loved, because he had arrived at the certainty that the brokenness that was plaguing the lives of so many post-modern men and women was a desperate cry for help that could only be met by the loving encounter with Jesus of Nazareth.

To know Jesus of Nazareth was to enter into the open future of God that is transformative of the present. It was not mere coincidence that when Benedict visited his homeland, his theme for his apostolic visit to Germany was: Where there is God, there is a Future! The subtle implication could not be ignored. Where there is no God, perhaps there is no future!

When Joseph Ratzinger found himself in finding Jesus of Nazareth what did he see? We can dare a response to this question by looking into his spiritual memoirs, his trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth, which should be seen as the unmistakable public testament of Ratzinger’s long friendship with Jesus.

Clearly, in the evening of his earthly life, Ratzinger, like the Samaritan woman in John’s Gospel, felt the greatest good he could do for the world was to invite the village of the world to come to the well of Jesus and drink, so that we will never be thirsty again.

The alternative is to settle for the mediocre, the minimal, and lesser waters away from Christ; that is, the shallow waters of egoism whereby life is lived for the narrow vision of the self.

Standing by Jacob’s well, we suddenly realize that it is not the well that is deep nor us having no cistern to draw from the well. The real well is Jesus, and the water he gives to quench our thirst is the friendship with him. Little wonder that the Samaritans begged him to stay longer in their town!

To get a better appreciation of what Joseph Ratzinger’s life-long search had found, we must turn to the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth. In the foreword, Ratzinger writes that it is “in this second volume do we encounter the decisive sayings and events of Jesus’ life (…) I hope that I have been granted an insight into the figure of our Lord that can be helpful to all readers who seek to encounter Jesus and to believe in him.”

For a man who has always read into the fact that his birth took place on Holy Saturday, a symbolic sign of the Church that though longing for the light and hope of the Risen Lord, is not yet there, Easter for Benedict is the real defining moment of his quest for his friend, Jesus of Nazareth. His friend is the Risen One! This is the quintessential Ratzingerian characterization of Jesus of Nazareth.

Why? Because hope in the present and for the future is borne from the Risen One, and without hope, the human being has nothing to live for, and life becomes a meaningless, boring routine. The Risen One is the central theological metaphor for Joseph Ratzinger because it is about hope and the future that informs, humanizes and divinizes the present.

This is significant because Joseph Ratzinger is a thorough Augustinian who believes in a broken human nature, a broken world, in which the battle between the two loves of the City of God and the City of men and women is a tangible, unending reality.

With the eyes of Easter, Ratzinger is able to diagnose the cure for the malady of what Pascal trenchantly called diversion and indifference, that are not only eroding the humanity of men and women, but also depriving us of the meaning and joy of life, to the extent that men and women now live with little or no sense of the future.

As we mark the ninetieth year of Father Benedict’s birth that begins on Easter Sunday, in gratitude to God for the unique gift of this man, this priest, this bishop, this genius of a mind, this unassuming, meek and shy friend of Jesus Christ, it is important to still pay attention to what this friend of Jesus Christ is telling us about his friend:

“Jesus’s Resurrection was about breaking out into an entirely new form of life, into a life that is no longer subject to the law of dying and becoming, but lies beyond it—a life that opens up a new dimension of human existence—an “evolutionary leap.”


In Jesus’s Resurrection, a new possibility of human existence is attained that affects everyone and that opens up a future, a new kind of future, for mankind. Christ’s Resurrection is either a universal event, or it is nothing (1 Cor. 15:16, 20).

And only if we understand it as a universal event, as the opening of a new dimension of human existence, are we on the way toward any kind of correct understanding of the New Testament Resurrection testimony.

Jesus hdid not -re-enter' normal human life like Lazarus and the others whom Jesus raised from the dead. “He has entered upon a different life, a new life — he has entered the vast breadth of God himself, and it is from there that he reveals himself to his followers.”

Finally, we now know what Benedict found in finding Jesus: A “new kind of life”; a vast “breadth of God himself”! Jesus has not kept this “new life” from his friend Ratzinger precisely because there are no secrets between friends, and Ratzinger, by submitting his will to Jesus, entered into the same likes and dislikes of his friend, Jesus the Nazarene.

With immense gratitude and uplifted hearts, we thank you, Father Benedict, for your eloquent communication of this “new kind of life” to us. Vergelt’s Gott, Father Benedict!

An earlier tribute in CRISIS magazine was the ff essay from a professor of theology at the Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, and author of a number of books, including Still Point: Loss, Longing, and Our Search for God (2012) and The Beggar's Banquet . His most recent book is Witness to Wonder: The World of Catholic Sacrament. He resides in Steubenville, Ohio, with his wife and ten children.

A Pope turns ninety
by REGIS MARTIN

April 12, 2017

In the long march of the Church’s history, stretching all the way back to a certain failed fisherman called Peter — whom Christ himself caught with the bait of eternal life —few occupants of the papal chair have evinced as lofty a level of erudition, existing in happy combination with ardent and uncomplicated piety, as the Bavarian Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Who, God willing, turns ninety on April 16, this Easter Sunday.

Although he was not born on the feast of Easter, but the day before, the Vigil of the Lord’s Resurrection, which sacred tradition speaks of as the Mystery of Holy Saturday, it remains central to his life. And when he was at once baptized with water freshly blessed for the great feast, it left an impression.

In fact, it is a point he makes much of in Milestones, which is a moving account of his life from 1927, when he came into this world, until 1977, when he became Archbishop of Munich. Chosen on the strength of a single book, Introduction To Christianity, which grew out of lectures delivered at Tubingen in 1967, it evidently so captivated the then Pope Paul VI that he had him elevated straightaway into the episcopacy. [I do not think that it was just that one book that made Paul VI pluck Joseph Ratzinger from his academic career, but the overall impression he had made as a theologian who was named to the International Theological Commission under the CDF when it was first established in 1967.]

After that, the scramble to the top was swift and sure. Only he was never one to scramble.

But getting back to the timing of his birth, he believed it to have been the result of divine Providence that, coming into the world when he did, he should then have been the first to be baptized. The experience filled him, he said, “with thanksgiving for having had my life immersed in this way in the Easter mystery.”

Putting it a little differently, we might say that given the pilgrim shape of the soul, of an existence lived always on the way, forever in transit, this sudden and dramatic juxtaposition of 'already and not yet' struck him as wonderfully “fitting,” since it left him in a state of “still awaiting Easter … not yet standing in the full light but walking toward it full of trust.”

What can that mean for the rest of us but that we need constantly to be in a state of readiness before the door of Easter, waiting expectantly for it to swing open, yet not quite able to cross the threshold. The pivotal moment, then, becomes the event of baptism, which he would years later describe, in an arresting formulation, as nothing less than “the final mutation in the evolution of the human species.”

He has certainly been living that tension a very long time. Meanwhile, the record of his achievements, which are vast, varied, and undeniable, testifies to an amazing and productive life. But what remains especially instructive about that life, one crowded with accomplishment, is the fact that he has spent it in a constant state of trust, of overarching hope in the Lord.

And why shouldn’t his life have been stepped in such trust? Benedict is, after all, a Christian, a believer, which means someone who carries within him the adamantine conviction that Another accompanies him every step of the way. Perhaps this is why the virtue of hope figures with the same striking prominence in his writings as it does in his life.

“The dark door of time, of the future,” he reminds us in Spe Salvi, that most beautiful of encyclicals [AGREE! AGREE! AGREE!], undertaken to unearth the meaning of the theological virtue revealed as Hope, “has been thrown open.” And in showing us the face of Christ, we are thus given a saving glimpse of Someone to whom we may entrust everything, including especially our brokenness and sin.

But Christ is not merely a face to be seen, as though salvation were nothing more than a snapshot. There is God’s outstretched hand as well, which we are free to grab hold of because it is the hand of Jesus who, first grasping hold of my own hand, enables the two of us to move together through the dark valley.

Here we see, he tells us in a profound and telling passage from Introduction To Christianity, “the most fundamental feature of faith … namely, its personal character:

Christian faith is more than the option in favor of a spiritual ground to the world; its central formula is not ‘I believe in something,’ but ‘I believe in Thee.’ It is the encounter with the human being Jesus, and in this encounter it experiences the meaning of the world as a person.

The life of a believer, in other words, is that of someone who stands on the secure ground of God alone, who thereby “lives on the discovery that not only is there such a thing as objective meaning, but that this meaning knows me and loves me, I can entrust myself to it like the child that knows all its questions answered in the ‘You’ of its mother.”


For Benedict, then, and for the Church he no longer leads but continues surely to inspire and to pray for, Christ is “the true shepherd … who walks with me even on the path of final solitude, where no one can accompany me.”

This is because Christ, having fallen himself into the hellish depths of that strangest of mysteries found at the center of the creed (on which day he, the future pope, was born), is uniquely placed to vanquish all the darkness that surrounds and oppresses us, since he himself already assumed it out of an incomprehensible depth of love. Neither death nor the devil, therefore, need hold us in fear any more.

And who better than Mary, he asks at the very end of Spe Salvi, to help blaze that trail home to God? “Who more than Mary could be a star of hope for us? With her ‘yes’ she opened the door of our world to God himself….”

And if the future belongs to those who show up, what better company to have on a journey than one who, having already arrived herself, can, like a good mother, nudge the rest of us across the same finish line?

“When you hastened with holy joy across the mountains of Judea to see your cousin Elizabeth,” he writes, citing the great Mystery of the Visitation, “you became the image of the Church to come, which carries the hope of the world in her womb across the mountains of history.”

This is heady stuff. And it is but a single stone in the great mosaic of his work, that will soon belong to the ages. And, like everything else he thought and wrote about, it remains most wonderfully evocative of the great themes on which his life turns.

What a towering presence he has been for the Catholic world all these years! Not a day goes by that I do not thank God for this holy and learned man. May God reward him greatly for the many good things he has done for Christ, the Church, and for the world he came to save.

Benedict XVI has always been an Easter child
By Father Raymond J. de Souza

April 16, 2017

Easter Sunday is the 90th birthday of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Born on April 16, 1927, he was a Holy Saturday baby, born the day that God is dead, the day of the tomb.

