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, ..., 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, [394]
TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 12 agosto 2017 18:36

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/08/pope-benedicts-red-thread

I had thought before reading it that this essay would not pose any problem for me, but it turns out that many parts of it - Mosebach's lamentable view of Benedict's renunciation and his outrageous dismissal of his 'hermeneutic of continuity' - came as a great shock, as Mosebach seems to be damning of Benedict XVI on the whole while offering only faint praise insofar as Summorum Pontificum alone... The entire anti-Benedict 'traddie' bloggers brigade must be raising incense to Mosebach for this.

One shouldn’t speak of a “cult of personality” when describing the papal devotional items that are offered to the hordes of pilgrims and tourists round about Saint Peter’s in Rome: postcards and calendars, coffee cups and silk cloths, plates and plastic gadgets of every kind, always with the picture of the current happily reigning Holy Father—and next to them also those of Popes John Paul II, John XXIII, and even Paul VI.

There is only one pope you will not find in any of the souvenir shops—and I mean none, as if there were a conspiracy here. To dig up a postcard with the picture of Benedict XVI requires the tenacity of a private detective. Imperial Rome knew the institution of damnatio memoriae: the extinction of the memory of condemned enemies of the state. Thus, Emperor Caracalla had the name of his brother Geta — after he had killed him — chiseled out of the inscription on the triumphal arch of Septimius Severus.

It seems as if the dealers in devotional goods and probably also their customers (for the trade in rosaries also obeys the market laws of supply and demand) had jointly imposed such an ancient Roman damnatio memoriae on the predecessor of the current pope. [This is, of course, most disturbing news, and I am surprised no one seems to have reported this at all. Is it possible none of the Vaticanistas have ever bothered to check what the souvenir stores and kiosks around St. Peter's Square are selling? Or if they had been aware of this apparent blackout of Benedict XVI from the memorabilia market, why has no one tried to find out why from the store owners. If they can still sell memorabilia about John XXIII and Paul VI, they surely cannot claim they are not stocking any Benedict XVI items because no one would buy them! Or maybe it's worse – and they will claim no one is making any Benedict XVI items any more!]

It is as if, on this trivial level, should be accomplished that which Benedict himself could not resolve to do after his resignation (disturbing to so many people, profoundly inexplicable and still unexplained) [Et tu, Mosebach??? ... And oh yes, as it turns out, maxime te, Mosebach, especially you!] — namely, to become invisible, to enter into an unbroken silence.

Those especially who accompanied the pontificate of Benedict XVI with love and hope could not get over the fact that it was this very pope who, with this dramatic step, called into question his great work of reform for the Church. [This is preposterous, coming from someone like Mosebach! How can Benedict's retirement 'call into question' any of his achievements in any way? It is almost like saying that the death of a great man 'calls into question' his achievements, even granted that retirement is voluntary and not inevitable like death.]

Future generations may be able without anger and enthusiasm to speak about this presumably last chapter in the life of Benedict XVI. [I take it Mosebach places himself among those who consider Benedict's renunciation with anger!] The distance in time will place these events in a greater, not yet foreseeable order. For the participating contemporary, however, this distance is not available because he remains defenseless in the face of the immediate consequences of this decision.

[If Mosebach means that Benedict's renunciation made it possible for someone like Bergoglio to become pope, surely no Catholic, even the most pessimistic in February 2013 – least of all Benedict XVI himself - ever imagined that his successor would be the anti-Catholic apostate that he is! The fact is none of us ever thought – other than perhaps the Sankt-Gallen mafia and their candidate - that a veritable sea change would be imposed on the Church by whoever was to succeed Benedict XVI.

If Benedict XVI had decided he would carry on as pope until he died, his increasing infirmities – which have been evident to everyone in the past four years – would have become a major weapon for his opponents to bludgeon him with, and through him, the church, using those increasing infirmities as a symbol for the Church he leads.

Let's forget about the symbolism and consider just one scenario, the most immediate imaginable: Think how much Schadenfreude there would be among the enemies of the Church to see a man who can no longer walk without a cane or a walker struggle to preside at a Mass in St. Peter's Basilica – before the eyes of the world – when at any moment he could stumble at the altar or fumble with the sacred vessels and the delicate rubrics that come with celebrating the Eucharist.

Would even Mr. Mosebach be comfortable attending a Mass at which at any moment, some misstep or downright 'inelegance' – all involuntary – could detract from its solemnity? I personally have always thought that Benedict XVI who, all his life, was inherently elegant and disciplined, had such practical considerations in mind when he made his decision to renounce his office because of his increasing infirmity.][/dim


To speak about Benedict XVI today means first of all trying to overcome these feelings of pain and disappointment. [GET. OVER. IT.]

All the more so, because during his reign this pope undertook to heal the great wounds that had been inflicted on the visible body of the Church in the time after the Council. [But farther down, Mosebach then pooh-poohs whatever it was Benedict tried to do in this respect!]

The party that had assembled against tradition at the Council viewed the compromise formulas that had settled the conflict in many conciliar documents only as stages in the grand war for the future shape of the Church. The “spirit of the Council” began to be played off against the literal text of the conciliar decisions. Disastrously, the implementation of the conciliar decrees was caught up in the cultural revolution of 1968, which had broken out all over the world. That was certainly the work of a spirit— if only of a very impure one.

The political subversion of every kind of authority, the aesthetic vulgarity, the philosophical demolition of tradition not only laid waste universities and schools and poisoned the public atmosphere, but at the same time took possession of broad circles within the Church. Distrust of tradition, elimination of tradition began to spread in, of all places, an entity whose essence consists totally of tradition—so much so that one has to say the Church is nothing without tradition.

So the postconciliar battle that had broken out in so many places against tradition was nothing else but the attempted suicide of the Church — a literally absurd, nihilistic process. [With all due respect for Mr. Mosebach who has won the most prestigious literary prizes in Germany, I find a most inappropriate metaphor here. How could it have been a 'suicide' by the Church if the process was not at all participated in by the entire Body????]

We all can recall how bishops and theology professors, pastors and the functionaries of Catholic organizations proclaimed with a confident, victorious tone that with the Second Vatican Council a new Pentecost had come upon the Church—which none of those famous Councils of history which had so decisively shaped the development of the Faith had ever claimed.

A “new Pentecost” means nothing less than a new illumination, possibly one that would surpass that received two thousand years ago; why not advance immediately to the “Third Testament” from the Education of the Human Race of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing? In the view of these people, Vatican II meant a break with the Tradition as it existed up till then, and this breach was salutary. Whoever listened to this could have believed that the Catholic religion had found itself really only after Vatican II. All previous generations — to which we who sit here owe our faith — are supposed to have remained in an outer courtyard of immaturity.

To be fair, we should remember that the popes attempted to counter this — with a weak voice and above all without the will to intervene in these aberrations with an organizing hand as the ruler of the Church.

[That is a sweeping generalization that tars the popes Mosebach refers to with the same broad brush:
– Paul VI who lived to immediately regret that he had allowed the smoke of Satan to seep into the Church but who could not then put that infernal genie back into the bottle;
- John Paul II who, for all his larger-than-life personality and 27 years as pope, who had great conviction in the good work of Vatican II, pushed global evangelization through his personal proclamation of the Gospel to 109 countries, but succeeded best (and only) where the spirit of Vatican-II had taken least hold (Africa) and not at all in Latin America where not just that pernicious spirit but liberation theology took root; and whose best pushback against the defective liturgical reform represented by the Novus Ordo was to have priests wishing to say the traditional Mass ask permission of their bishop to do so; and
- Benedict XVI, becoming pope 40 years after the 'spirit of Vatican II' had been left o propagate more or less unfettered throughout the Catholic world except in Africa; who tried his best to reverse that process by insisting on the hermeneutic of continuity, by appointing bishops and cardinals who were in the large majority as orthodox as he is, and by his courageous correction of the great anomaly against the traditional Mass that had been perpetrated for almost forty years until Summorum Pontificum – he at least began a process of turning back to what is right and what has always been right for the Church, but what more could he have done in eight years to overcome the pernicious cumulative effects of the preceding 40 years?

Leo the Great or Gregory the Great might perhaps have done it way back in the days when the world of the Church was mostly southwestern Europe and the Mediterranean, whose Catholics were not instantly and constantly propagandized by 'the world' and wayward Catholic leaders as they are today!

If John Paul II, who will one day probably be formally called 'the Great' as well, failed to contain the smoke of Satan within the Church and dispel it – and he failed not because 'he had a weak voice or lacked the will to intervene in aberrations' as Mosebach accuses these popes, but because historical circumstances no longer allow any kind of immediate course correction with the necessary wide-ranging and lasting effectBenedict XVI, even if he had been given another 20 years as pope at the peak of his capacities (always an impossibility since he was 78 when he was elected), would never have completed the correction either.

And then God willed that someone like Bergoglio became pope, who in four years has managed to stop that work of correction, and is now institutionalizing all the diabolical designs of the 'spirit of Vatican-II', welcoming 'the world' into the Church that is still called the Roman Catholic Church even if daily it becomes more and more subsumed under the church of Bergoglio!

Tell me, Mr. Mosebach – and all you 'traditionalists' who think the last Catholic pope was Pius XII - if you had been pope in place of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, could you have done better than they? Could anyone possibly have done better than they?]


Only a very few individual heresiarchs were disciplined — those who with their arrogant insolence practically forced their own reprimand. But the great mass of the “new-Pentecostals,” unrestrained and protected by widespread networks, could continue to exercise a tremendous influence on the day-to-day life of the Church.

So, for outside observers, the claim that with Vatican II the Church had broken with her past became ever more probable. Anyone accustomed to trusting his eyes and ears could no longer convince himself that this was still the Church that had remained faithful for thousands of years, through all the changes of the ages.

One is reminded of Carl Schmitt's scornful rhyme: Alles fließt, lehrt Heraklit. / Der Felsen Petri, derfliesst mit (“Heraclitus taught that all things flow; the rock of Peter —it is flowing too”).

An iconoclastic attack like the worst years of the Reformation swept through the churches; in the seminaries the “demythologizing of Christianity” à la Bultmann was propagated; the end of priestly celibacy was celebrated as something imminent; religious instruction was largely abandoned, even in Germany, which had been highly favored in this regard; priests gave up clerical attire; the sacred language —which the liturgical constitution of the Council had just solemnly confirmed — was abandoned. All this happened, so it was said [by the local churches who were the agents of the diabolical VII spirit,] to prepare for the future, otherwise the faithful couldn’t be kept in the Church.

The hierarchy argued like the proprietors of a department store, who didn’t want to sit on their wares and so tossed them out to the people at throwaway prices. Regrettably the comparison isn’t exact, for the people had no interest in the discounted products. [One must note that Mosebach is speaking here concretely of what has happened in Germany but seems to be projecting it to the whole Church, where even in the worst cases outside Germany, the apostasy has not been as drastic. This applies to the following paragraphs especially... Certainly, the 'Church' in Germany appears to have pre-figured the church of Bergoglio, but it was certainly not representative of the universal Church then nor of the un-Bergoglianized Church today. ]

After the “new Pentecost” there began an exodus out of the Church, the monasteries, and the seminaries. The Church, unrestrainedly pushing ahead with her revolution, continued to lose any ability to attract or retain. She resembled that baffled tailor who, looking at a badly cut pair of trousers while shaking his head, muttered: “I’ve cut you off three times and you’re still too short!” It is claimed that this exodus from the Church would also have happened without the revolution.