Joseph Ratzinger has lived his long life in a liturgical key, and it began as a newborn. In 1927 — before the reform of Holy Week by the Venerable Pius XII — the Easter vigil was celebrated in the morning of Holy Saturday. So little Joseph was taken to the church the same morning of his birth and baptized with the newly blessed Easter water. Born on the day of the dead God, he was reborn by water and the spirit into the new life of the Risen Jesus.

“Holy Saturday: the day God was buried; is not this the day we are living now, and formidably so?” wrote Ratzinger in one of his hundreds of incomparable biblical meditations. “Did not our century mark the start of one long Holy Saturday, the day God was absent, when even the hearts of the disciples were plunged into an icy chasm that grows wider and wider? And thus, filled with shame and anguish, they set out to go home; dark-spirited and annihilated in their desperation they head for Emmaus — without realizing that he whom they believed to be dead is in their midst.”

Ratzinger was born on the threshold of Germany plunging into that icy chasm. But the God who had been relegated to a historical curiosity by so many of Germany’s most gifted biblical scholars, the God whom Ratzinger’s countryman Nietzsche declared dead, the God of the children of Israel whom the Nazis were determined to exterminate — this God remained in their midst. God was in the midst of the Bavarian piety that nourished Ratzinger as a boy; God indeed had descended into the hell of Germany’s Holy Saturday.

Joseph Ratzinger, emerging from the horrors of World War II, devoted himself to the great question of God. Could he be known? Where could man find him? If he was not dead, was he a tyrant against whom we had to rebel? Or was he a Father who sent his Son to be our friend?

His project did not remain a purely speculative one, for he remain convinced that God of speculative theology did not remain only such. He revealed himself and came to encounter us, above all in the two privileged places of revelation — the sacred Scriptures and the holy Mass. In defense of the reliability of the Scriptures and the divine action in the liturgy, Ratzinger waged a decades-long battle against the prevailing trends of ecclesial life. Such was his brilliance, though, that even when his positions were in a minority, they demanded respect. In time, with the prominence he gained as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and then as pope, his writings became massively influential.


It is plausible to imagine that 60 years hence, on the 150th anniversary of his birth, Biblical study of the Gospels will have been completely transformed by his trilogy Jesus of Nazareth. The celebration of the Holy Mass ad orientem will again be the norm. In 2077, Benedict will be recognized as a decisive turning point.

All pastors have to answer to God for their ministry. Benedict will have to answer for his decision to relinquish it, the utter innovation of a papal abdication absent a crisis. The Holy Spirit had heretofore never prompted the successor of Peter to do that, and it is not evident the Holy Spirit prompted it now. The public arguments offered for the abdication by Benedict are unconvincing; the results of the abdication are destabilizing.

Yet the man himself is serene as he awaits judgment by the Lord of history. He saw firsthand St. John Paul refuse to come down from the cross and admired that heroic witness. But he was convinced that God was calling him to a different path, “to climb the mountain ... to devote myself even more to prayer and meditation.”
The man who knows the great tradition better than anyone of his generation felt free to depart from it. Perhaps he saw farther than others into God’s providence.

The depth and breadth of the Ratzinger vision was manifest in an Easter meditation he published decades ago that focused on the binding of Isaac, who, as he ascends Mount Moriah, is told by Abraham that “God will provide” a lamb for the sacrifice. Isaac then realizes that he himself is that lamb and his own father is preparing to sacrifice him.

“The name Isaac contains the root ‘laughter,’” wrote Ratzinger. “And indeed, had he not grounds for laughter when the tension of mortal fear suddenly disappeared at the sight of the trapped ram, which solved the riddle? Did he not have cause to laugh when the sad and gruesome drama — the ascent of the mountain, his father binding him — suddenly had an almost comic conclusion, yet one that brought liberty and redemption? This was a moment in which it was shown that the history of the world is not a tragedy, the inescapable tragedy of opposing forces, but ‘divine comedy.’ The man who thought he had breathed his last was able to laugh.”

Joseph Ratzinger, who saw his share of tragedy in the world and betrayal in the Church, has lived long years alongside the “mortal fear” of totalitarian violence and a dying Church in his native Europe.

History may be tragedy, even a farce. But salvation history is a comedy. And Benedict has never ceased hearing — in the sacred word and in sacred music — the laughter. He has always been an Easter baby.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 17 aprile 2017 22:59



In the days leading up to Benedict XVI's 90th birthday, Mons. Georg Gaenswein gave at least three major interviews - to La Repubblica, Il Messaggero and
EWTN-Germany. I was devastated by the one with Repubblica in which he said that B16 was not getting into the AL controversy because 'it is something
that is very remote from him'.
Even if it was merely GG's unfortunate way of expressing himself, the sense of the statement is so unlike Joseph Ratzinger,
for whom essential questions of faith and truth, and the sacraments, all of which are challenged in AL, cannot possibly be considered 'very remote from him'.
I was nonetheless going to translate both Italian interviews.

Here is CNA-EWTN’s English account of a lengthy interview which contains many details about GG’s relationship with Joseph Ratzinger not disclosed
before, but more importantly, it contains nothing 'damaging' to the image of JR-B16 that we always had before the so-called 'nu-Benedict' projected by
a number of Gaenswein's statements in the past two years, not to mention the Emeritus Pope's own words about his successor at the start of his 'Last
Conversations' with Peter Seewald...


A glimpse into the joy-filled life
of Benedict XVI at 90

By Elise Harris and Martin Rothweiler




Vatican City, Apr 16, 2017 (CNA/EWTN News).- In a lengthy interview with EWTN's German television branch, Benedict XVI's closest aide describes how the retired pontiff is doing as he turns the milestone age of 90, giving a rare look into what life is like for the Pope Emeritus.

Archbishop Gänswein has been Benedict's personal secretary since 2003, while the latter was still Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He has remained close at Benedict's side throughout his papacy, resignation and his life of retirement.

In anticipation of Benedict XVI's 90th birthday, which this year falls on Easter Sunday, April 16, Gänswein gave a lengthy interview to EWTN.TV in German, sharing insights into how the Pope Emeritus plans to celebrate his birthday and highlights and personal memories of his pontificate.

Among other things, the archbishop recalls how Benedict handled his election, the frequently negative media-firestorm that enveloped much of his pontificate, his hope for what people take from his papacy as well as how he spends his days in retirement.

The interview was conducted by the head of EWTN.TV Martin Rothweiler, and translated from the original German by EWTN’s Silvia Kritzenberger:

The question everyone's interested in is, of course: How is Pope Benedict? The Psalm says: “Our lives last seventy years or, if we are strong, eighty years.” That happens to be psalm 90. And now on the 16th of April, Pope Benedict will celebrate his 90th birthday! How is he?
Yes, indeed, on Easter Sunday he will turn 90! Considering his age, he is remarkably well. He is also in good spirits, very clear in his head and still has a good sense of humor. What bothers him are his legs, so he uses a walker for help, and he gets along very well. And this walker guarantees him freedom of movement and autonomy. So, for a 90-year old, he is doing pretty well – even though, from time to time, he complains of this or that minor ailment.

How will he celebrate his birthday?
On Easter Sunday, priority will of course be given to liturgy. On Easter Monday, in the afternoon, we will hold a small celebration. He wanted something not too exhausting, appropriate to his strengths. He didn't want to have a big celebration. That was never an option for him. A small delegation from Bavaria will come, the Mountain troops will come... The Bavarian Prime Minister will come to the monastery, and there we will hold a small birthday party in true Bavarian style!

Have you any idea if Pope Francis will come to see him?
That is quite likely. He will surely do so. [In fact, the reigning pope made his duty visit on Holy Wednesday, to greet the emeritus both for Easter and for his birthday.]

No one knows Pope Benedict better than you – apart from his brother Georg Ratzinger. How did you get to know Pope Benedict?
Actually, through one of his books. Back in the day, when I was just about to finish gymnasium [secondary school], my parish priest gave me Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity, urging me: “You absolutely have to read this! That's the future!” I said: “Okay, but have you read it?” “No,” he replied, “but you have to read it!” And I did. Later, when I started to study theology in Freiburg, and then in Rome, and then again back in Freiburg, I had practically read everything the then-professor and cardinal had written. But it was only 21, or maybe 22 years ago, that I finally met him in person here in Rome, when I was asked to become a collaborator of the Roman Curia … More concretely, I met him in the Teutonic College, that is, in the chapel, where Cardinal Ratzinger used to celebrate Mass for the German pilgrims every Thursday, joining us for breakfast. That was how the first personal contact with Cardinal Ratzinger came about, and since then we never lost that contact.

At some point, he decided to call you to his side. Why did his choice fall on you?
Well, you must know that I didn't come directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; my first employment was at the Congregation for Divine Worship. But when, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a German priest left after a certain period of time in order to go back to Germany, Ratzinger asked me to come.

“I think you are suitable for the post, and I would like you to come,” he said to me. “If you agree, I would like to speak with the respective authorities.” And he did. That was how it came about that, in 1996, I joined the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a post I held until 2003. Afterwards, he made me his Personal Secretary – which I still am, to this day.

What was your first impression of him? What did you think when he called you to work closely with him?
My first thought was: Have I done something wrong? Don't I have a clean record? So I examined my conscience, but my conscience was clear. And then he said: “No, it is something that concerns your future. Something I think might be a good task for you. Consider it carefully!” Of course, I was very pleased that he thought I was capable of working in his entourage. It is indeed a very demanding task, one that requires all your strength.

Which personality traits and characteristics did you discover in him?
The same I had already discovered in his writings: a sharp intellect, clear diction. And then, in his personal relations, a great clemency, quite the contrary of what he has always been associated with and still is, of what has always been said about him, when he was described as a “Panzerkardinal” [as though he was] someone rough – which he is not.

On the contrary, he is very confident when dealing with others, but also when he has to deal with problems, when he has to solve problems, and, above all, in the presentation of the faith, the defense of the faith. But what moved me most, was to see how this man managed to proclaim our faith with simple, but profound words, against all odds and despite all hostilities.

What were the main issues on his agenda when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
When I joined the Congregation, he was dealing with the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio, and then with Dominus Jesus, documents... Later, of course, it was also about religious dialogue – a subject he revisited and deepened after he'd become Pope. And then the big issue of faith and reason. A whole chain of subjects, so to say, I could witness in person. And it was all highly interesting, and a great challenge, too.