Let’s accept for the moment this claim. If that had really been the case, however, the great revolution would not have been necessary at all. On the contrary, the flock remaining in the Church would have been able to persevere in faith under the “sign that will be contradicted”. There’s not one argument in favor of the post-conciliar revolution; I certainly haven’t encountered one yet.
[If you absolutely reject the notion that Vatican II gave birth to a new church, then arguing for or against a 'post-conciliar revolution' is not necessary!

Pope Benedict could not and would never allow himself to think in that way, even if in lonely hours it may have been difficult for him to defend himself against an assault of such thoughts. In no way did he want to abandon the image of the Church as a harmoniously growing organism under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

With his historical consciousness it was also clear to him that history can never be turned back, that it is impossible as well as reckless to try to make what has happened “unhappen.” Even the God who forgives sins does not make them “undone,” but in the best case lets them become a felix culpa.

From this perspective, Benedict could not accept what the progressives and traditionalists expressed equally and with the best reasons: that in the post-conciliar era a decisive break with Tradition had indeed occurred; that the Church before and after the Council was not the same institution. That would have meant that the Church was no longer under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; consequently, she had ceased to be the Church. One cannot imagine the theologian Joseph Ratzinger as laboring under a naive, formalistic faith. The twists and turns of ecclesiastical history were very familiar to him. That in the past, too, there had been in the Church bad popes, misguided theologians, and questionable circumstances was never hidden from him.

But, while contemplating ecclesiastical history, he felt borne up by the indisputable impression that the Church, in constant development, had again and again overcome her crises not simply by cutting off mistaken developments but by making them, if possible, even fruitful in the succeeding generations.

It thus appeared to him imperative to combat the idea that this rupture had really occurred — even if all the appearances seemed to argue for it.
[ Mosebach once again means the state of the Church in Germany that he is projecting onto the universal Church. Benedict, on the other hand, never considered the entire universal Church lost for good just because the Church in Germany appeared to be! What pope could think like that?]

His efforts aimed at attempting to remove from men’s minds the assertion of such a rupture. This attempt has an air of legal positivism about it, a disregarding of the facts.
[And what a putdown that is of Benedict XVI! NO, he was not disregarding the facts - it must be the first time anyone has seriously accused Benedict XVI of doing that - but YES, it was a resolve to lay down the premise for a course correction. Because, after all, one has to begin somewhere! What was he to do? Say, "Let's just give up! They claim Vatican II was a rupture and gave birth to a new church? So be it!"]

Please do not understand it as irony when I quote in this context the famous lines of the great absurdist poet Christian Morgenstern: “What may not be, cannot be!” [Does Mosebach really think that was Benedict's frame of mind for insisting on the hermeneutic of continuity? Is it not the same hermeneutic that runs through all of Church history, that is invoked now by all who protest against the heterodoxies and near-heresies of Amoris laetitia? Why is it right for the DUBIA advocates to invoke the Church's bimillennial hermeneuutic of continuity (that literally began with the apostolic succession) but wrong for Benedict XVI???]


[I will stop here for now, because the rest of the essay is a disquisition on liturgy, which has been Mosebach's battlehorse, and I need more time to frame my comments. Mosebach circles back to defending why Benedict XVI was right in promulgating Summorum Pontificum, not seeing that his, Mosebach's, own persistent argument for respecting Tradition is his way of insisting on the hermeneutic of continuity that has ruled the life of the Church and that no one should give up on!
The entire essay can be read on

www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/08/pope-benedicts-re...
I will post the second half with my remarks ASAP.]
TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 13 agosto 2017 03:09


I've sat down on this item a few days - after all, it is not a stop- the-presses kind of news report. LIFESITE NEWS ran this story under two different titles –
changing the lead paragraphs of the story to fit each title. The other title for this was 'Cardinal Burke warns against idolatry of the papacy',
which is the 'secondary' subject of the ff story. In both cases, the title and the chosen excerpts were meant to be attention-grabbing. The full text
of his address is also available, and it is, of course, the better read…

www.scribd.com/document/355803615/Cardinal-Raymond-Burke-Developing-Lives-of-Peace-after-the-Heart-of-Mary%23fr...


Cardinal Burke says 'confusion
‘confusion and error’ from Catholic leaders
may be sign of end times

by Pete Baklinski


LOUISVILLE, Kentucky, August 8, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- “Confusion, division, and error” within the Catholic Church coming from “shepherds” even at the highest levels indicate that we “may be in the end times", said U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke in an address in Kentucky.

The Cardinal, who spoke at the July 22 “Church Teaches Forum” in Louisville, said that, in his opinion, the times “realistically seem to be apocalyptic.”

“We are living in most troubled times in the world and also in the Church,” he said.

Burke, one of the Church’s leading canon law experts, outlined how evils now commonly accepted in the West’s “ravaged” culture have now managed to infiltrate the Church, passing from the shepherds to the sheep.

“In a diabolical way, the confusion and error which has led human culture in the way of death and destruction has also entered into the Church, so that she draws near to the culture without seeming to know her own identity and mission, without seeming to have the clarity and the courage to announce the Gospel of Life and Divine Love to the radically secularized culture,” he said.

He cited as one example the recent remark from the president of the German bishops’ conference, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Germany was not a major concern for the Church. Instead, Marx said that the Church should be more concerned about what he called intolerance towards persons suffering from same-sex attraction.

Burke, who is one of the four Cardinals who signed the dubia asking Pope Francis to clarify ambiguities in his teaching, said there are “many shepherds” who are no longer truly shepherding the faithful entrusted to them.

“For whatever reason, many shepherds are silent about the situation in which the Church finds herself or have abandoned the clarity of the Church’s teaching for the confusion and error which is wrongly thought to address more effectively the total collapse of Christian culture,” he said.

Burke said that one clear sign to him that the Church is “failing badly” in her mission is that she is no longer facing hostile attacks from secular media.
.
“Some time ago, a Cardinal in Rome commented on how good it is that the secular media are no longer attacking the Church, as they did so fiercely during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI,” he said. “My response was that the approval of the secular media is, on the contrary, for me a sign that the Church is failing badly in her clear and courageous witness to the world for the salvation of the world,” he added.

He specifically noted how secular media has pitted those who are being faithful to perennial Catholic teaching against Pope Francis and his “pastoral” agenda for the Church.

Cardinal Burke accused “secular voices” of promoting Pope Francis as a “reformer who is a revolutionary, that is, as one who undertakes the reform of the Church by breaking from the Tradition, the rule of the faith (regula fidei) and the corresponding rule of law (regula iuris).”

“Regarding the frequent statements of Pope Francis, there has developed a popular understanding that every statement of the Holy Father must be accepted as papal teaching or magisterium. The mass media has certainly wanted to pick and choose among the declarations of Pope Francis, in order to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is undergoing a revolution and is changing radically its teaching on certain key questions of faith and especially of morals,” he said.

The Cardinal noted how the Pope does not help the situation by regularly choosing to “speak in a colloquial manner, whether during interviews given on airplanes or to news outlets, or in spontaneous remarks to various groups.”

He said that Catholics seeking to remain true to Christ and the Church he founded must learn to discern between the “words of the man who is Pope and the words of the Pope as Vicar of Christ on earth.”

“Pope Francis has chosen to speak often in his first body, the body of the man who is Pope. In fact, even in documents which, in the past, have represented more solemn teaching, he states clearly that he is not offering magisterial teaching but his own thinking,” the Cardinal said.

“But those who are accustomed to a different manner of Papal speaking want to make his every statement somehow part of the Magisterium. To do so is contrary to reason and to what the Church has always understood. It is simply wrong and harmful to the Church to receive every declaration of the Holy Father as an expression of papal teaching or magisterium,” he added.


Burke has previously called the Pope’s controversial 2016 Amoris Laetitia “not an act of the magisterium” but a “personal reflection of the Pope.” The Apostolic Exhortation has been interpreted by various bishops and cardinals as allowing civilly-divorced-and-remarried Catholics living in adultery to receive Holy Communion. Such an interpretation contradicts previous Catholic teaching.

The Cardinal said that making the distinction between “words of the man who is Pope and the words of the Pope as Vicar of Christ on earth” is crucial for showing “ultimate respect” for the Petrine Office while staying true to the perennial teachings of the Catholic faith.

“Without the distinction, we would easily lose respect for the Papacy or be led to think that, if we do not agree with the personal opinions of the man who is Roman Pontiff, then we must break communion with the Church,” he said.

He warned Catholics about falling into an “idolatry of the papacy” where every word spoken by the Pope is treated as if it were doctrine, “even if it is construed to be contrary to the very word of Christ, for example, regarding the indissolubility of marriage.”

Any declaration of the Pope, said Burke, must be understood “within the context of the constant teaching and practice of the Church, lest confusion and division about the teaching and practice of the Church enter into her body to the great harm of souls and to the great harm of the evangelization of the world.”


“The faithful are not free to follow theological opinions which contradict the doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, and confirmed by the ordinary Magisterium, even if these opinions are finding a wide hearing in the Church and are not being corrected by the Church’s pastors as the pastors are obliged to do,” he added.

The Cardinal warned Catholics in anguish over the current situation within the Church against even thinking about schism, that is, separating themselves from the Catholic Church headed by the Pope in the hope of creating a better Church. [The supreme irony being that it is the pope, in this case, who is willfully and deliberating 'separating' himself doctrinally from the Church even as he exploits the legitimate authority he holds as the duly elected Supreme Pontiff to push his own agenda, not the 'agenda' – i.e., the deposit of faith – that the one true Church of Christ has upheld, guarded and followed religiously for over two millennia.]

“There can be no place in our thinking or acting for schism which is always and everywhere wrong,” he said.
“Schism is the fruit of a worldly way of thinking, of thinking that the Church is in our hands, instead of in the hands of Christ. The Church in our time has great need of the purification of any kind of worldly thinking,” he added.

Burke laid out a number of practical ways Catholics striving to be faithful can respond to the current crisis within the Church. They must:
• Pray for an increase of faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ “Who is alive for us in the Church and Who never fails to teach sanctify and guide us in the Church” and whose “teaching does not change.”
• “Study more attentively the teachings of the faith contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and be prepared to defend those teachings against any falsehood which would erode the faith and thus the unity of the Church.”
• Gather together to “deepen their faith and to encourage one another.”
• Go to the Blessed Virgin Mary…in order to seek her maternal intercession.
• Invoke frequently throughout the day the intercession of Saint Michael the Archangel
• Pray daily to St. Joseph, especially under the title of “Terror of Demons” for the “peace of the Church, for her protection against all forms of confusion and division which are always the work of Satan.”
• Pray for the Pope, especially through the intercession of St. Peter.
• Pray for the Cardinals of the Church that they be of “true assistance to the Holy Father in exercising his office.”
• “Remain serene because of our faith in Christ who will not permit the ‘gates of hell’ to prevail against his Church.”
• “Safeguard especially our faith in the Petrine Office and our love for the Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Francis.”

[Let me be uncharitable but honest, and choose not to profess love for Pope Francis specifically, much less to 'safeguard' it! Faith in the Petrine office, yes, I will always have that, but how can I love someone whom I cannot even like - who does not live up to what we expect of the Vicar of Christ and is, objectively, overtly anti-Catholic in so many fundamental ways? It would be like having me say, if I had lived in the time of Alexander VI Borgia and was aware of his gross offenses to morality, that I love Alexander VI despite all that! Yet I think that Bergoglio's misappropriation and abuse of the office to which he was elected in order to push his idea of church is infinitely worse than all the sexual offenses of Alexander Borgia put together because he is saying he can and will improve on Christ whose one true Church and her teachings are not quite what Bergoglians think a church ought to be.]

Cardinal Burke urged Catholics to not “worry whether these times are apocalyptic or not, but to remain faithful, generous and courageous in serving Christ in His Mystical Body, the Church.”

“For we know that the final chapter of the story of these times is already written. It is the story of the victory of Christ over sin and its most deadly fruit, eternal death,” he said.

“It remains for us to write, with Christ, the intervening chapters by our fidelity, courage, and generosity as His true co-workers, as true soldiers of Christ. It remains for us to be the good and faithful servants who await to open the door for the Master at His Coming,” he added.

P.S. August 14, 2017
I refer you to
akacatholic.com/is-the-formal-act-of-correction-off-th...
in which Louie Verrecchio makes an observation that is very apropos to Cardinal Burke's recent address... in which the cardinal mentions nothing of the 'act of formal correction' he had indicated earlier this year would be proposed after Easter - presumably by him and the other DUBIA cardinals (now minus one with the death of Cardinal Meisner).

The point is well-taken but there may be plausible explanations for that, chief among them being that there seems to be no precedent in modern times (or ever?) for such a formal act of correction, how it would be done, and whether it means anything at all, let alone have any formal validity, other than as a stronger expression of the DUBIA as objective statements borne out by Amoris laetitia which the pope refuses to refute.

However, read Verrecchio's objections to Cardinal Burke's seemingly contradictory statements about what constitutes magisterium and whether a pope's personal opinion expressed in a formal document should not be regarded as his teaching, nonetheless, whether you consider it 'magisterial' or not.

It underscores the dilemma of cardinals who do take a vow of loyalty to the pope when they are conferred the dignity - but is that loyalty supposed to be blind and unconditional, or does it allow for honest dissent against what a cardinal may believe to be wrong teaching on faith and morals by the pope, whoever he is!


TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 13 agosto 2017 22:05

The Hispanophone media has not let Jorge Bergoglio get away with his obdurate personal silence on Venezuela. Left, under a headline that reads "Bergoglio refuses to criticise the dictator Maduro" shows
a protest march in St. Peter's Square by family and friends of Venezuelans who have been killed by the Maduro regime in its suppression of anti-government demonstrations. Too bad, of course, that there is no one
in the papal apartment overlooking St. Peter's Square to have taken note of the marchers. Right, a newspaper 'immortalizes' Bergoglio's blessing of Maduro last October.


Everyone who has eyes to read and ears to listen should know by now that for Jorge Bergoglio, there are no 'musts' other than those he imposes on himself. Setting aside for now that he ignores whatever he wishes to ignore of Jesus's words in the Gospel, he obviously ignores, as far as his duties as pope go, that the Pope must be the visible symbol of unity of the Church, and that he must confirm his brothers in the faith – because on both counts, he chooses to do the opposite.

To take just the DUBIA as an example, he fosters disunity by refusing to even discuss them with four cardinals of the Church (and by extension to all those who harbor the very same DUBIA and more about his teaching). And he confuses his brothers in the faith, rather than confirming them in their faith, by even refusing to answer a Yes or a No to the five DUBIA.

Any Catholic of common sense will simply and rightly conclude that when a Pope does not want to give a Yes or a No answer – without ifs and buts – to five simple questions that touch on the very essentials of the Catholic faith, then he does so because he cannot give a simple Yes or No answer. Yet Christ said very clearly in his Sermon on the Mount: "Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one"(Mt 5:37) – and he meant that for everyone who listens to his Word, so how could it be less for the man who is supposed to be his Vicar on earth?

(A correspondent of Marco Tosatti today used an interesting term to describe Bergoglian relativism, 'NI,NI, SO,SO' – instead of a NO,NO or a SI,SI. In other words, anything is permissible, and Bergoglio would say Jesus should have learned that in real life, one has to be NINI-SOSO on most things!) (The English equivalent would be YOYO-NESNES, which doesn't sound as euphonic as NINI-SOSO.)

Of course, Bergoglio chooses to gloss over much of the Sermon of the Mount – the verses before 5:37 contain the Beatitudes, the passages on salt an light, his teaching about the law, about about anger, about adultery and about divorce – but apparently, that seminal catechesis by Jesus himself, in the gospel according to Bergoglio, does not go beyond Verse 3 ("Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven) which he also grossly misinterprets to mean Jesus was referring to the materially poor.

Verses 27-32, in which Jesus is very explicit about divorce and adultery, would never be found in the gospel according to Bergoglio ("Hey, JC, just take a look at Amoris laetitia, Chapter 8, would you? You will see there how I, Jorge Bergoglio, am more merciful than you are! I'm improving your word wherever I see fit – after all, I'm your Vicar on earth, aren't I?")

This is all by way of a prelude for yet another rightful and well-meaning "The Pope must speak out on…" No amount of 'MUST, MUST' prodding or provoking will get Bergoglio to do anything he does not want to do. Why can't he see it is his duty to address Maduro directly as the main if not singular culprit for the present catastrophe in Venezuela? Obviously, his very public blessing of Maduro on the forehead last October halted nothing in the tyrant's totalitarian agenda. And still Bergoglio stands by him.

To those who follow US news, it is much like Donald Trump condemning a despicable white-supremacist anti-Jewish rally-turned-riot in Charlottesville yesterday simply as an “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" - without saying it was white supremacists and neo-Nazis brandishing anti-Semitic placards, Confederate battle flags, torches and a few Trump campaign signs who started it all. The same Trump who repeatedly criticized Barack Obama for never identifying Islamic terrorists when condemning any terrorist attacks.

What would it have cost Obama to single out Islamic extremists, or Trump to single out white supremacists, or Bergoglio to denounce Maduro by name? It is incredible how personal biases can so prevent presumably intelligent adult men – elected to be national leaders (and leader of the Catholic Church) – from openly stating any truth that offends their biases!


Pope Francis must speak out on Venezuela
By Phil Lawler
catholicculture.org
August 9, 2017

Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro is forcing the question: Will Pope Francis take a clear public stand in opposition to a leftist leader who styles himself as a populist?

For years Maduro and his predecessor, the late Hugo Chavez, have used the Catholic bishops of Venezuela as their whipping-boys, charging that the Church is aligned with the traditional power structure. The rhetoric of Maduro’s latest statement is typical:The hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the country has traditionally been allied to the sectors that held onto powers and privileges, and destroyed the country for almost a century."

The Venezuelan bishops have been firm and consistent in their opposition to Maduro’s campaign to consolidate his power. In recent months, with the country in the grips of a crippling economic and political crisis, the bishops have issued a series of urgent statements, warning against the drive toward authoritarian rule. In advance of a government-sponsored referendum (which was seen by most international observers as a rigged process), the bishops prayed that the Virgin Mary’s intercession might “free our country from the clutches of Communism and socialism.”

From the Vatican, however, there has been silence. And Maduro, a skillful demagogue, has not hesitated to call attention to that silence, claiming that while the Venezuelan bishops oppose him, the Pope does not. Until just this week, there has been no clear statement from the Vatican to prove Maduro wrong.[Not to prove Maduro wrong, since the statement does not even mention him by name, and is worded impersonally - deliberately so - as if the recent election farce to elect a constituent assembly that would give Maduro everything he wants happened all by itself, and that some nameless authority would suspend the convening of that rubberstamp assembly!]

And now? To appreciate the current challenge to the Pope, it is necessary to appreciate the background.

A year ago, Maduro asked the Vatican to mediate a dispute between his regime and the opposition, which controls the country’s Parliament. The Vatican agreed, the terms of the negotiations were hammered out, and sessions were scheduled.

But then the Maduro government failed to fulfill the conditions set for the talks (which included release of political prisoners and permission for humanitarian agencies to deliver food and medicine to Venezuela’s suffering poor), and government representatives failed to show up for the talks. Eventually the Vatican representative, Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, pulled out of the process, indicating that he would be available if and when real talks took place.

In effect the Maduro regime had scuttled the talks. The Venezuelan bishops placed the blame for failed negotiations squarely on the government. But the Vatican, while issuing repeated calls for new talks, avoided taking sides in the dispute. So Maduro was able to issue his own propaganda, claiming that the opposition was balking at negotiations.

As conditions in Venezuela deteriorated, and Maduro’s heavy-handed methods prompted mass protest demonstrations, Pope Francis issued his own calls for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. But he too carefully avoided any language that would have indicated support for one side of the conflict.

By June, the gap between the statements of the Pope and those of the Venezuelan bishops had become impossible to ignore. A delegation of Venezuelan prelates visited the Vatican, conferred with the Pontiff, and returned home without any major public statement.
[In other words, Bergoglio said to them: "NINI, SOSO, get over it!"... This is infinitely worse - and of a different order of gravity - than Benedict XVI shutting up Cardinal Meisner about Bertone, with "He stays. BASTA!"]

As one perceptive analyst observed, there were two ways to interpret that silence: Either the Venezuelan bishops had failed to persuade the Holy Father to take a stronger stand, or they had actually asked him to maintain his silence, because they feared a clear papal intervention would be detrimental to their aims!

Bear in mind that Pope Francis has shown a special sympathy for “popular movements,” [read 'communist/socialist united fronts'] and that Maduro claims to be acting as a populist [read 'communist/socialist tyrant']. [Bergoglio is a master of newspeak, in which if you approve of something bad, you would never call it by what it really is!]

As William McGurn observes in a fine Wall Street Journal column, Pope Francis has been harsh in his judgment of the sort of “populism” practiced by Donald Trump, but seems loathe to denounce the “populism” of a Latin American leftist.

Still the Vatican did side with the Venezuelan bishops this week, with a statement from the Secretariat of State opposing Maduro’s plan to set up a new national assembly and write a new constitution expanding his powers. The Vatican statement was not nearly as strong as the language used by the Venezuelan bishops, but it was clear enough: the Secretariat of State was warning against Maduro’s plan to seize power.