It was Pope John Paul II who nominated Cardinal Ratzinger Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. What kind of relationship did they have? What kind of relationship did Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, have with the Pope who was, as we now know, a holy man?
Cardinal Ratzinger, that is to say, Pope Benedict, contributed a relatively long essay to beautiful little book that was published on the occasion of the canonization of John Paul II. An essay, in which he describes his relationship with St. John Paul II – after all, they had worked closely together for 23 years – and the great admiration he has for him. He spoke of him very often.

It is of course a great gift, an immense grace, to work for so long, and so intensely, side by side with a man like John Paul II, facing also many a storm together! And the then Cardinal Ratzinger had to take many blows for John Paul II, since the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clearly cannot be everybody's darling: He has to offer his back, so that he can take the blows that are actually meant for the Pope.

How strong was his influence on the pontificate of John Paul II?
I am convinced of the fact that the pontificate of John Paul II was strongly influenced and supported not only by the person of the then Prefect of the Congregation of Faith, but also by his thoughts and his actions.

Pope Benedict once said that he had learned and understood much of John Paul II when he watched him celebrate Mass; when he saw how he prayed, how very united he was with God, far beyond his philosophical and mental capacities. What do you think when you watch Pope Benedict celebrate Mass, when you might be present while he is praying?
In fact, that is something I see every day, but especially since the moment I became secretary to Pope Benedict. Before, I was already his secretary, but we didn’t live together. It did happen that we celebrated Mass together, of course. But from the very moment of his election, it was no longer just a work communion, but also a communion of life. And the daily Mass has become part of this life, then and today.

It is moving to watch Pope Benedict during Mass simply abandon himself to what is happening, even now, in his advanced age, with all the physical handicaps that come with it; to see how intensely he enters the depths of prayer, but also afterwards, during the thanksgiving in front of the tabernacle, in front of the Most Blessed Sacrament. As far as I am concerned, it makes me enter the depths of prayer. That is highly motivating, and I am very thankful that I was given the chance to have an experience like this.

2005 is the year that marked the end of the long and public suffering and death of John Paul II. How does Pope Benedict XVI remember this moment today? After all, with his resignation, he has chosen to let his own pontificate end in a different way...How does he remember the suffering and the death of John Paul II?
I remember very clearly what he said to me when he made me his secretary. He said: “We two are interim arrangements. I will soon retire, and you will accompany me until that moment comes.” That was in 2003...and then came 2005. The interim arrangement has continued...

[Before that], he was really looking forward to finally time to finish writing his book about Jesus. But then things turned out differently. Though I think that after the death of Pope John Paul II he was hoping that the new Pope would let him take his leave, entering his well-deserved retirement. But once again, things turned out differently: he became Pope himself, and the Lord took him up on his promise once again. He had plans, but there was another who had different plans for him.

Did he expect – or fear – that in any way?
He certainly did not expect it – but, at a certain point, he might have feared it. In this context, I always remember his first press conference (as Pope), where he described the 19th of April, the day of his election when, in the late afternoon, the ballot was so clear that it became obvious that he would be elected. Well, the image he used, the one of the guillotine, was a very strong one, and full of tension.

And later, in Munich, referring to the image of the bear of St. Corbinian, he said that the bear was actually supposed to accompany the then-bishop Corbinian to Rome, and then return to where he had come from, whereas he, unlike the bear in the legend, couldn't go back, but has remained in Rome to this very day.

How was your first encounter, after he had become Pope? What did he say to you?
We had our first encounter in the Sistine Chapel, right under the Last Judgement. The cardinals had approached him and sworn obedience to him. And since I had been allowed to be present at the Conclave – Ratzinger, being the Dean of Cardinals, had the right to take a priest with him, and his choice fell on me – I was the last in the queue approaching the new Pope...

I remember it so well…I can still see him, for the first time all dressed in white: white pileolus, white cassock, white hair – and all white in the face! Practically a small cloud of white...He sat there, and in this moment I promised the Holy Father my unconditional availability, that I would always gladly do whatever he might ask of me; that he would always be able to count on me, that I would back him, and that I would gladly do so.

What were the joys of this pontificate? Usually, the burden of the Petrine ministry is what first comes to mind. But are there also moments, events, when you could feel the joy Pope Benedict experienced in carrying out his ministry?
There were, without any doubt, moments in which he felt utter joy, and manifested it. I think, for example, of various encounters, not only during his travels. Encounters with the Successor of Peter are always special encounters; even here, during the General Audiences or the Private Audiences – and, in another, very special way, when he acts as officiant, that is, during the celebration of the Holy Mass or other liturgical celebrations. There were indeed moments full of joy, fulfilled with joy. And afterwards, he never failed to remark on it. It made him really happy.

Are there any events you remember particularly well, especially in connection with Pope Benedict’s visits to Germany, which we all remember vividly, for example the first World Youth Day?
Yes, well, the first encounter hadn't been brought about by Pope Benedict himself, but by John Paul II. And so, in 2005, as we all know, it was Benedict who had to travel to Cologne. It was surely something great, something really moving. It was the first time in his life he met such an immense crowd of young people, who were all waiting for him! How would it go? Would the ice break, would the ice melt? Or will it take some time? And how would we all get along? But there was no ice at all! It simply worked, right from the start! And I think, he himself was more surprised by it than the young people he met.

What are the key messages of his Pontificate? His first encyclical letter was Deus Caritas est, “God Is Love.” The second one was dedicated to hope; his third encyclical, the one on faith, was passed on to his successor who completed it. Don't you think that especially Deus Caritas est, so full of tenderness and poetic language, was something many didn't expect?
Yes, one has to say, he published three encyclical letters. We must not omit Caritas in veritate, which is very important. In fact, the one about the third theological virtue, faith, fides, Lumen fidei, was then published under his successor. But these four encyclicals clearly contain a fundamental message that has moved him his whole life long; a message he wanted to bequeath to men, to the Church.

Another constant of Pope Benedict is a very important word, a very important element: joy, la gioia, in Italian. He always spoke of the joy of faith, not of the burden, the hardship, the weight of faith, but of the joy that comes with it. And he said that this joy is an important fruit of faith – and also the one thing that gives men wings; that this is how faith gives human life wings: wings which, otherwise without faith, man would never have.

Another important thing for him is – obviously – liturgy, that is to say the direct encounter with God. Liturgy does not represent something theatrical – it means to be called into a relationship with the living God. And then, in theology, we have the person of Jesus Christ: not a historical “something,” a historical person long lost in the past. No, through the scriptures and liturgy, Jesus Christ comes into this world, here and now, and above all: he also comes into my own life. These are the pearls Pope Benedict has bestowed upon us. And we should treat these pearls very carefully, like precious jewelry.

This joy of faith is something Benedict never lost, despite often even heavy media criticism. He never really was the media's darling, at least not as far as the German media are concerned. How did he account for that?
Well, I have to say, to me that is still a mystery. Whoever defends the truth of faith – to say it with Saint Paul – be it convenient or not, cannot always trigger joy. That is clear. Some essential things just aren't for sale, and then there's always a hail of criticism. But he has never answered to provocation, nor let himself be intimidated by criticism. Wherever the substance of the faith is at stake, he had no doubts, and always reacted explicitly, without any inner conflict whatsoever. [But not about Amoris laetitia, or any other violations of the faith made by his successor???]

On other points, I have to say, there was a mixture of incomprehension, and also aggression, aggressiveness, that became like a clustered ball that consistently hit at the person of the Pope. The incomprehension of many, and especially the media, is still a mystery to me, something I have to take note of, but cannot sort out. I simply have no answer to it. [The simple obvious answer us that they disagree with his core beliefs, as they have always disapproved of Catholicism and the Church. A disagreement and disapproval that has been consistently expressed over the decades through hostility and aggression.]

: Pope Benedict was never shy about talking to journalists. In the introduction you wrote to the book Über den Wolken mit Papst Benedikt XVI(Above the Clouds with Pope Benedict XVI), published to mark his 90th birthday – above the clouds, because it contains interviews often given during Papal flights – you state that these conversations reveal his particular cordiality, his often not understood or underestimated humanity...
Pope Benedict has never shunned personal contact with the media, with journalists. And one great gift was that everything he says is well-worded, ready for printing. He was never shy about answering questions, even questions that were embarrassing – well, not embarrassing, but difficult. And that made it even more incomprehensible that it was exactly from the media that the arrows came, where the fire was set – and for no clear reason at all. He, too, took notice of it.

Of course, there were also things which offended, hurt him. Especially when it was clear to see that there was no reason at all, when you couldn't help asking yourself: why this snappish remark, this acrimonious presentation? Things like that would hurt anyone, that's only normal.

But, on the other side, we also know that our true measure is not the applause we get; our measure is inner righteousness, the example of the Gospel. That thought has always comforted him; it was the line of reasoning he has always pursued, until the end.

But was he also aware of the value of the media in the process of evangelization? After all, he has awarded the Medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice to Mother Angelica, founder of our television network, which means he must really appreciate her! How did he judge the role of the media in the concrete work of evangelization?
The media are an important means; a means that will become ever more important, especially in our time. He has never failed to recognize the value of the media, of the work done by the media and those who are behind it. Because media work is done by people, not by “something.” Behind every camera, every written word, every book, there is a person, there are people he appreciated, whose work he appreciated, regardless of what sometimes had been used or said against him.

One cannot think of Pope Benedict without rekindling the memory of his resignation. That is not about to change, and will continue to be a subject that stirs people's interest. So I would like to ask you again: Did you see it coming? Was it clear to him that he would go down that road one day?
Well, as far as I'm concerned, I didn't see it coming. Since when he started to nurture this thought, is something I don't know. The only thing I know is that he told me about it when the decision was already made. But I definitely didn't see it coming – and that made the shock for me even greater.

In his latest memoirs – I refer to the interview-book Last conversations with Peter Seewald – Benedict XVI makes it very clear that external pressure or adversities would never have made him resign. So this cannot have been the case…
That's right.
So this is the final word that puts an end to the discussion on possible motives...
In another book – the penultimate project carried out with Peter Seewald in Castel Gandolfo – he had already answered the question whether or not a Pope could resign, in the affirmative. I don't know how far he had, already then, considered resignation, stepping back from his office, as an option for himself.