So how did the Venezuelan leader respond? He fell back on his old reliable rhetoric, claiming that the Vatican Secretariat of State, like the Venezuelan hierarchy, was in the hands of the old power establishment. Maduro still insisted that Pope Francis was on his side: "One thing is us, Catholics, the people of Christ; another is the trajectory of Pope Francis as a defendant of the peoples with his humility, and another very different one is the structure of the Vatican’s Secretary of State, the bureaucracy."

Maduro is playing a classic gambit of the would-be dictator: trying to sap the power of the Church while claiming that he represents the true spirit of Catholicism — that he, and only he, understands the future goals of the brave new Church led by Pope Francis. In a country that is still overwhelmingly Catholic, this rhetoric is helping Maduro to silence his Catholic opponents and expand his power.

The Venezuelan bishops have done their utmost; they need support. Another strong statement by the Secretariat of State won’t solve the problem; Maduro has already shown how he will explain it away. The word must come from the top; Pope Francis himself must speak out.

Good luck with that! Or maybe, we should ask ourselves what force majeure – it could be something as commonplace as Italian Catholics overwhelming the Vatican telephone system with their protests about the pope's obstinate silence on baby Charlie Gard - could possibly constrain Bergoglio to denounce Maduro, even if he kicks and screams that he has to do it at all?




Jose Luis Rodriguez, now 71, also known as El Puma, is Venezuela's Julio Iglesias, a singer whose albums are international best sellers and, doing
one better than Iglesias, also starred in a number of telenovelas seen across the Hispanic world.

The tweets say
: (Left) "All the priests and Christian pastors of Venezuela are against the dictatorship. And you Bergoglio, maximum
authority, remain silent. Why?"

(Right) "The silence of the pope amazes me - it makes him complicit in all the deaths that have happened and will happen in this
narco-regime. What's wrong with you, Bergoglio?"


Things have come to such a point that a pope is denounced for keeping silent about EVIL!


TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 14 agosto 2017 01:20


A book about the Church
and the time we live in

Translated from

August 12, 2017

Today, I wish to talk about a book that is harsh and difficult as was – and is – the life of its author Danilo Quinto. Who lived much of his life in Italy's very anti-Catholic Partito Radicale and then underwent a profound conversion. Which led him to write his first book entitled “Da servo di Pannella a figlio libero di Dio – Dalla più formidabile the macchina mangiasoldi della partitocrazia italiana per arrivare a Cristo” (From being a servant of Pannella to a free son of God: Out of the most formidable cash-guzzling machine in Italy's party system to arrive at Christ), with a Preface by Mons. Luigi Negri, who was at the time Bishop of Ferrara. [Pannella was the longtime leader of the Radical Party, pro-actively espousing all the progressivist anti-Catholic social causes (abortion, contraception, euthanasia, same-sex 'marriage'), and whose death last year occasioned a fulsome unconditional and unapologetic eulogy from the verminous Mons. Paglia, president of Bergoglio's Pontifical Academy for Life.]

His new book is “Disorientamento pastorale. La fallacia umanistica al posto della verità rivelata?” (Pastoral disorientation: The humanistic fallacy in place of revealed truth?), with a theological introduction by Mons. Antonio Livi. [Born 1938, Livi is a philosopher-priest who has written some 35 books since 1969, an expert on St Thomas Aquinas, and a pupil of Etienne Gilson, 1884-1978, the French philosopher who, with Jacques Maritain and Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, was considered the leading exponents of neo-Thomism.]

Livi's introduction is entitled "What is happening with Pope Francis?"
Because, Livi notes, the freewheeling language of the Pope and his nonchalance in speaking about major issues to newsmen and foreigners have resulted in that many statements and initiative of this pope

"..are seen by public opinion as a radical reform, if not a true revolution, of the Catholic Church, with the apparent rejection of the Magisterium before Vatican II, the systematic adoption of the language of theological progressivism, and the definitive rejection of proclaiming the Gospel in dogmatic terms".

We know [or ought to know] that not everything said by this pope is necessarily authentic Magisterium, but the words of Bergoglio are interpreted [and reported] through generally anti-Catholic media (i.e., virtually all media) as expressions that radically re-formulate Christian doctrine".


Wherefore the discomfiture and disorientation, ever more palpable, among the 'faithful on the street' – and in this, Danilo Quinto's book is very well documented and rich in citations and references. Not only to the more or less surprising and spontaneous pronouncements of the reigning pope, but also, in counterpoint, to what Church scholars, previous popes, Doctors of the Church, and saints have said about each topic he speaks on.

Personally, I find the book very valuable but depressing. Depressing because what happens day to day usually erases recollection even of recent events, [and in a man who is relentless about making new pronouncements daily] this keeps most people from remembering earlier statements and actions that caused them to be puzzled or confused from a pope in whom prudence and considered judgment are not the most evident of virtues.

"In full conscience", Quinto writes, "I can say that every day – even in his daily homilettes – the pope uses language which lends itself to ambiguity and generates confusion about the doctrines of the Catholic Church".

The list is long. Episodes, statements of position, praises (including that for Emma Bonino, whom Quinto knows very well, having worked with her for years and years in the Partito Radicale, praise for the Grande Dame of Italian Abortionists being just one example of Bergoglio's, shall we say, 'ingenuity'), problematic interpretations of the Gospel – the list is so long that it's beyond enumerating in a column.

But Quinto's book is one that is well worth reading, even allowing for certain expressions that come ex abundantia cordis (out of the abundance of the heart), which, knowing the price Quinto had to pay for breaking out of the Partito Radicale and converting to Catholicism, we can certainly allow him.

Earlier, Maurizio Blondet called the attention of his blog followers to Quinto's book, seeking to describe the context of how the Church has come to where we are today in terms of dpctrine and pastoral practice:

For many years, Catholic theology, stunted by idealistic historicism, had been stripping the essential logical and metaphysical coordinates from Christian dogma, and with those, the very idea of revealed truth, replacing it with the dialectic of human progress and social reform.

The divine message of Redemption offered by Christ had been gradually replaced by the illusion of atheistic humanism which imagines that contemporary man no longer needs salvation because he has become capable of transcending himself and realizing Paradise on earth all on his own.

From Vatican-II onwards, this false theology has progressively penetrated even the language of the Church magisterium (which has become increasingly rhetorical and affective instead of remaining rational and doctrinal).

It has led many bishops and even the current pope to a pastoral praxis that seems aimed at a systematic "overcoming and rejection" of Tradition, especially where it concerns values that are genuinely supernatural ['Superhuman' is perhaps the better word, though Christian values, however, difficult to live by, are within the reach of every man with the help of God's grace.] And this rejection of traditional values is precisely characteristic of the secular humanism that is now dominant in Western culture.

Therefore, the inevitable consequence is the mass disorientation of the ordinary faithful who no longer see in their pastors – now openly divided on the reasons and objectives of doctrinal, disciplinary and liturgical reforms – spiritual guidance that is universal and consistent.

In Quinto's booklength essay, the situation in which the Catholic Church now finds itself with respect to the relationship between the Church's pastors and the faithful is illustrated with a careful documentation of the pontificate of Pope Francis, 'the pope of the people', as the mass media around the world call him (and the title of a film about him that was recently released).



TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 14 agosto 2017 15:26
TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 14 agosto 2017 15:26
August 13-14 headlines

Canon212.com


PewSitter



TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 14 agosto 2017 17:57


In which Fr. Schall continues his philosophical and commonsense rejection of the anti-Catholic tenets of Bergoglianism...

These are dark days for dogma
When we have defined and identified the evil thing, the colors come back into everything else.
When evil things become evil, good things, in a blazing apocalypse, become good.

By James V. Schall, S.J.

August 12, 2017

“Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human.”
— G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (1905)


Dogmas or doctrines are human endeavors to state as clearly as possible the truth about something, particularly truth that has been revealed. The human mind exists to formulate dogmas, to know and to articulate what is known about what exists.

Dogmas flow from careful distinctions — this thing is not that thing.
Reality is a well-nigh unlimited storehouse of different things, each of which has its own differences from and likenesses to other things. All beings have some analogous relation to other beings. We classify things according to these differences and similarities. In this way, we can carry them about within us as things we understand.

We find what things are by what they do or do not do. When we understand a dogma about something, we do not, by that human formulation of it, intend to imply we know absolutely everything about what we are dealing with. Human knowledge can be accurate and true without comprehending absolutely everything about a given thing.

This fact is what is meant when we say dogmas flow over into mystery. One end of what we seek to know is always its very existence, its standing outside of nothingness. The cause of any finite existence reaches into what is existence itself, what is uncaused but is.

By now, it seems clear enough that the present Holy Father does not like dogmas very much. He does tell us that he has a few principles learned back in his youth, such as “the whole is greater than its parts” or “time is greater than space.” These principles sound like dogmas. Pope Francis often appears to see the world in the light of exceptions. The old natural law philosophers always insisted that we take into every situation issues of time and place when dealing with any given reality or action. In some way each existing thing is different from any other existing things.

Doctrines and those who hold them are often seen by the Holy Father to be “rigid” or even “hypocritical”. In previous eras, most people thought that it was the nature of the Church to have an office whose function was to decide things, even though things were not usually decided finally until absolutely necessary.

At the beginning of the Roman Canon of the Mass, after recalling the name of the pope and the local bishop, we read: et omnibus orthodoxis atque /catholicae et apostolicae fidae cultoribus—all those who hold and teach the Catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles.” [I am so glad Fr Schall brought up this line, because every Sunday at Mass, over the past four years, when I pray it – soon after praying for the pope and the local bishop – I find a most striking paradox about the prayer applied to our time, and I ask myself if that line includes this pope, and if it does, does it neutralize or cancel out the earlier line praying for him?...On second thought, no, of course it does not, because all the more reason he needs our prayers.]

We are not to make up new doctrines but the romance of Catholicism is to keep those doctrines intact that were handed down to us. They remain ever new in the light of whatever is popular or current. Not to preserve this mission in time or place would evidently be an abandonment of what the Church is.

Those few believers and non-believers who want to know what exactly is to be held and practiced according to Christian revelation, however, are seldom answered these days, almost as if it is an impertinent question to wonder precisely what is meant by theoretical or practical issues that involve actual human living. Yet, from the same source, we hear much advice and many solemn opinions about earth warming, immigration, war, economics, and ecology. Many of these are political opinions normally associated with what is called “the left”. And these are things that by no means rise to the level of dogma in their importance or certitude.

Indeed, an astonishing number of recently appointed papal advisors are known to advocate abortion, contraception, and the radical limits of growth, all of which views are deeply controverted by facts that never seem clearly to emerge in papal considerations of these issues. Moreover, these advisors never appear to change any of their opinions which have long been considered by previous popes to be contrary to the human good and the divine law. While nothing is wrong with knowing what one’s opponents maintain, following their advice would be another matter.


In light of this papal silence about the meaning of faith in particular circumstances that apparently involve revelation when clarity is needed, people are encouraged to go ahead and make their own decisions in difficult cases. After a while, the exceptions will become new rules and difficult cases may become norms.

We obtain our “theories”, if we have any, from seeing what others in our time do. Modern culture is not neutral. It already contains embedded ideas guiding its laws and customs, ideas that need to be examined for their philosophical and theological content. This examination in part is what the theological enterprise was about.

We maintain that we want to be modern; things are constantly changing. Logically, on the basis of this approach, the norms that flow from historical or geographical conditions also change. This latter approach is recently said to be what Christ did in His own time. Christ in practice did, however, set forth a considerable number of rigid, clear, and unchangeable statements intended to remain unchanged in other times and places.

However, we cannot have imposed on us today, so we are told, out-of-date criteria. We alienate ourselves from our modern society and culture if we insist on living according to certain universal principles that are said to be rooted in reason or revelation and abide over time. In this process, scriptural “thou shalt nots” seem to become “thou shalts”. Contrary to the old adage that those who forget their history are bound to repeat it, we now believe that history can teach us little or nothing. It certainly cannot bind us to universal truths valid over time and space and said to be sanctioned by God.

II.
This year’s annual Chesterton Conference was held in Colorado Springs under the theme of “The Tyranny of the Learned”. The theme suggests we do not live under a democratic regime. Elites rule us. Whatever we do derives not from nature, revelation, or experience but from some obscure theories that, on examination, have their origins in someone such as Hegel or Rousseau, or even in Epicurus or Heraclitus. The ordinary man is looked on by our elites as a clueless fanatic or as a hopelessly biased person, locked in the prison of dogmatic religion that allows no exceptions to its unpopular rules.

Religion, it is said, should not bind us by any criterion of excellence in the light of which we seek to live.
- Rather it should promote a vast caretaking enterprise, with all sorts of connection to the State, which has now become the final authority.
- Religion should not be concerned with why people need information or guidance about their transcendent destiny.
- The eradication of poverty and control of the environment are the central issues.
- Indeed, poverty seems to be something that needs to be perpetuated to give both religious and governmental elites a moral sense that they are “doing” something noble.
- This caretaking is government’s chief concern and justifies its ever expanding power over the citizens.
- The question is not why people need help, but how to take care of them no matter how they arrived at the point of needing someone else’s help.
- Virtue ethics is replaced by a universalized compassion that does not much inquire into the question of why help of any kind might be needed or what really does work to remove actual poverty.


On the book tables at the Chesterton Conference, I noticed a very old book. It looked like a remnant that was found in some old attic or bookstore. The book’s faded yellowish-green cover looked like something from about 1910. The book was said to be an anthology of Chesterton’s writings entitled ABCs of the Christian Life.

I had never heard of such a book with this title. So I bought it. It turns out that that the book was published in 2017 by Ave Maria Press with an Introduction by Peter Kreeft. It is a selection of 26 topics arranged alphabetically and taken from various books and articles in the vast intellectual gold mine that proceeded from the mind of Chesterton.

Kreeft wrote that Chesterton “saw things that we don’t see; that is why we desperately need him here in the country of the blind. He seems crazy only because he is the sanest inhabitant in our global madhouse.”

If there is anything we remember about Chesterton, it is that he came into the Church because, being sorry for his sins, he saw, again and again, that its dogmas were true. The arguments of the heretics, on examination, were, in examining their errors, what led to the truth. Chesterton understood the need of a doctrinal authority consistent over time and place.

In the years since he began to write, only God knows how many people have found their way into the Church, or remained in it, because of his clarity of intellect. The number, I suspect, is enormous. When we see this intellectual aspect of the Church de-emphasized, we begin to worry, as Belloc once put it, about the “human side of the supernatural Church.” Revelation is directed to intelligence. Nothing distinguishes the Catholic Church as it has historically presented itself more than this realization.

III.
Why do we need dogma and what kind of dogma do we need? Under the letter “D” in this collection is a passage from Chesterton’s famous book on Charles Dickens. Here we find some remarkable things about the dogma that most perplexes modern (and ancient) man, namely, hell.

Dickens, Chesterton tells us, could describe “miserable marriages, but not monotonous marriages.” Such a passage is not unrelated to recent controversies about marriage in the recent Synods of the Church.

Dickens held that “a desolate place is a place where anything can happen. This is a good thing for his soul, for the place where nothing can happen is hell.” Could it be put any better? We live in a place where anything can happen, even repentance or damnation. Once we have decided our lot by rejecting truth and living accordingly, nothing new can happen to us. This is the essence of the dogma of hell.

Dickens was not an optimist. Why not? “When I say optimist in this matter, I mean optimism in the modern sense of an attempt to whitewash evil.” Whitewashing evil is what most of the aberrations of our time are about. The world is not a more interesting or fascinating place if the possibility of evil is rejected. If we cannot choose evil, no drama is possible, no war or struggle over worthwhile things ensues.

Dickens called evil what it was: “evil”. This affirmation did not prevent him from seeing that in this life anything could happen, even forgiveness and repentance.

Dogma is what prevents us from the vice of whitewashing evil, of calling evil good. The unity of the human race demands calling what is good, good, and what is evil, evil, in all times and places. [[Not at all, of course, what is advocated and practised in Bergoglianism – a consummate exercise in whitewashing evil, in the relativistic permissiveness of 'NINI,SOSO'!]

Dickens wanted to keep alive “the idea of combat, which means, of necessity, a combat against something individual and alive.” Combat against “isms” and “ideologies” such as racism or genderism is rooted in impersonality, an abstraction from individual persons. They alone are involved in real issues of good and evil from which they are ultimately saved or damned.

“If he (modern man) manages to praise everything, his praise will develop an alarming resemblance to a polite boredom.” Neither praise nor blame will make any difference in a world in which what we do makes no ultimate difference. If all things are morally equal, then what is the “good of good”?

This optimism that nothing we do makes any difference is “the very heart of hell.” The “joyless approval” of everything can only be met by “a sudden and pugnacious belief in positive evil.” This belief in the reality of evil clarifies the distinction in things, the difference between good and bad things which is not accidental. It is a question of dogma.

The world can be made beautiful again by beholding it as a battlefield. When we have defined and identified the evil thing, the colors come back into everything else. When evil things become evil, good things, in a blazing apocalypse, become good.

There are some men who are dreary because they do not believe in God; but there are many others who are dreary because they do not believe in the devil.


We cannot be dreary if we are fighting on a battlefield. If we do not believe in the devil, we do not see the terrible realities that come from our refusal to distinguish dogmatically what is good from what is bad, what is true from what is false.

“For the full value of this life can only be got by fighting…. And if we have accepted everything, we have missed something — war.” It is no accident that the encounters in heaven between Michael and Lucifer were depicted as wars.

We cannot avoid the fact that false dogmas can be affirmed. We do not deal with abstractions here. “The evil may be inhuman, but it must not be impersonal, which is almost exactly the position occupied by Satan in the theological scheme.” Our struggles are not against flesh and blood but against Principalities and Powers.

“It is, perhaps, the strongest mark of the divinity of man that he talks of this world as ‘a strange world’, though he has seen no other.” That is a remarkable sentence, mindful of Augustine. This passage is mindful of Chesterton’s famous question about why we are “homesick even at home?”

The only answer is that we are not made for this world, even when this is where we begin our final journey. The refusal to accept this basic truth is the origin of most modern ideology that wants to give us a final end so much less than that which the dogmas of the Church promise us.

The world ”is not to be justified as the best of all possible worlds. Its merit is not that it is orderly and explicable; its merit is that it is wild and utterly unexplainable. Its merit is precisely that none of us could have conceived such a thing, that we should have rejected the bare idea as miracle and unreason. It is the best of all impossible worlds.”

Chesterton’s final paradox, that this is “the best of all impossible worlds”, brings us back to the dogmas of the faith, those whose stability over time assure us that it is in this world in which evil is possible where we are to work out our salvation, a salvation that sees beyond this world. Only dogmas can assure us that what we were promised “from the beginning” remains possible in this impossible world.


Why don't all the bravissimi paladins of Bergoglio and Bergoglianism - like the Austin Ivereighs and Michael Sean Winterses and John Allens - never ever take on the arguments contra presented by Catholics like Fr. Schall, Fr. Rutler, the blogging priests and many intelligent lay Catholics - who are always clear and precise as to what they are objecting to, and whose arguments are never less than on the mark?

For the same reason, that even they, like their lord and master, do not dare answer the FIVE DUBIA directly with an unqualified YES or a NO, without thereby openly professing material heresy if they did answer the questions honestly! Nor, for that same reason, can then argue against the substance of the DUBIA, or that of any sensible objection to other anti-Catholic Bergoglian dogmas.

And so they resort instead to demonizing the cardinals who presented the DUBIA to the pope and to questioning the propriety (!) of their making the DUBIA public, or to insisting that Amoris laetitia is 'gospel truth' ignoring the very specific injunctions by Jesus himself against divorce and adultery.

Even Bergoglio the self-appointed Biblical exegete cannot possibly justify his open heterodoxy on those questions, and so he simply avoids referring to them
(Mt 5, 7-32; Mt 19,3-12;Mk 10,2-12), just as he never mentions Jesus's "Go and sin no more" proviso to his forgiveness of the adulterous woman.


TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 14 agosto 2017 20:42

Mundabor's illustration of the Christian perseverance necessary in battling for what is right, for the truth of Jesus's Gospel.

On August 11, Steve Skojec who runs the very commendable site 1Peter5, published a column that I found surprising - nay, shocking!
onepeterfive.com/quo-vadis/
because I was not expecting any such declarations from him – in which he sort of throws in the towel about reporting and reacting to all the objectionable
things taking place in the Church today, and saying he will take another tack. He begins the post this way.

You may have noticed that posting has been light this week. I’ve noticed too. What used to take me a few hours to write seems to be taking several days. My reserves are tapped out. Every day is starting to feel like deja vu all over again — the same stories, or some variation on the same stories, again and again and again until you’re not sure if you’ve seen this one before. I’m not sure how many more beatings this dead horse can take.

Is there any honest Catholic left on earth who doesn’t recognize the utter insanity of what is happening in the Church? When I started this gig, defenders of this papacy and the steps being taken in its “program of reform” were legion. The challenge back then was waking them up. Now, the challenge is keeping the people who have woken up from jumping ship… [The challenge continues nonetheless to wake up those who are still asleep or persist in feigning to be asleep.]

For my part, I don’t want to tell you the same bad stories day after day anymore. I don’t want this to be the place where you go to hear the latest outrage, to stoke the fires of discontent, to lose your peace of soul. I asked recently if you’re in this fight. But what I think I’ve been coming to understand is that the battle has actually shifted to a different front, and it’s time we did too.

Scandal is addictive. We do not manufacture it here, but we have put it on display. We believe that the faithful have the right — and even the duty — to be informed. But at some point, we have to draw a line. We have to make choices about where to place our focus. We have woken up about as many people as we can hope to wake.
[No, what an unrealistic view!] So what do we do now? Where are we going?...

Can you really flog a Pope's anti-Catholicism enough? It's like telling the pro-life movements "You've been flogging your cause for decades now – what's the point of carrying on with it?" Can one denounce evil too much and too long because 'your reserves are tapped out' and 'every day is starting to feel like déjà vu'?