When you start to have thoughts like that, you do it for a reason. And he has named these reasons very openly…and very honestly, too, one has to say: the waning of his forces, spiritual and physical. The Church needs a strong navigator, and he didn't have the feeling that he could be that strong navigator any more. That's why he wanted to put the faculty bestowed upon him by Jesus back into His hands, so that the College of Cardinals could elect his successor. So obviously, the pontificate of Benedict XVI will also go down in history because of his resignation, that is clear, inevitable...

I found it really moving to watch him deliver his last speech to the priests of the diocese of Rome, the one on the Second Vatican Council. In that moment, I couldn't help asking myself: Why does this man resign? There was clearly a spiritual force! It was an extemporaneous speech in which he exposed one more time his whole legacy, so to say, on the Second Vatican Council, expressing his wish it might one day be fulfilled...
In fact, that was in the Audience Hall. There was this traditional encounter, established many years ago, where the Pope, every Thursday after Ash Wednesday, met with the clergy of Rome, the clergy of his diocese. There would be questions and answers, or even other forms of encounter.

But in 2013, he was asked to talk about the Second Vatican Council, which he did. He delivered an extemporaneous speech in which he described, one more time and from his point of view, the whole situation and development of the Council, giving also his evaluation. It is something that will remain; something very important for the comprehension of the Second Vatican Council and Ratzinger's interpretation of it.

As far as I know, up to this day there is no other theologian who has defended the documents of the Second Vatican Council on so many levels, and so intensely and cogently as he did. And that is very important also for the inner life of the Church and the people of God! [For which, however, he is 'eternally' faulted by those Catholics who see nothing good at all in Vatican II, which they blame for the crisis in the Church that has culminated so far in Bergoglio - and therefore tar Benedict XVI with the same brush they use to denounce Vatican II in toto... Yet no one can pretend Vatican-II did not happen. It can only be invalidated by another such council, which is unlikely to be invalidate it at all.

Meanwhile, for 35 years, two popes who took part in it have gone to great lengths to underscore the important valid teachings of Vatican II, consider even its ambiguous statements in the hermeneutic of continuity instead of considering Vatican-II as a complete rupture with the deposit of faith (even if that happens to be the fasionable view of the current Successor of Peter).
]


And I think it is safe to say that he contributed to the shaping of the Council...
In fact, being the consultor, the theological adviser of Cardinal Frings, he did have a part in it. Many of the theological contributions of the Cardinal of Cologne had actually been written by Professor Ratzinger. There are lots of documents where you can clearly see that. And there are also dissertations on this subject which investigate the possible influence of the then-Professor Ratzinger.

Let's come back to the moment of his resignation, the very last hours. Whoever watched it on TV, was surely moved to see the helicopter departing for Castel Gandolfo. You, too, were visibly moved…And then, the final moment, when the doors in Castel Gandolfo closed. That was the moment when I – and I guess, many others – thought that we might never see Pope Benedict again. But then things turned out quite differently…
Yes, indeed, the farewell: the transfer to the heliport, the flight in the helicopter over the city of Rome to Castel Gandolfo, the arrival at the Papal Villa. And indeed, at 8 p.m. the closing of the doors. Before, Pope Benedict had delivered a short speech from the balcony, his farewell speech.

And then? Well, the work [renovations] in the monastery Mater Ecclesiae hadn't been finished yet, so the question was: where could he stay? And the decision was quickly taken: the best option would be Castel Gandolfo. There he will have everything he needs, since no one knows how long the work would take, and he could stay there as long as necessary.

Two months later, he returned to Rome, and has been living in the monastery Mater Ecclesiae ever since. He himself had said that he would withdraw, going up to the mountain in order to pray. He didn't mean a withdrawal into a private life of invisibility, but into a life of prayer, meditation and contemplation, in order to serve the Church and his successor. His successor often tells him that he shouldn't 'hide'. He invites him often to important public liturgies and consistories like – I remember it well – the inauguration ceremony of the Holy Year on the 8th of December 2015.

He is present, even when no one sees him. But often he has been seen. He simply wants to be present, as much as possible, while remaining all the same invisible.

Many people wish to meet him, and he allows them to. Does he enjoy these encounters? I myself had the chance of a brief encounter with him. There are still many people who ask to see him.
Yes, there are many people who ask to meet him; and many are sad when this is not possible. But those who come, are all very happy, very glad. And the same goes for him. Every encounter is also a sign of affection, a sign, so to say, of approval. And human encounters always do us good.

Do some of these people also ask him for advice?
Definitely. I'm convinced of that. even if I'm never there - these encounters are private. Of course, he sometimes talks about it, we talk about those visits. There are indeed people who seek his advice on personal matters. And I'm convinced that the advice they receive is indeed good…

Does he still receive many letters? Who writes to him?
People he has known in the past. And also people I don't know, and he doesn't know, but who have clearly re-discovered him through his writings. They express their gratitude, their happiness, but also their worries: people from all around the world. The people who write to him are very different; they do not belong to the same category, no: it's people of different ages, of different positions, from all walks of life, a complete mixture.

We have talked about “seeking advice:” Pope Francis, who is of a certain age himself, has always said that we should ask our grandparents for advice. Has Pope Francis ever asked Benedict for advice? What kind of relationship do they have?
Yes, indeed, in one of his interviews, Pope Francis is said to be happy about having a grandfather in Benedict – a “wise” grandfather: an adjective not to be omitted! [Seeing as Benedict is only 10 years older than Bergoglio, the current pope's attitude betrays he recognizes the very wide generational-cultural gap between them.]

And I am convinced that, as far as this is concerned, one thing or another will come up, or come out, from their contacts and encounters.

Your relationship with Benedict is a very close, very personal one. I don't know if it would be appropriate to talk about a relationship between father and son. Have you ever talked with him about your future?
No. [Probably not lately, but it was obvious in December 2012 when Benedict XVI named GG an Archbishop and Prefect of the Pontifical Household, it was so that, being an Archbishop, he could not simply be pushed around by the hierarchy once his patron is gone from the scene.]

It is known that you would love to engage in pastoral care, that you already do engage in pastoral care.
It was always like that: we didn't talk about it. Only the very moment he said that he would resign, he asked me to accept the office I still hold. It was his decision, and he hadn't talked with me about it beforehand. I was very skeptical, and remarked: “Holy Father, that might not be my thing. But if you think it is right for me, I will gladly and obediently accept it.” And he replied: “I do think so, and I ask you to accept.” That was the only time we talked about me and my future career.

What are the subjects you talk about? What are the issues that concern him in our world full of crises; what worries him about the situation of the Church?
Well, of course, Pope Benedict takes an interest in what happens in this world, in the Church. Every day, as the conclusion to the day, we watch the news on Italian TV. And he reads the newspapers, the Vatican press review. That is a large range of information. Often we also talk about actual issues that concern our world, about the latest developments here in the Vatican, and beyond the Vatican, or simply common memories regarding things happened in the past.

Is he very worried about the Church?
Of course, he has noted that the faith, the substance of the faith, is about to crumble, above all in his homeland, and that inevitably worries, troubles him. But he is not the kind of man – he never was and never will be – who will have the joy of the faith taken away from him! On the contrary: he brings his worries to his prayers, hoping that his prayers will help to put things right.

He brings them to his prayers and surely also to Holy Mass. On Sundays, he delivers homilies, and is also keeping notes. What happens to these notes?
Well, it is true that Pope Benedict comments on the Gospel in his homilies. He does so every Sunday, and most of the time only in the presence of the “Memores Domini” and myself. Sometimes there might also be a visitor, or – should I not be there – a fellow priest who will then concelebrate.

His homilies are always extemporaneous. It is true, he has a sermon notebook, and he takes notes. And I have been asking myself the same question: what happens to these notes? Of course we will keep a record of them. I would like to ask him one day if he could take a look at the notes we have, in order to approve them. I don't know, though, if that day will ever come.

Pope Benedict is undoubtedly one of the greatest theologians...as far as of our century is concerned, he surely is! He has been referred to as the “Mozart of theology.” In your introduction to the already mentioned book Über den Wolken mit Papst Benedikt XVI (Above the Clouds with Pope Benedict XVI) you wrote: “Pope Benedict XVI is a Doctor of the Church. And he has been my teacher up to this day.” What have you learned from him, maybe even in the last weeks?
As I already said, my theological thinking started with reading Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity. The theological teacher who accompanied my theological studies, and the time that followed, has always been the theologian Ratzinger, and still is. Being given the chance to meet him in person, to learn from his personal example, is of course an additional gift, something unexpected, and I am very grateful for that. I know it is a grace – a grace for which I will thank the Lord every single day.

So what could be, in your opinion, the lesson Pope Benedict would like us to learn from his pontificate?
His great concern is that the faith could evaporate. And it is surely his greatest wish that every man be in direct relationship with God, the Lord, with Christ, and that we might dedicate to this relationship our time, strength and affection. Whoever does that, will prove the same sentiment Benedict has in mind when he talks about “joy.” I think the greatest gift would be, if men allowed his proposal or what moved him, to become part of their lives.

Our wish to you: could you please assure Pope Benedict also in the name of our viewers, of our thankfulness, our sentiments of appreciation, and convey him our heartfelt best wishes for his 90th birthday! And thank you so much for this conversation!
Thank you. I will gladly convey your wishes, and thank you for having me!

TERESA BENEDETTA
00martedì 18 aprile 2017 00:20


Corriere della Sera offered this bonus for Benedict's birthday.

Preface by BENEDICT XVI
to the Russian edition of
THE THEOLOGY OF LITURGY
The sacramental foundation of Christian existence

Volume 11, COMPLETE WRITINGS OF JOSEPH RATZINGER
Translated from


Nihil Operi Dei praeponatur — Nothing is to be preferred to the Work of God.

With these words from his Rule (43,3), St. Benedict established the absolute priority of divine worship with respect to every other duty of monastic life. This, even in monastic life, was not always immediately obvious because the monks also had important tasks in agriculture and science.

Whether in agriculture or in artisanal work and in the work of formation, there were certainly temporal urgencies that might have appeared more important that liturgy. In the face of all this, Benedict, with the priority he gave to liturgy, unequivocally highlighted the priority of God himself in our life: “As soon as you hear the signal for the Divine Office, leave everything you have in your hands, and hurry to prayer with maximum attention” (43,1).

In the minds of men today, the things pertaining to God – liturgy among them – do not seem urgent at all. Everything else is urgent, but God never seems to be an urgency. We could say, of course, that monastic life is, in any case, not at all the life of the men in the world, which is true. But the priority of God that we all seem to have forgotten is valid for everyone.

If God is no longer important, then the criteria have changed for establishing what is important. Man, in shelving God, subjects himself to constraints which make him a slave of material forces which can violate his dignity.

In the years following the Second Vatican Council, there was a new awareness of the priority of God and of divine liturgy. But the misunderstanding of the liturgical reform which became widespread in the Catholic Church led to giving priority to the aspect of instruction and man’s own creativity and activity. In this way, man’s actions led to almost forgetting the presence of God.

In such a situation, it became more clear that the existence of the Church depends on the correct celebration of liturgy and that the Church is in danger when the primacy of God is no longer manifested in the liturgy, and therefore, not in life itself.

All this led me to dedicate myself to the subject of liturgy more amply than I had in the past, because I knew that the true renewal of liturgy is a fundamental condition for the renewal of the Church. It is on the basis of this conviction that the studies found in this Volume 11 of my Complete Writings were born.

Basically, with all the existing differences, the essence of the liturgy in the Eastern and Western Churches is one and the same. And so I hope that this book may help even the Christians of Russia in a new and better way the great gift that has given to us in Sacred Liturgy.

Vatican City
Feast of St. Benedict
July 11, 2015



Corriere’s senior Vaticanista Gian Guido Vecchi wrote the accompanying article:

The test we publish today was written by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery in the Vatican. This in itself is exceptional, as is the occasion which prompted it.

Joseph Ratzinger turns 90 this year on Easter Sunday. By a rare coincidence, both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches celebrate Easter on the same day this year. As a special gift, the Emeritus Pope will be given a copy of Volume 11 of his Complete Writings, The Theology of Liturgy, which was translated and published in Russia by the Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow.

It is an initiative that was long in preparation – its translation from German to Russian by Olga Aspisova took three years. It will be followed by the publication in Russia of Benedict XVI’s trilogy on JESUS OF NAZARETH.

All thanks to the scientific and editorial collaboration between the publishing house of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Vatican pubishing house LEV and the international academy ‘Sapientia et Scientia’ (Knowledge and Science) founded and headed by Prof. Giuseppina Cardillo Azzaro to bring together personages from science and culture from both Eastern and Western Europe as well as representatives of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The ecumenical value of the initiative is evident. Enough to convince Benedict XVI to write the Preface to the Russian edition when he was asked to do so in 2015. He dated his Preface, not surprisingly, July 11, 2015, Feast of St. Benedict, Patron of Europe.

In one of the most central interventions of his Pontificate – his memorable lecture at the College des Bernardins in paris on September 12, 2008 – Benedict XVI explained how the monasticism established by St. Benedict in the 6th century had saved the patrimony of classical culture and formed the basis of Western culture as we know it, thanks to his monks whose primary objective was quarere Deum, to seek God.

In one of his most famous books, Introduction to Christianity, Joseph Ratzinger in 1967 started with the fable of the clown and the burning village narrated by Kierkegaard: a circus caught fire, the clown was sent to get help from the nearby village, but the people ‘laughed themselves to tears’ in the face of his cries for help, and the circus and the village ended up destroyed by the fire.

Thus, in the above text, one sees the profound consistency of his thinking: his concern for a world in which “things about God no longer seem urgent” and for the Church which is “in danger when the primacy of God is no longer manifested in the liturgy, and therefore, not in life itself”.

And that is why publication of his 16-volume COMPLETE WRITINGS started with the volume on liturgy.

“I asked my Orthodox friends to read this Preface,” says Pierluca Azzaro, translator and editor of the Italian editon of the COMPLETE WRITINGS, and vice-president of the Accademia Sapientia et Scientia. “They found it very powerful and moving. ‘It is clear we are in profound harmony about the liturgy’, they said. The very valuable bridge that Joseph Ratzinger has established between the Eastern and Western Churches is liturgy: It is a path that is not vague or utopian, but concrete and living, towards a true path of renewal along which Catholics and Orthodox can go hand in hand”.

I was positive Father Z would react enthusiastically to this news item because he has always actively promoted the slogan 'SAVE THE LITURGY, SAVE THE WORLD'. Here is his commentary.

Benedict XVI's new text
on Sacred Liturgy -
'The Russian Preface'


April 17, 2017

...In 2008 Benedict wrote the preface for the first volume of his Opera Omnia [Complete Writings]that was issued (in fact it’s Vol. XI) which includes his writings about liturgy and liturgical theology.

That was the correct choice: they began with the single issue that connects and roots all other issues even as it also indicates the Church’s direction and goal. After all, the celebration of the Eucharist and the Eucharist Itself is the “source and summit” of the Church’s life.

It is interesting that the Russian Orthodox got on board with this. No?

Do you long-time readers recall I what tagged Benedict XVI? Pope of Christian Unity.

This was an ecumenical signal on the part of the Russians: watching the Catholic Church they, too, are concerned about our worship. They clearly think that Benedict’s thought is worth promoting.

What does Pope Benedict say in his preface to the Russian edition?

He starts off with the famous phrase from the Rule of Benedict 43: Nihil operi Dei praeponitur… Put nothing before liturgical worship of God. Literally, this is “let nothing be put before the work of God”, but ‘opera Dei‘ here means ‘liturgy’, which includes Mass and the public recitation of the Office, especially.

Let nothing have precedence over worship even other great earthly matters are pressing. That was taken literally: when it was time to pray the office, monks were to stop what they were doing and, immediately, go to pray. They subsequently returned to their tasks and their tasks were consequently themselves transformed by what they did.

Benedict spoke about this very phrase “Nihil operi Dei praeponitur” back in 2013 during his final encounter with priests of the Diocese of Rome, when he made the point that Vatican II also started with liturgy. He made that very point again in his first preface to the Omnia Opera liturgy volume.

He clarified even then that, although this rock solid, pivotal principle rises from a monastic context, it nevertheless is a necessary guideline for the rest of the Church. The monastic life provides a guiding force for the life of the active Church.

[Fr. Z then provides his translation from the Italian of the complete text of the Russian Preface...]

Benedict identifies the problem we face as a Church. The Church’s identity has been “freaked out”, as it were, by the upheaval caused by the damage done to our sacred liturgical worship.

And now we are in a situazione, as he put it, a typically Ratzingerian understatement. I wonder what German word he chose: Zustand? Lage? In any event, his calm words ring with an urgent call to action: “Rome, we have a ‘situation’.”

Didn’t Card. Sarah make this same point recently in his address to the conference in Germany for the 10th anniversary of Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum? Yes, he did. He spoke of “devastation”. The usual libs had a nutty, right on schedule.

For years I hammered away at my conviction that Benedict has laid out, especially in Summorum Pontificum and his own ars celebrandi, a kind of “Marshall Plan” for the Church. You long-time readers here will remember this, but it has been a while since I’ve presented it.

Here it is again:
After World War II many regions of Europe were devastated, especially its large cities and manufacturing. These USA helped rebuild Europe through the Marshall Plan so as to foster good trading partners and, through prosperity, stand as a bulwark against Communism.

After Vatican II many spheres of the Church were devastated, especially its liturgical and catechetical life. We needed a Plan to rebuild our Catholic identity so that we can stand, for ourselves as members of the Church and in the public square for the good of society, as a bulwark – indeed a remedy – against the dictatorship of relativism.

NB: In his brief preface, above, Benedict says that if God is obscured, then our criteria for what is important shifts. Relativism dominates us. Where is our most regular and obvious, strengthening and informing meeting and attention with God? Liturgy. Without this constant formation and transformation, we have no idea who we are or what is important.

If we don’t know who we are as Catholics, if we don’t know what we believe or pray as Catholics, then the world has no reason to listen to anything we have to say as Catholics. We will fragment into little self-enclosed groups, islands. Enervated and drifting, we will be all the more easily driven from the public square by the enemies of objective truth, goodness and beauty.

I have been saying for years that, for any revitalization of our Catholic identity to be successful, we must renew our liturgical worship of God.

We need action in every other sphere as well, but … but… without a renewed sacred liturgical worship, nothing else will stand. Everything else we do is inexorably tied to our encounter with the transcendent in worship.

Therefore, we must not give preference to any activity in the Church over our sacred liturgical worship. This is a sine qua non existential priority.

Contrary to the notions of most liberals and progressivists, “the Catholic thing” did not begin in the 1960s. Hence, I believe that Summorum Pontificum is a key to Benedict’s vision, his “Marshall Plan” as I call it.

His new Russian preface bears out exactly what I have been saying for years and it reaffirms me in my work.

HENCE….

We must work for the prudent and yet energetic application of Summorum Pontificum as far and as widely as possible.

Never be discouraged.

My recommendations follow:
1) Work with sweat and money to make it happen. If you thought you worked hard before? Been at this a long time? HAH! Get to work! “Oooo! It’s tooo haaard!” BOO HOO!

2) Get involved with all the works of charity that your parishes or groups sponsor. Make a strong showing. Make your presence known. If Pope Francis wants a Church for the poor, then we respond, “OORAH!!” The “traditionalist” will be second-to-none in getting involved. “Dear Father… you can count on the ‘Stable TLM Group” to help with the collection of clothing for the poor! Tell us what you need!”

3) Pray and fast and give alms. Think you have been doing that? HAH! Think again. If you love, you can do more.

4) Form up and get organized. You can do this. Find like minded people and get that request for the implementation of Summorum Pontificum together, how you will raise the money to help buy the stuff the parish will need and DO IT. Make a plan. Find people. Execute!

5) Get your ego and your own petty little personal interpretations and preferences of how Father ought to wiggle his pinky at the third word out of the way. It is team-work time. If we don’t sacrifice individually, we will stay divided and we won’t achieve our objectives.

6) Fathers… MAN UP. Get informed. LEARN YOUR RITE! Educate.

7) Don’t whine and blame others.

8) When you get what you want… DON’T REST.