I did not expect someone like Skojec, who can marshal Catholic apologetics arguments very well, to give up this way. And even if he decides to stop his 'flogging' of this pontificate, is he going to stop the other writers for his website from doing so?

He says he will concentrate instead on the stated mission of his website which is "Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition", and says the site had let this slip behind in its priorities. But rebuilding Catholic culture and restoring Catholic tradition begins by pointing out constantly and as often as necessary whenever that culture and that tradition are betrayed and/or violated by statements and acts of the man who happens to be the elected leader of the Roman Catholic Church, not just anybody - and setting these anti-Catholic notions right. It is the duty of Catholics who have the mind and the means to disseminate and inform such consciousness.

On the other hand, Skojec tells two stories which point out what can be done by the rest of us 'conscientious objectors' to this anti-Catholic pope but who are in no position to make or shape the opinion of others on the scale that someone in media could:

[In the first story, a friend says he asked his confessor] “What would happen if we had a bad pope who was really damaging the Church? What would we do?”

The wise old confessor said to him, “What do you think people did in the middle ages when popes were accusing popes and fighting over the throne and there were antipopes rivaling real popes? They put their heads down, they prayed, they studied, they taught their children, they lived their faith, and they protected those who would become the next generation of priests, bishops, and cardinals.”
[Which is one way of expressing what I have always said I am doing in my own life about 'dealing with the Bergoglio problem" – simply to go on living my life in the way I was taught to live a Christian life by the Church and by the elders and teachers who raised me, because this is something I do regardless of who is pope.]

[In the second story, the same friend recalls the words of] a wise bishop who was faced with great challenges in his diocese. Loss of faith, disinterested people, parishes a mess…just a range of seemingly unsolvable problems. “What can you do?” My friend asked. “Focus on becoming a saint,” the bishop replied. “Taking action can only accomplish so much, but one saint can convert an entire country.” [Which is, of course, a more explicit, if more demanding way, of expressing God's call to each of us to be holy. Each of us can try our best to be holy, to emulate the saints, which a bad pope can in no way keep us from doing!]


Today, Mundabor responded to Skojec without mentioning him by name – and I think Mundabor speaks for all those who, like the pro-lifers who never tire of speaking out against abortion, will never tire of pointing out where this pope is wrong when he is wrong. Making allowances, of course, for Mundabor's characteristically intemperate expressions when referring to the reigning pope…

Mundabor is not turning

August 14, 2017

I have already written a couple of times about how tiring it is to have to write the same things about the same idiot again and again. However – I reflected every time – the idiot does not get tired to spread his idiocy; therefore, I will not get tired to fight it.

Nor can it be said that scandal is addictive. Scandal is scandal. No priest or layman worth his salt would tell you, after seeing a persistent scandal in his village, that at some point it is better not to denounce it anymore.

Blogging can be tiring or repetitive. So is life. What we do is soldier on with the lights that God have given us, asking him for the energy and resolve to never give up the fight.

Countless martyrs have died for the faith; shall I get tired of some blogging?


If an 80-year-old heretic can go on and on and on, I can do the same, too. God willing, I will see him in his grave. When the situation improves and we have a Catholic hierarchy doing their darn job, I will reconsider whether I want to spend the time blogging. But that time is, sadly, a very distant fantasy and now we clearly live an “all hands on deck” situation.

When the Clergy betrays their flock and Christ calls the laymen to the fight, I do not say “it's boring”, much less “Dear Lord, scandal is addictive. Shouldn't we rather pray?”.

No. I shout “presente!” loud and clear. Well I pray, too, but honestly I think blogging comes close as it helps others to live a life of Catholic sanity in an age of utter and complete insanity.

Of course, blogging is not only about that. I write a number of blog posts that are not about the scandal of the day, trusting that my readers will not forget that we live in horrible times if I don't remind them of the fact three times a week.

However, the fundamental point remain: When it is time to fight you don't get tired, or even say that fighting heresy is making the work of the devil. This would be one of the most extraordinary inversions of truth ever stated by anyone, Catholic or not.

Yes be prayerful. Yes be in good spirit. Yes pray for your enemies (as you pound on them with your keyboard). But for heaven's sake, never think that it be bad to defy heresy and heterodoxy, no matter for how long you have to do it.

In the end, you know what? You turn if you want to.
Mundabor is not for turning.

As Fr. Schall reminds us in the preceding essay:

Dickens wanted to keep alive 'the idea of combat, which means, of necessity, a combat against something individual and alive.'... The world can be made beautiful again by beholding it as a battlefield. When we have defined and identified the evil thing, the colors come back into everything else. When evil things become evil, good things, in a blazing apocalypse, become good.


TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 14 agosto 2017 23:48
I post this belatedly - even if the only 'Star Wars' film I ever watched was the first one - not because of the disquisitions on the film series by two serious writers, Fr. De Souza and Aldo Maria Valli, but to demonstrate how Valli's reflections on the good-vs-evil conflict that underlies the entire galactic saga lead him to recall some of Benedict XVI's words about truth. Maybe because we get so little truth from Church leaders today who insist upon their own 'truth' over the Truth that Jesus Christ is. It seems that whatever topic he writes about now, Valli goes back to Benedict XVI as a literal touchstone - which I find a most refreshing attitude for one who was rather Bergoglian until just a year ago. Hence, his most unlikely title for the post:

'Star Wars', truth and Benedict XVI
Translated from

August 6, 2017

I have never been a fan of 'Star Wars'. But my daughters are. And so I read with interest an article dedicated to the cinematic intergalactic saga in the UK Catholic Herald by Fr. Raymond De Souza, SJ, who reflected on the religious content of the fantasy created by George Lucas 40 years ago.

Since Valli proceeds to paraphrase in Italian what Fr. de Souza wrote, I will simply post instead the original article:

Star Wars’ religious imagery is
more than just coincidence

The franchise is a tale of love, sacrifice and fatherhood
against hate, domination and tyranny

by Fr Raymond de Souza, SJ

Friday, 4 Aug 2017

In our look at prominent anniversaries in 2017, the 40th anniversary of 'Star Wars' bears noting as a significant cultural moment. The series is the most commercially successful movie franchise ever. Later this year, four decades after the first film was released in May 1977, the ninth major motion picture will be released. It’s called Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi. In any case, it won’t be the last film, not by a long shot.

Why has it lasted so long, this series which for generations of children has provided the fantastical architecture of their imaginary play? Despite mediocre writing, it has hosted enduring stars – James Earl Jones, Sir Alec Guinness – and launched others, such as Harrison Ford.

From the beginning, many fans noted the religious imagery in 'Star Wars', far too abundant to be accidental. Sir Alec Guinness wore the garb of a monk in his turn as the elderly Obi-Wan Kenobi; Luke Skywalker, when he finally makes it as a Jedi, dresses like a young priest. Darth Vader’s helmet is a stylised mitre, all the better to evoke the corrupt bishop he has become. The wicked emperor carries a staff and is attended by a court that includes attendants decked head-to-toe in cardinalatial red. The Jedi “temple” is a mosque-and-minaret construction.

The Force itself is pantheism made palatable for a secular generation that likes to pretend that it is spiritual but not religious. Now, as the saga nears its (supposed) end, the physical setting is actually Skellig Michael, the redoubt of the Irish monks who saved civilisation.

'Star Wars' endures because it is an ancient story about the deepest human dramas – a tale of love, sacrifice and fatherhood on the one hand, and the tragedy of hate, domination and tyranny on the other. It tests which account is a more authentic description of the path to human flourishing.

The central character is Anakin Skywalker, a young boy of preternatural abilities who has no father. The mystery of fatherhood, natural and spiritual, therefore marks the entire saga. The Jedi present the boy with the ideals of honour and duty and sacrifice in which those who have been given much are required to serve the good of all.

As a young man, Anakin rejects his Jedi masters, and the evil Emperor Palpatine offers a different vision to Anakin: those who have been given much have the power to seize more – even the ultimate power to create life and cheat death. It is the way of domination, not sacrifice.
'
'Star Wars thus poses a Hegelian question: is the primordial reality the one of the master and the slave? Does man have to choose between being dominant or dominated, in which case the purpose of life and the engine of history is the struggle between those who would be masters and those who would be slaves?

That is the way of the Dark Side, in which the desire to avenge one’s own pain fuels the lust for power. Power is the only remedy for pain – to hurt others before they can hurt you. In Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, the Emperor attempts to seduce Luke Skywalker, Anakin’s secret son, to the Dark Side.

Luke is invited to kill Darth Vader [his father's 'new name] and take his place at the side of the all-powerful Emperor. It is the Hegelian dynamic of master and slave again. The slave either remains a slave to be destroyed at the master’s command, or he kills the master and takes his place. It is the way of the gun or, if you will, the lightsaber.

“Show no mercy” is the first lesson the Emperor teaches Anakin-Vader in Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. There is no room for mercy in the Hegelian master-slave telling of the human story. Kill or be killed it is: the new Lord Vader massacres the innocent “younglings” in a slaughter that echoes the biblical figures of the Pharaoh and King Herod. Eventually the Emperor makes the same offer to Luke: kill Vader and take his place or be killed. But Vader is Luke’s father, so the master-slave dynamic meets the father-son relationship.

It is striking that for a saga saturated with violence, Luke Skywalker survives into this third trilogy because of mercy and the witness of suffering. It is the suffering of the son that inspires the conversion of the father, and Vader turns against the Emperor and destroys him, at the cost of his own life. The “show no mercy” domination of the tyrant is finally defeated only by the medicine of mercy and the power of filial suffering to move the paternal heart.

St John Paul II observed in Crossing the Threshold of Hope that the only alternative in human relations to the Hegelian master-slave dynamic is the father-son relationship. Either the powerful oppress the weak, as tyrants oppress slaves, or the powerful one sacrifices himself for the weaker, as a father will give his life for his son. This clash of archetypes is at the heart of the 'Star Wars' mythology.

The revelation of the Trinity teaches us that the father-son relationship is more powerful for it lies at the heart of reality. Thus the “radiation of fatherhood” in St John Paul’s words touches all creation, even a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.


Valli, however, goes on to supplement Fr. De Souza's exegesis of 'Star Wars'. I confess I find the plot and character descriptions tedious, and the pseudo-religious overtones pretentious, but then the whole series has a most confused genesis, with prequels and sequels seeking to supplement whatever had gone before, as producers sought to prolong the epic and cast around for writers to do whatever was needed to keep everything together with some consistency. It is really a huge contrived epic, not something that developed 'organically'.

Lord of the Rings had a far larger and more complicated cast of characters but it made no pretense of presenting some philosophy or theology – what Tolkien produced was fantasy that is the height of storytelling and far more epic than the Nibelungenlied, and although at bottom, it is also about good versus evil, and how good eventually tyriumphs over evil, you could read the fantasy as a child would, without thinking about anything deeper than the fascinating adventures being recounted.