As I have previously posted Pope Benedict gave you, boys and girls, a beautiful new bicycle! He gave you a direction, some encouragement, a snow cone, and a running push. Now, take off the training wheels and RIDE THE DAMN BIKE!
TERESA BENEDETTA
00martedì 18 aprile 2017 14:42


Homage to Benedict XVI,
misunderstood prophet of our times


April 17, 2017

“April is the cruelest month,” Eliot said in his poem “The Wasteland”. Perhaps no one more than Benedict XVI understands this: he was born on a Holy Saturday in mid-April, baptized on the same day, and he turned 90 on April 16, Easter Sunday. It is the fourth year since he retired to the mountain, to the monastery of Mater Ecclesiae.

April is a cruel month because – as Christopher Altieri, General Manager of Vocaris Media, explains – “we always talk of spring in positive terms, but we undervalue the effort and fatigue of spring: all of that pollen given off, of which only a small part will get to flower; the effort of a reawakening that needs to bring about summer. Spring is beautiful, but also deeply painful.”

Pope Benedict lived this spring, beautiful and painful at the same time. Spring in the Church’s history was, for him, the Second Vatican Council. He described the first day of the Council as “a beautiful day,” but his words in fact referred to the whole assembly. That very day was also a painful day.

Since Benedict ascended the mountain to live out the rest of his days in prayerful intercession on behalf of the Church, the bitterness [Was it ever? Let down by its many false intepretations, obviously. but bitter?] he felt during his pontificate when he spoke of the Second Vatican Council has been forgotten.

Nevertheless, he felt the need to clarify that period of Church history since the beginning of the pontificate. In his first Christmas speech to Roman Curia back in 2005, he stressed that the Council has to interpreted through the lenses of continuity. That is: the Council was not a destructive spring, but a spring called to harvest new fruits. It was a renewal within continuity, not a genetically modified organism of faith, just as every year nature renews itself in spring.

At the end of his pontificate, during his last meeting with the clergy of Rome, he returned to the topic, as if that was the thread of the whole pontificate. [We learn now that the clergy asked him to speak of Vatican-II - and he gave them a masterfully memorable 45-minute extemporaneous overview of its highlights and significance]. He said that there was a media Council and a real Council, noting how the 'media Council' media Council overtook the real Council [in the perception of the public, and of course, much to the delight of the Council's progressivists who had actively fostered the media Council during the four years between 1962-1965.]

That the experience of the Second Vatican Council was a crossroad for Benedict is testified by the short off-the-cuff speech he made at the end of the torchlight procession that celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. It was October 11, 2012. Leaning out of the window of the Apostolic Palace as St. John XXIII did 50 years before, Benedict bore the feeling of a changed world and of betrayed expectations.

He said: “We were happy — I would say — and full of enthusiasm. The great Ecumenical Council had begun; we were sure that a new spring of the Church was in sight, a new Pentecost with a new, strong presence of the freeing grace of the Gospel.”

Then, he added:

"We are also happy today, we hold joy in our hearts, but I would say it is perhaps a more measured joy, a humble joy. In these 50 years we have learned and experienced that original sin exists and that it can be expressed as personal sins which can become structures of sin. We have seen that in the field of the Lord there are always tares. We have seen that even in Peter’s net there were bad fish. We have seen that human frailty is present in the Church, that the barque of the Church is even sailing against the wind in storms that threaten the ship, and at times we have thought: ‘the Lord is asleep and has forgotten us’.”


Showing an awareness that the sin was present in the Church revealed the good faith of Pope Benedict, a professor full of faith who had learned, firsthand, that not everything done within the Church is really for the greater glory of God. But he also became ever more aware that sin could be overcome only setting one’s gaze on Christ with ongoing prayer. “I have no other program than being guided by Him,” he said at the beginning of the pontificate.

Epitomizing in a few lines the extraordinary legacy left by such a master of thought is impossible. But it is possible to give an overview. Pope Benedict XVI’s thought is built like one of the great medieval cathedrals: it is a real journey of the mind to God (itinerarium mentis in Deum).

Reading him, we immediately think of the Duomo of Milan, of the 1000 years of the Strasbourg Cathedral, of Notre Dame de Paris or of the Cologne Cathedral, but also of the Sagrada Familia that Pope Benedict XVI consecrated in 2010. All of these buildings were rationally founded, and were aimed at giving a rational and precise explanation of the presence of God, while encouraging others in prayer.

For Pope Benedict there are no doubts: believing means seeking after the truth. And truth cannot be possessed. [It must possess us, he often says.] It must be searched for continually and without bad faith. That is an ambitious project for pure men, perhaps comparable to the huge spiritual renewal undertaken by St. Gregory the Great. If one believes, all else is a consequence.

This is how Pope Benedict XVI’s Magisterium is in the end a cry of pain because the world has lost faith. In his 1951 paper, “The New Pagans and the Church,” Benedict speaks about Europe's Christians who are convinced they live as Christians, but have really become pagan. He came to this conclusion from hearing the confessions during his intensive year as parish vicar in three churches of Munich. The paper was published in the 1950s. Today, after pragmatic nihilism has dramatically made its way into the lives of Christians, the issue is more current than ever.

Benedict does not launch pragmatic challenges. His Church must be a Church committed to social issues, to helping the poor and caring for the least ones. But this pragmatic commitment is only what comes from faith. Benedict challenged the world, and above all he challenged Christians - by asking them to quit living as though God does not exist.

The model he offers is that of the medieval monks. Not by chance did he take the name of Benedict, founder of Western monasticism [and savior of Europe's cultural patrimony during the Dark Ages]. the The first aim of those monks was quaerere Deum, seeking God, as Benedict emphasized in his memorable lecture at the College des Bernardins in Paris in 2008.

The goal is that of a Church less chained to works, and freer to believe in God, as Benedict explained in his speeches during his last trip to Germany in 2011. He was speaking before the German clergy he knew well, who are wealthy because of the Church tax, and at the same time very poor in vocations and even in practicing faithful, as shown continually by annual data in the past many decades.

For Benedict, there can be no dialogue without a common search for truth. He pointed out that atheists who search for God would enter the Kingdom of heaven ahead of merely nominal Christians. In this way, he invited Christians not to take the faith for granted, which is unfortunately one of the signs of our times.

How much Benedict believed that faith cannot be taken for granted became evident when he faced the scandal of clergy pedophilia, a worldwide phenomenon that came on the scene as a slap in the Church’s face.

The letter he wrote in 2010 to the Catholics of Ireland was not just about the Pope’s apology for the scandal but also a very lucid reading of the facts that occurred after the Second Vatican Council [the context in which the clerical sex abuse crisis . Benedict wrote:

“The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.”

Setting one’s gaze on Christ also means, being aware of our narrowness, of our sin.

These are the great topics of Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate. Any evaluation of his government becomes secondary, because everything is part of this search for truth. Being Christian, for Benedict, is real life.

We see, however, that his pontificate was perfectly linear, even in terms of the decisions of his government: from the lifting of restrictions on the use of St Pius V’s Missal to the reforms for financial transparency; from establishing a dicastery to promote promotion new evangelization to his decision to reform access to the seminaries [i.e., to carefully screen homosexual applicants] and his tireless work to purify the Church from scandals, especially in the field of sex abuse by clergy; from the new statutes of Caritas Internationalis to the reform of the Penal Code of Vatican City State, which Benedict started and Pope Francis signed. And lastly, diplomacy based upon truth.

The search for truth bore fruit. One example above all: the Regensburg Lecture. Although it created turmoil, it was the only possible way to motivate a group of Islamic leaders to give Islam a new interpretation and to solve the biggest crisis within Islam, as Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, SJ, has put it. That lecture brought about a letter signed by 138 Muslim leaders, and it led to a Catholic-Islamic Forum of which Pope Francis can harvest the fruits, even by rekindling relations with Al-Azhar University [center of Sunni learning and ideology].

Pope Benedict XVI carried forward a silent reform, characterized by precise thinking that only a few understood. The aim was to foster the unity of the Church starting from a collegiality based upon mutual collaboration, with consciousness that only the truth and the true faith can make of churchmen examples who are able to attract others to Catholicism. Churchmen must be examples of joy, because in the end Benedict always preached the Gospel of Joy.

This is, in my view, the greatest legacy of Pope Benedict XVI. This legacy is one of the best tools to respond to the issues raised by the secular world. I
- The Protestant way of thinking would never fascinate anyone if faith were considered not as something merely pragmatic, but as the guiding principle of life.
- Gender would never be an arbitrary option if men and women would consider themselves as part of creation and as brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.
- Europe would not live from one crisis to another, if rationalist and post-Enlightenment movements had not detached it from the search for God.
- And today there would not be a movement of thought holding that less religion would lead to less violence: instead, everyone would be aware that the opposite is true.

So no one would be frightened to defend babies and to decry abortion, as there would be no Catholic universities such as Louvain ready to get rid of those who speak clearly on the issue in an effort to be politically correct.

It seems simple. It is not. You need faith, lucidity of thought, love of God and of neighbor.

Joseph Ratzinger wrote in his essay, “Liberation Theology and Other Challenges” that

“the human mind seems ever more capable of devising new means of destruction rather than new paths to life. It is more ingenious in sending weapons to war in every angle of the world than in bringing bread there. Why does all of this happen? Because our souls suffer from malnutrition, our hearts are blind and hardened. The world is in disorder because our hearts are in disorder, since they lack love and therefore cannot reason in the way of justice.”

These words represent the most precise diagnosis of the current situation.

Pope Benedict XVI was born in April, the cruelest month. He did not live only during the Church’s spring, but also during the so-called spring of the world.[???] In his lifetime, the Church has gone through the challenges of secularization, to which many Christians have yielded.

Religion today has been reduced to a social agency, with no weight in history. In Europe, God was put aside - subtly, not violently, as it was in the communist countries [I don't think the rampant secularism and anti-Catholicism pervading the all-reaching bureaucracy of the European Union is subtle at all. In fact, it is just as violent an institutional force as the more openly repressive forces of Communism were] . In fact, today, it seems to be the former
Communists of the Soviet Union in its largest component, Russia, who are showing that they understand the importance of faith in public life.

Ratzinger’s Schuelerkreis, the circle of his former students, discussed all the various aspects of this world crisis in their annual summer seminars at Castel Gandolfo.

And Benedict's most significant response was to ask the world to set its gaze on Jesus - Jesus as the Gospels present him to us, not according to rationalist interpretations [that discount his divinity], - and to this end, he wrote his trilogy, JESUS OF NAZARETH, the last of his theological works. In this, showed that the forces of the world which aim at 'liberating'the Church from the chains of doctrine' were in fact forces that aim to chain the salvific message of Jesus.

We are talking of strong forces, of lobbies that do not suffer when their economic power is questioned, but rather suffer when their thought is unmasked. Perhaps, it is the season of the new catacombs for the Church.

Certainly for Benedict XVI it is a time for prayer. After he led the Church to penance in Fatima and relaunched the new evangelization with the Year of Faith, now is the time for intercession.


BTW, Italian state TV RAI had a second hourlong documentary tribute to Benedict XVI aired on their series LA GRANDE HISTORIA, which can be seen at this link:
http://www.raiplay.it/video/2017/04/La-Grande-Storia---Ratzinger-33aab853-83e1-42e3-bb12-a9db89200620.html

TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 19 aprile 2017 03:26
Partially catching up on headlines...

April 16, 2017 headlines

Canon212.com


PewSitter


April 17, 2017 headlines
Canon212.com


PewSitter

TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 19 aprile 2017 15:46
April 19, 2017 headlines

PewSitter


Canon212.com



Caudillo Bergoglio's chutzpah [unmitigated effrontery] knows no limits, it seems...

Who knew? Pope can forbid
foreigner from visiting Rome


April 19, 2017

Ever since the Porta Pia fell, in 1870, and Rome became the capital of a newly united Italy, no Pope has ever again claimed the right to forbid anyone from coming to Rome. The city is not owned by the Pope, after all, and the temporal power of the papacy has, since 1929, been reduced to the very small limits of Vatican City and a few additional buildings in the region.

Alas, that was before Caudillismo had reached the City! If only John Paul II and Benedict XVI had known about this extra-muros absolute power of the Pope. El Caudillo Jorge knows better: who cares about law and rights, if he hates you, he can just order you out, muchacho!

It's what happened to the former head of the Knights of Malta, Fra Matthew Festing -- first forced by the Pope to resign, now ordered (!!!!!) not to come to Rome during the time of the Election of his own successor!


Vatican orders Matthew Festing
not to come to Rome for
Order of Malta election

Some Knights say move is designed to keep Fra' Festing from
having any influence in the election of a new Grand Master


April 18, 2017

In a surprising move, Pope Francis’s special delegate to the Order of Malta has instructed Fra’ Matthew Festing, the Order’s former Grand Master, not to travel to Rome for the election of his successor.

In a letter dated April 15, Archbishop Angelo Becciu said that many of the Order had “expressed their wish” that Fra’ Festing not travel to Rome for the election on April 29 as they felt his presence would “reopen wounds” and prevent a return to harmony following the dispute earlier this year regarding the dismissal and later reinstatement of Albrecht von Boeselager as Grand Chancellor.

The archbishop said he had “shared the decision with the Holy Father” and that he [Festing] should therefore forego his trip to Rome “as an act of obedience.”

The news is surprising as sources inside the Order say Fra’ Festing, who the Pope asked to resign in January, remains very popular within the Order and could even be re-elected. The Pope has also [reportedly] said he would accept his re-election. [Obviously that was a calculated pre-emptive PR ploy.]

They claim this move is therefore an attempt by some who wish to take the Order in a distinctly new direction to keep Fra’ Festing from having any influence in the upcoming election.


Interdict on Festing:
The pope forbids him to set foot
in Rome for Order of Malta election


April 18, 2017

For April 29, a meeting has been scheduled in Rome of the full Council of State of Professed Knights, the organ that according to statute will proceed with the election of the new Grand Master of the Order of Malta.

As is known, the previous Grand Master, Fra' Matthew Festing of England, delivered his resignation on January 24 into the hands of Pope Francis, in obedience to his command.

Since then, the supreme authority of the Order has been represented, in the capacity of interim lieutenant, by Grand Commander Fra' Ludwig Hoffmann von Rumerstein.

On February 4, however, Pope Francis also placed over the Order his own Special Delegate and “exclusive spokesman,” endowed de facto with full powers, in the person of Archbishop Angelo Becciu, Deputy Secretary of State [whereby the pope completely and unceremoniously - without as much as an excuse-me, much less a formal letter - obliterated the role of the nominal Patron of the Order, Cardinal Burke].

The letter is glaring proof of the exercise of these full powers.

In the name of the pope, Becciu prohibits the former Grand Master from taking part in the election of his successor. Not only that. He even forbids him to go to Rome on the occasion of the conclave.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 19 aprile 2017 15:58


Benedict XVI celebrates
90th birthday with beer



VATICAN CITY, April 17, 2017 (AP)- Benedict XVI has celebrated his 90th birthday with a glass of beer and the company of visitors from his native Bavaria in Germany.

Benedict sipped the beer alongside his brother, Mgr Georg Ratzinger, and received a gift basket that included pretzels.

The retired pontiff was born on April 16, 1927, in southern Germany. But since the birthday coincided this year with Easter Sunday, the occasion was celebrated on Monday.

On a sunny, mild day, guests sat outside the monastery on Vatican City grounds where Benedict has lived since he became the first pope to resign in 600 years.

Benedict XVI drinks beer
on his 90th birthday

ROME REPORTS
2017-04-18



Benedict XVI received a surprise from his homeland for his 90th birthday. He was visited by the Bavarian prime minister who brought him a basket of bretzen (German soft pretzels).

The pope enjoyed an interlude in the little plaza in front of his Mater Ecclesiae residence entertained with music, dances and typical costumes reminding him of Bavaria.

As in every good German party, he could not miss the toast with beer mug in hand.

He said in brief remarks:

" Bavaria is beautiful; as Creation but the land is especially beautiful because of the church towers, because of the houses and their balconies full of flowers, and because of the good people. It is beautiful, because God is known there. It is known that He created the world, which comes to fruition when we cooperate with God to build it. I thank you with all my heart for this Bavarian presence, which you bring to me. It is a Bavaria that is open to the world, which is lively and joyful. It can be this way precisely because it has its root and foundation in faith."


Of course, Benedict said the best gift was to spend the day with his brother Georg, 93, who came from Regensburg to be with him.

A Bavarian birthday celebration
in Rome for Benedict XVI

Translated from
PASSAUER NEUE PRESSE
April 17, 2017

With bretzen, beer and Bavarian white sausages, visitors from Bavaria greeted Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI on his 90th birthday. Around 50 visitors, including Bavarian politicians and the Bavarian Alpine Guard, travelled to Rome on Easter Monday for the event.

They were led by Bavarian Prime Minister Seehofer and his wife Karin, Bavarian Parliament president Barbara Stamm, Culture Minister Leudwig Apenle, and the chief of staff of the Bavarian Canchellery, Marcel Huber.

The emeritus pope celebrated his actual birthday the day before, Easter Sunday, with his ‘little family’ – his brother Mons Georg Ratzinger, who travelled from Regensburg for the occasion; his personal secretary, Mons. Georg Gaenswein, and the four Memores Domini who have kept house for him since be became Pope in April 2005.

Benedict thanked his Bavarian guests warmly “for the presence of Bavaria, which you have brought to me”, saying that in his heart, he is always in Bavaria. Later, he sang along in the Bavarian state hymn, "Gott mit Dir, du Land der Bayern" (God is with you, land of Bavaria).

Seehofer said later, “We are very proud of our pope”, and said he was very glad to find Benedict XVI so well and bright as ever, and that he was, as always, very well-informed. He said they exchanged views about world matters.

Link to Bavarian state TV video of the event:
http://www.br.de/mediathek/video/sendungen/nachrichten/benedikt-xvi-geburtstag-besuch-bayern-100.html

Papa Ratzinger:
‘I have lived through difficult times;
but God has seen me through them’

Translated from the Italian service of

April 17, 2017

“My heart is full of gratitude for the 90 years that the good God has given me. There have been trials and difficult times, but he has always guided me and seen me through, so that I could proceed on my way”.

Thus spoke Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI yesterday, Easter Monday, during a celebration of his 90th birthday with a delegation from his homeland of Bavaria led by Horst Seehofer, Prime Minister of Bavaria, with 30 members of the Bavarian Alpine Guard.

Also present at the festivity were the pope’s brother, Mons. Georg Ratzinger, who came from Regensburg specially for this occasion, and Mons. Georg Gaenswein, Prefect of the Pontifical Household and Benedict’s private secretary.

In his remarks, Benedict XVI said:

“I am full of gratitude above all that I was given such a beautiful homeland which now you have brought to me. Bavaria is beautiful by Creation, and the land is also beautiful for its church towers, for its balconies full of flowers, and for its good people. Bavaria is beautiful because there, God is known, it is known he created this world and that the world is good when we build it up together with him…

I thank you all for bringing Bavaria to me, the Bavaria that is open to the world, lively, happy, and which is happy because its roots are grounded in the faith. To all of you, vergelt’s Gott [“May God reward you”, a beautiful Bavarian way to say ‘Thank you’], starting from the leadership of Bavaria, and to you all. I am happy that we have been able to reunite once again until this beautiful Roman sky of blue, which with its white clouds reminds us of Bavaria’s blue-and-white state flag.

I wish you all the blessings of God. Please bring back my greetings to those at home, my gratitude, and with what pleasure I continue in my heart to walk around and experience our land, and I hope it will always be what it is. Vergelt’s Gott”.


THE PHOTOS (courtesy of LA REPUBBLICA:]

















A 6-MINUTE VIDEO FROM BAYERISCHE RUNDFUNK:



TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 20 aprile 2017 00:01





On what would have been the completion of

THE TWELFTH FULL YEAR

OF YOUR BLESSED PONTIFICATE...

AD MULTOS ANNOS, SANCTE PATER EMERITE!

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU HAVE BEEN

AND CONTINUE TO BE

FOR THE CHURCH, THE WORLD, AND ALL OF US.

WE COULD NEVER LOVE YOU ENOUGH.








Those who may want to relive the days that led to the election of Benedict XVI {with pictures and news accounts of the day-to-day events,
all the way to the Mass to inaugurate his Petrine Ministry), along with how various individuals experienced it and reacted to it, may want
to check out, if they have not seen it before, a special section entitled THE EXPERIENCE OF APRIL 19, 2005 in the PAPA RATZINGER FORUM
at this link:
freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=354517&p=1
It never fails to bring back all the emotions - and floods of joyous and sentimental tears! The scene is indelibly etched in our memory but
it is always worth reliving.