Valli resumes:
Not being a 'Star Wars' aficionado, I accept what Fr. De Souza says about the costumes. For sure, the story of Anakin Skywalker is a story of conversion in reverse, from good to bad, because of Palpatine, a true and proper devil vowed to deception and manipulation in order to obtain power over everyone and everything.

If we then add the mystery of Luke Skywalker's paternity and his battle against the Black Death, not to mention the life and formation of Jedi, who have the characteristics of the members of a monastic order, then more elements of religious character enrich the framework.

The very concepts of the Force and its Dark Side have an obvious religious content [or it could simply be moral!]. In the world of 'Star Wars' [as in the world we live in], there is a permanent conflict between good and evil. Man is free to choose to be on the side of the Force which urges him to cultivate the good by being altruistic, or on the Dark Side which titillates his egoism and urges him to seek self-advantage and the power to subject others to himself.

The Force is some sort of vital energy which sustains the universe and guarantees good relations. It is the kingdom of light, of goodness, and of reason. The Dark Side is dominated by shadows, evil, arbitrariness.The Force is a spiritual energy, which as the master Yoda says, links all persons and things and makes us understand that we are all in relationship with others like us and with nature. [Something like the environmentalism of Laudato si!]

In itself, therefore, the Force is oriented towards goodness, and the Jedi masters are able to perceive this better than others. But if it is used badly, then it can cause you to fall into the Dark Side where, Yoda says, everything is anger, fear, violence. All it takes is to yield once to the Dark Side to become its victim. "If even once you take the dark path, it will forever dominate your destiny!" [Wow, that is absolutely and irrevocably fatalistic, where Christianity offers a chance at redemption!]

Obviously, the Dark Side of the Force has a tremendous fascination for man because it promises power, domination of others and of matter beyond every natural law, and Darth Sidious (aka Palpatine] shows he knows this well when he says that passage to the Dark Side emancipates man and allows him to acquire abilities that are unjustly considered unnatural.

So, here's the eternal temptation: to change the rules, to subvert them according to individual desire for power, to ignore the objective distinction between good and bad. Not by chance, Sidious considers goodness as merely a subjective point of view.

To live on the Dark Side, in short, means to reject the distinction between good and bad in an objective sense – in which it is hard not to find an echo of Nietzsche who proposed life beyond good and evil, elevating subjective will to be the supreme instrument for moral valuation. [Somehow, I hear echoes of Amoris laetitia, Chapter 8, in all that!]

The Dark counterpart of the Jedi, who serve goodness, are the Sith who serve conflict, division and hatred. They serve the devil, we could say, since the word for devil comes from the Greek diaballo, which means dividing by throwing something in between – the seed of discord, of cupidity, of the thirst for power.

But does the Sith philosophy lead to happiness? Of course not, says Yoda, pointing out that the Dark Side is falsehood and deception. And while a Sith would consider the very idea of personal sacrifice absurd, a Jedi would not hesitate to sacrifice himself for the good of others. [So, a Jedi is either a good Marine, or a Christlike figure.]

Many other factors could be examined, but ultimately, it comes down to a question of good and evil. It must be said that according to some acute observers, one cannot speak of a theology or even a philosophy for Star Wars, but not being an acute observer, I will limit myself to one observation: In the course of 40 years, practically everything has changed in the world, and yet cinemagoers' passion for this intergalactic saga has not lessened. Indeed, it seems as if the fathers and mothers of a generation ago have handed it down to their children. Why?

The most natural response is that the battle between good and evil is always fascinating. But if it is, then it means, it is part of us. If it is part of us, then it means that we are moral beings. And if we are moral beings, it means that we seek the truth and would be able to recognize it.

And that's the point. Nothwithstanding the massive dissemination of nihilistic ideas – according to which man canot experience truth because there is nothing truthful in which he can believe, then we find out that it seems that man's search for meaning, for the meaning of existence, remains alive.

I confess I have never discussed this with my daughters – being much too afraid that they would look at me as if I were mad. Nonetheless, seeing how fascinated they are by 'Star Wars', I cannot do less than think of Benedict XVI, whom I call the Pope of Truth, because he placed this decisive virtue at the center of his pontificate.

What is truth? On many occasions, Papa Ratzinger asked himself the same question Pilate had (Jn 18,38), and one of his answers which struck me most was in an address he gave in December 2012 to six new ambassadors to the Holy See.

In our day, speaking the truth has become suspect, wishing to live in truth seems outdated, and promoting it seems to be a useless effort. Yet, the future of humanity is also found in the relationship of children and young people with the truth: the truth about man, the truth about creation, the truth about institutions, etc.

As well as an education in rectitude of heart and mind, today more than ever, the young also need to be educated in the meaning of effort and perseverance in hardship. We must teach them that the human person's every action must be responsible and consistent with his yearning for the infinite. These actions must guide his development with a view to forming an ever more fraternal humanity, freed from individualistic and materialistic temptations.

They are words that parents must bear in mind.

Then I recall a reflection found in JESUS OF NAZARETH, Volume II, in which he says:

Let us say it plainly: The unredeemed state of the world consists precisely in the failure to understand the meaning of creation, in the failure to recognize truth; as a result, the rule of pragmatism is imposed, by which the strong arm of the powerful becomes the god of this world…

What is truth? Pilate was not alone in dismissing this question as unanswerable and irrelevant for his purposes. Today too, in political argument and in discussion of the foundations of law, it is generally experienced as disturbing. Yet if man lives without truth, life passes him by; ultimately he surrenders the field to whoever is the stronger.

"Redemption" in the fullest sense can only consist in the truth becoming recognizable. And it becomes recognizable when God becomes recognizable. He becomes recognizable in Jesus Christ. In Christ, God entered the world and set up the criterion of truth in the midst of history.

Truth is outwardly powerless in the world, just as Christ is powerless by the world's standards: he has no legions; he is crucified. Yet in his very powerlessness, he is powerful: only thus, again and again, does truth become power.


In the book, Benedict XVI says that today, all of us, like Pilate, have 'shelved' the question of the truth. Out of fear, out of convenience, out of superficiality. Unfortunately it is so! But with his words about truth as power, I can say even to my daughters who are passionate about 'Star Wars' that not everything is lost.
TERESA BENEDETTA
00martedì 15 agosto 2017 00:34
Apologies from CRUX
Like Trump's second thoughts on Charlottesville,
better (days) late than never, but also
'why didn't they think about it the first time around'?



It took reactions - and Ivereigh's own apology - to make Allen realize this? Unbelievable!
The Ivereigh article was published August 9. Allen's apology comes 5 days later. Perhaps his problem is that
he continues to have the mindset of an advocacy journalist/attack dog instead of an objective editor.

https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/08/14/editors-note-crux-announces-a-new-prime-directive/


He's not really sorry. He stands by everything he wrote - he's just saying he shouldn't
have named names.

https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/08/12/apology-needless-offense-disagree-better/

TERESA BENEDETTA
00martedì 15 agosto 2017 06:19




ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI


See preceding page for earlier entries on 8/15/17. I was not aware there had been a page change.




The headline says "Day 1 without migrants: For the first time, no boat arrives on our shores. Funds to the military to block the traffickers"

Antonio Socci shared the above with his readers with this comment:

Did they not say it is impossible to stop migration, that it would be like trying to stop the wind with one's hand?
Instead, all it took was a cry for help from Minniti.


And not having really kept abreast of how the immigration crisis has been developing in Italy, I had to look up who or what 'Minniti' was.
With great help from the New York Times, which ran a profile on him last August 4.




Note the NYT's related stories on the right, which appear to be a snapshot of the crisis as it is, even seen by the NYT, and not, as the pope
deceptively passes it off, a humanitarian crisis for which, he says, 'the world is to blame' and all hands must be on deck to pluck
the intending migrants from the Mediterranean and bring them into Italy as welcome guests.


Anyway, here is how the NYT story on Minniti begins:

ROME — During a visit to Moscow in 1980, Marco Minniti, a bald and bold young functionary in the Italian Communist Party, mortified his comrades by asking a Red Army general why the Soviets had occupied Afghanistan. The general pointed south on a map and explained that the faraway land mattered for his country’s national security.

Now, decades later, it is Mr. Minniti, Italy’s powerful interior minister and the hard-nosed veteran of its intelligence apparatus, who is looking south — but to Africa, which he calls the “mirror of Europe.”

A mass migration streaming up Africa, through Libya and across the Mediterranean — enabled by human traffickers and exploited by political populists — poses an existential challenge to his center-left government, not to mention his country and continent. [But Bergoglio resolutely plays blind to this!]

To stem the flow of migrants — and the potential infiltration of terrorists — Mr. Minniti, a 61-year-old former communist, is calling on his vast government experience, Calabrian brio and the sub-rosa relationships he developed as Italy’s “Lord of the Spies.”

“I know, let’s say, many things,” Mr. Minniti said with a sly smile in an interview this week in his office in Rome, surrounded by bookcases filled with tomes about espionage and religious fanaticism.

According to Nicola Latorre, an Italian senator and ally of the minister, Mr. Minniti was the “protagonist of the breakthrough” last week, when Prime Minister Fayez Serraj of Libya requested the support of Italian naval ships to counter human trafficking.

It is a risky endeavor that Italy has nevertheless sought for years, desperate to cut the migrant flow. Its success or failure now falls to Mr. Minniti, who polls show to be a popular member of a government with uncertain chances in the next election…


This, then, is the context in which Riccardo Cascioli wrote the ff commentary recently on the perverse statements and actions of the Church hierarchy in Italy which takes its cues directly from the pope:

Immigrants and NGOs, and all the lies
surrounding the campaign of 'indiscriminate welcome'

by Riccardo Cascioli
Translated from
LA NUOVA BUSSOLA QUOTIDIANA
08-08-2017

The NGOs that operate in the Mediterranean "must not only be defended but must be praised" because today, the first priority is to save lives in the Mediterranean Sea and that is what they are doing. Moreover, "it is wrong to link the NGOs to the activity of the scafisti" [those who operate the tiny unsafe boats (scafi) on which most immigrants are transported from North Africa towards Europe].

This was the position expressed in an interview published in La Repubblica yesterday, August 7, by Mons. Giancarlo Perego, Archbishop of Ferrara and former director of the CEI's Fondazione Migrantes. And the same Perego also justifies the NGOs' rebellion against having the Italian military present on their 'rescue ships' at the request of the Italian government.

His statements are certainly consistent with the line of welcoming all immigrants at all costs that the Italian bishops' conference (CEI) has had from the start on this issue, but they defy reality and contradict the condemnation of human trafficking against which the pope has been railing!

This is an ideological position, and like every ideological position, it feeds on confusion and wrong data to justify itself.

Meanwhile, confusion! Mons, Perego, like the CEI leadership [and the pope and his Vatican], does not see a difference between regular and irregular immigration, as if there were no standards of international law which govern and protect those who have a right to immigrate and those who have the right to be given refugee status.

The Social Doctrine of the Church tells us that the right to emigrate from one's own country is not an absolute right in that it does not automatically give you the right to enter another country. Because individual governments also have the right and the duty to regulate immigration.