A video of Benedict XVI's first appearance to the world as Pope may be seen on youtu.be/RIFn5u_3pyE
And herewith, my favorite personal recollection about Benedict XVI:


Perhaps of all the words that the Holy Father said during his never-to-be-forgotten visit to the United States and to the United Nations - and every word was precious and significant - what will remain etched in my brain are the spontaneous words he spoke to thank the congregation at St. Patrick's for remembering the third anniversary of his Pontificate. All the more since I heard the words 'directly' as he spoke them, through the front-door speakers of the cathedral's audio system, as I stood on the steps to the front door. These were his extemporaneous words delivered in English:

At this moment I can only thank you for your love of the Church and Our Lord, and for the love which you show to this poor Successor of Saint Peter.

I will try to do all that is possible to be a worthy successor of the great Apostle, who also was a man with faults and sins, but remained in the end the rock for the Church.

And so I too, with all my spiritual poverty, can be for this time, by virtue of the Lord’s grace, the Successor of Peter.

It is also your prayers and your love which give me the certainty that the Lord will help me in this my ministry. I am therefore deeply grateful for your love and for your prayers.

And my answer to all that you have given to me in this moment and this visit is my blessing at the end of the Holy Mass.


- BENEDICT XVI

St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York
April 19, 2008
.




Eight years ago, Benedict XVI undertook an apostolic visit to the United States on April 15-22, 2008, during which he also addressed the United Nations.


For an extensive coverage of that visit, please visit the special thread dedicated to it in PAPA RATZINGER FORUM, starting on Page 15
freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=7092407&p=15
The earlier pages were devoted to all the material leading up to the visit.








The above is a commemorative video prepared by Gemma for Lella's blog.

And the tributes continue as we move from Benedict XVI's 90th birthday to the anniversary today of his election as pope. I have three interviews to translate so far, and I will start with this one, with Vittorio Messori. The others are by Fr. Lombardi and by Spanish theologian Fr. Pablo Cervera Barranco who has translated many of Joseph Ratzinger's books in Spanish and is undertaking the translation of some volumes of the COMPLETE WRITINGS for its Spanish edition...

Joseph the giant
Interview with Vittorio Messori
By Riccardo Caniato
Translated from
GENTE, April 16, 2017

On this Easter Sunday, Benedict XVI turns 90.

Gente conveyed birthday greetings to the Emeritus Pope through Vittorio Messori, the journalist and writer perhaps best qualified to speak about the man Joseph Ratzinger, not just about Benedict XVI who led the Catholic Church from April 2005 to February 2013. (Messori himself was born on April 16, 1941).

He first made a name for himself in 1976 with the publication of his book Ipotesi su Gesu, of which 2 million were sold in Italy alone. He also became the first Vaticanista to ‘co-author’ a book with a pope (with Varcare la soglia della speranza (Crossing the threshold of hope), written with John Paul II in 1993.

But that had been preceded in 1985 by an interview book with the man who was then Prefect of the till-then ‘impenetrable’ Holy Office, known by its post-Vatican II name of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. That book was Rapporto sulla fede (Report on the faith) [published in English as THE RATZINGER RRPORT], of which Messori says, “It was the outcome of three days of close contact with Joseph Ratzinger, which established a relationship between us that has never been interrupted”.

What do you remember of those days?
The Prefect of the CDF agreed to meet with me in Bressanone on the eve of Assumption in 1984. He was spending his summer vacation in that city, staying at the local seminary, where he dedicated time to study and meditation. When I arrived at the seminary just before dinnertime, I was told that His Eminence was still out presiding at some Confirmations.

He arrived in an old Volkswagen with Munich plates. He was all dressed in his cardinal robes, and I was struck by the contrast between his austere intelligent figure and the modesty of the car which was driven by an older priest in black clergyman suit – whom he introduced as his older brother.

When I think back on it, the image says a lot to illustrate the misunderstanding of which Ratzinger has been a victim all his life.

Can you explain that more?
The first time I met him, all it took was a few exchanges to perceive what kind of a human being he is. His wisdom and the vastness of his culture – not just doctrinally – of the person himself, before whom one felt like a dwarf. So many enemies of the Church, well aware that in him they were facing a genuine thoroughbred who can support the faith with the keenness of reason and who can therefore not compete with him in terms of argumentation, have distorted their view of him on the basis of aspects like his nationality, or his extreme reserve, in order to create a media stereotype. From this black legend came the images and epithets of Joseph Ratzinger as the ‘German shepherd’, the ‘Grand Inquisitor’, the ‘Panzerkardinal’, or the ‘Iron Prefect’.

And instead?
Instead, Joseph Ratzinger is one of the most amiable, discreet and truly good persons that I have ever known. Like all true wise men, he does not boast, and he listens to others. He is also gifted with a sense of humor, even about himself. Do you know that when we would meet each other in a trattoria near the Vatican [and near where the cardinal used to live], he would ask me to tell him all the jokes and anecdotes circulating about him? He would laugh with gusto when I told him. What would his detractors say if they knew this?

But Papa Ratzinger is also remembered for upholding ‘non-negotiable principles’ and the firmness of his positions on the faith…
Certainly he is someone who never disregards the truth. When I sent him the drafts of the book, I insisted that he review everything himself because he had made some explosive statements and a very firm condemnation of some post-Vatican II contestations and about new currents of thought at the time like Liberation Theology. But he made practically no corrections, nor did he soften his most hardline positions.

Indeed, he was surprised by my concerns. “Controversial?”, he asked in German, looking at me with his innocent blue eyes. “Warum? Why ever?” Here, in expressing surprise that saying the truth could stir up controversy at all, one appreciated his evangelical transparency which characterized him even as Pope.

But he has not lacked for controversy, such as that which followed the Regensburg lecture on faith and reason with what he said about Islam and violence…
When it comes to that, even as a cardinal, he stirred up much discussion. Because of the condemnations I referred to that he made in the book, he received death threats [And so did Messori, branded as an accomplice of Ratzinger, who had to hire bodyguards and go into hiding for months because of the threats from elements associated with those men of the Church who felt alluded to in Ratzinger’s post-Vatican II critique].For his safety [something I am reading about for the first time], he was asked to find ‘asylum’ at the American Embassy to the Holy See, and when he invited me to see him there, I had to undergo a close body search by the US Marine guards. But all that security was a contrast to the man I found who seemed to be serenely ‘at home’.

Can you tell us more about Joseph Ratzinger’s human sensitivity?
To get back to the matter of dress, I did not see him again in official robes in Bressanone. He was wearing his cardinal robes that first day because he had to perform liturgy, and of course, for the children who received Confirmation from him, expecting to be confirmed by a Prince of the Church. But he changed quickly and put me quite at ease with his informal well-worn clergyman suit.

During those three days, we worked all day, and in the evening, we would go over the notes of the day before we retired. He woke up much earlier than me in order to say his daily Mass, and in the evening, he would pray in the chapel while I retired to my room to prepare my questions for the next day. He never asked me to fall in with his daily rhythm.

Months later, in Rome, having become more confident with him, I told him that in Bressanone, I had made a great sacrifice by not smoking at all for three days because I did not want to annoy him. He replied with apparent sincerity, “But why didn’t you tell me? It si true I do not some, but I like the smell of burning tobacco “. I am sure that was not true but he did not want to offend me.

Did you eat together?
Yes. At the time I had just turned 40, and at lunch he would urge me to eat more, even as he was restrained. Every afternoon, he arranged so that we would have a break for a snack of the strudel prepared by the Tyrolese sisters in the seminary. I soon realized that the snack was prepared especially for me, since he was content with sipping from a glass of water, allowing me to eat at leisure. I asked him why he would not partake of that excellent dessert, but he answered courteously with another white lie: “Caro dottore, it is better that I refrain from eating sweets”. This is a man who is demanding and austere with himself, but full of attention for others. Indeed, few are aware of his constant capacity for self-mortification – but that is Jospeh Ratzinger.

When did you meet him first after he had become Pope?
After a General Audience in St. Peter’s Square. He asked me to come after the publication of the book Perche credo?(Why I believe) which I had written with Andrea Tornielli. He embraced me, and I found the courage to ask him whether the time had come to update Rapporto sulla fede. “But how shall we do it?”, he asked. “Like we did the other time,” I answered. “Holiness, if you would give me three days…”

“Vittorio”, he stopped me, smiling, “how can I give you three days when no one allows me even three hours of respite?”

Your last meeting?
Months ago, already Emeritus. Once again, the occasion was the publication of another one of my books [‘Bernadette non ci ha ingannati’ (Bernadette did not deceive us) about the apparitions in Lourdes], and it was his initiative, because since he became pope, I was unable to work up enough courage to take the first step. He received me at Mater Ecclesia, the little monastery in the Vatican Gardens which had been equipped for the cloistered nuns that John Paul II wished to live in the Vatican to pray specially for the Church.

What can you say of how he lives these days?
Among his books, his piano, music – Mozart, Beethoven, Bruckner… He receives selected guests and has enough to do keeping with correspondence coming from all over the world. I saw two newspapers on his desk – Corriere della Sera and Sueddeutsche Zeitung from Munich. In the evenings, he watches TG-1 on RAI. His residence is a place of light, full of flowers – it communicates peace. Benedict is surrounded bu affection and respect. He continues to live with the Memores Domini of Comunione e Liberazione, and with Mons. Georg Gaenswein, who remains his private secretary when he is not occupied with his duties as Prefect of the Pontifical Household.

But it was Mon. Gaenswein who last year alarmed many people when he likened Benedict to a candle that is slowly guttering out…
At our last meeting, we chatted until way past one p.m. I had hoped we could lunch together, but (I had to leave in order not to tire him out. I do not if he did eat lunch nor what he ate. He is rather thin these days. In the house he goes around using a walker, and for his daily spin in the Vatican Gardens, he rides a golf cart.

But in our conversation, he was every bit the man with an uncommon mind and lucid talk that is engaged and engaging. Obviously, last year, he also followed closely the publication of his last interview book, as well as a new biography [the one by Elio Guerriero].

The metaphor with the candle fits, but even if the candle may be waning, the light he emanates is still dazzling.
Questa è la versione 'lo-fi' del Forum Per visualizzare la versione completa clicca qui
Tutti gli orari sono GMT+01:00. Adesso sono le 08:09.
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com