The other confusion is between the migrant who is genuinely a refugee fleeing persecution and those who are migrating for economic reasons. Refugees must be welcomed, but the second category do not have such an entitlement. It is obvious that the CEI and some Catholic NGOs would like to nullify this distinction and advocate welcoming all immigrants without ifs or buts, even if this is a position that not only is not justified by the social doctrine of the Church, but it is also goes against all reason.

It has been estimated that potentially, 100 million persons from sub-Saharan Africa could move to Europe in the next ten years 'for economic reasons'. Who, with a grain of sense in his brain, could think that it is reasonable to incentivize such a movement?

Besides, to start making and enforcing these distinctions is already a first step towards resolving the problem. For years, for instance, we have been proposing that 'free zones' be established in Libya under the UN Commission for Refugees, in which it can first be established who among the boat people deserve to immigrate and therefore ought to be protected during their travel, and who should be sent back to their home countries.

Now finally, this is being discussed, even if quietly for now. To consider that all immigrants are 'equal' is to encourage migration to the point of prejudicing the case of those persons who are genuinely fleeing war or persecution have the right to be welcomed.

Increasing the confusion are wrong data. Mons. Perego claims that "most of the migrants who are corssing the Meidterranean are doing so to escape from Libyan imprisonment, from violences, from increasingly terrible rapes" and that therefore, they must be brought to safety in Italy. Of course, even getting to the Libyan coast is no excursion, because most of these migrants do not come from Libya. They come from farther inland than North Africa.

If we look at the nationality of those who landed in Italy so far in 2017, from data provided by the UN, the most numerous are the Nig erians (14.8%), followed by those from Guinea (9.6%), the Ivory Coast (9%), and Bangladesh (8.6%). These origins clearly indicate that the reason for the migration, in almost the totality of cases, is economic. Syria, the only country of origin about which one can speak of genuine refugees, accounts for only 6.5% of the arrivals in 2017.

Mons. Perego also claims that the activity of the NGOs in the Mediterranean has allowed saving more lives. Sorry for the bishop, but the reality contradicts him. According to the UN, in 2016, a record 5,022 attempting migrants were documented to have drowned in the Mediterranean. In the first seven months of 2017, the number is already 2,398. These numbers do not reflect the lack of boats to save them [the Italian Navy has mobilized its ships over the past three years to look after these] but rather the politics of 'welcome all immigrants' that is incentivizing the migrant flow which has increased this year.

We have already pointed out many times: The more Italian ships are deployed near the Libyan coast, the more the human traffickers step up sending people over, generally in unsafe vessels that are not meant to stay out at sea for days, thus multiplying the risks for these boat people.

One cannot therefore understand why Mons. Perego claims that the presence of the Italian military on board the rescue ships of the NGOs makes it more difficult to save lives! Unless, their rescue efforts involve actions that violate the law. And so we come to the accusations of complicity between the NGOs and the scafisti (in short, human traffickers).

That there have been heavy suspicions of direct contacts between at least some of the NGOs and the scafisti has been in the news, since there are inquiries under way and already abundant documentation. But even if ultimately, no direct responsibility is established, there is no doubt that the activities of the NGOs who have been incentivizing migrant departures from the Libyan coast have contributed definitively to the illicit activities of the scafisti and those who manipulate them.

And it is in this, perhaps, that is the most imocmprehensible about the attitude of so many Italian Church authorities like Mons. Perego. Direction of the migrant traffic is clearly in the hands of organized international crime which encourages the deparrture of migrants from their countries of origin and then manage and control their 'passage' towards Italy, pocketing thousands of euros for every clandestine they transport.

But how is it possible then to thunder – as do some Church leaders, rightly – against human trafficking, while also doing everything to encourage it?

Next, therefore, I had to find out who are these NGOs – which a Reuters story identifies, although its point of view is that of the NGOs…

More NGOs follow MSF in suspending
Mediterranean migrant rescues

By Gavin Jones

ROME, August 13, 2014 (Reuters) - Two more aid groups have suspended migrant rescues in the Mediterranean, joining Doctors Without Borders, because they felt threatened by the Libyan coastguard.

Save the Children and Germany's Sea Eye said on Sunday their crews could no longer work safely because of the hostile stance of the Libyan authorities. Doctors Without Borders - or Medecins sans Frontieres - cited the same concern when it said on Saturday it would halt Mediterranean operations.

"We leave a deadly gap in the Mediterranean," Sea Eye's founder Michael Busch Heuer warned on Facebook, adding that Libya had issued an "explicit threat" against non-government organisations operating in the area around its coast.

Libyan coastguard boats have repeatedly clashed with NGO vessels on the edge of Libyan waters, sometimes opening fire. The coastguard has defended such actions, saying the shooting was to assert control over rescue operations.

"In general, we do not reject (NGO) presence, but we demand from them more cooperation with the state of Libya ... they should show more respect to the Libyan sovereignty," coastguard spokesman Ayoub Qassem told Reuters on Sunday.

Tension has also been growing for weeks between aid groups and the Italian government, which has suggested some NGOs are facilitating people smuggling, while Italy is trying to enhance the role of the Libyan coastguard in blocking migrant departures.

This month, Italy began a naval mission in Libyan waters to provide technical and operational support to its coastguard, despite opposition from factions in eastern Libya that oppose the U.N.-backed government based in Tripoli.

Immigration is dominating Italy's political agenda before elections early next year, with public opinion increasingly hostile to migrants. Almost 600,000 migrants have arrived in Italy over the past four years.

Most sailed from lawless Libya in flimsy vessels operated by people smugglers. More than 13,000 migrants have died trying to make the crossing.


Ships manned by charities have played a growing role in rescues, picking up more than a third of all migrants brought ashore so far this year, compared with less than one percent in 2014.

Aid groups and some Italian politicians warn that migrants intercepted by the Libyan coast guard are taken back to inhuman conditions in detention camps on the Libyan mainland.

However, prosecutors in Sicily have opened investigations against some NGOs, which they suspect of collaborating with people smugglers, and Rome has proposed a Code of Conduct setting stricter rules on how the groups can operate.

Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano said in a newspaper interview on Sunday that Libya's growing role in controlling its waters was curbing people trafficking and producing a welcome "readjustment" in the Mediterranean.

Libya was trying to increase the range of the waters its ships controlled from 12 nautical miles around its coast to 70 nautical miles, the humanitarian organisation said.

All of the above, in turn, give the proper context to the following posts by Marco Tosatti on his blog in the past two days:

Reader 'Pezzo Grosso' aims high:
He asks CEI president Bassetti
for the head of Galantino over
the latter's statement on immigration'

Translated from

August 13, 2017

I thought that Pezzo Grosso [Italian for 'Big Shot'] was on vacation enjoying a merited rest. Instead, he sent us an e-mail on the Ferragosto weekend. [Ferragosto is the Italian term for the mid-August holiday usually centered around the Feast of the Assumption.] Prompted, as you will see, by the words of great wisdom that we heard from the Italian episcopate in recent months on the thorny issue of clandestines or 'immigrants' - however you prefer to call them - and the human trafficking directed towards Italian coasts, a source of economic profits for some quarters we know of, and which does not exclude ecclesial circles (on the contrary!)… But here is the letter from Pezzo Grosso:

Pezzo Grosso to Tosatti, asking him to publish an open letter to [Cardinal Gualtiero] Bassetti [appointed president of the Italian bishops' conference earlier this year by Pope Francis].

So it seems Mons. Bassetti read my commenys on Stilum Curiae and shares my analysis and suggestions. Well, bravo, Your Eminence! But that's not enough. In order that your statement about these migrants does not just seem like a power play between you and your secretary, Mons. Galantino, you should do more. And you must do so, otherwise we will all harbor the suspicion - already insinuated – that in order to placate everyone, the Church will continue to use the strategy of 'NI NI, SO SO', rather than the 'SI is SI' (YES is YES) and 'NO is NO' advised by the Founder of Christianity.

Instead the 'NI NI, SO SO' strategy appears to have been adoptred by this pontificate on every occasion. Contradictory or ambivalent messages are the fashion in this pontificate, where even 'corrections' are confusing. And this takes place at the level of the universal Church, in which Parolin 'corrects' Bergoglio, or at the Italian level, where Bassetti 'corrects' Galantino.

But the Secretary of State cannot dismiss the pope, whereas the president of the CEI can – and should – dismiss his secretary. [Not really! Being that Galantino was appointed by Bergoglio to the CEI as his in-house agent, three years before Bassetti, a trusted Bergoglian, was appointed to succeed Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, a suspect Ratzingerian, does Bassetti really have any say over Galantino???] Otherwise, dear Cardinal Bassetti, you too would give the impression of wanting to please everybody but only disappointing all!

One cannot just make contradictory and opposing statements to give the appearance of 'pluralism' when in fact, they are simply contradictory over what is good and what is bad, what is correct and what is wrong. If you really wish to do good for migrants, for the poorest and most vulnerable of Italian citizens, and for the Church herself, you should now dismiss Galantino.

With effects that you yourself will not believe: The CEI will regain its prestige, and the church tax revenue from the government will increase that the bishops may use for evangelization not for 'social' purposes.


Cardinal Bassetti had spoken correctly of the ethics of responsibility. We would like to ask how many lives – of those intending migrants who perished at sea – would have been saved if, instead of encouraging with words and gestures the indiscriminate landing of undocumented aliens in Italy, our government – and the bishops along with the Primate of Italy, namely, the pope – had instead counseled following immigration laws which all countries in the world have, and which most of them enforce?

Is there no responsibility among them for all that is happening, or do so-called good intentions (well-watered by financial gain) suffice to placate their conscience? [I still have to find out who in Italy is gaining from human trafficking and how!] If I were one of the preachers advocating unbridled unconditional immigration, I would feel a small worm of doubt wriggling in my conscience, maybe even a big rat, or at least a hamster.

Migrants and the responsibility
of the Church and the bishops

Translated from

August 14, 2017

I asked myself if perhaps I was too harsh in my commentary yesterday on Pezzo Grosso's letter. But today, I see that the former president of the Chamber of Deputies Luciano Violante (one regrets he no longer is!) [the current president, Laura Boldroni, is a most pro-active advocate of unconditional immigration] says that the Italian left has "lost its contact with the people" and "has confused the politically correct for the politically practical, politics with aesthetics" in dealing with the immigration issue. He cites one of the comments to my post yesterday, which I quote here in full: [The comment was from someone who turns out to be the blogger responsible for the blogsite 'Ecclesia afflicta'.]

“Bassetti said to Avvenire: "You should know that there is not one woman among the migrants welcomed to Italy who has not been raped! And do you know that all of these migrants are continually threatened with drowning if they do not give in to the true and proper mafias who manage this traffic of immigrants?"

So now the CEI is discovering that the traffic in humans that has been protected and promoted till now [Galantino's campaign of "Free to leave and free to stay"] involves an insane price in human lives? What about the pope who day by day ideologically promotes mass migration even against the opinion of the bishops in the countries from where the migrants come? Who and what has really been feeding the desperate course of thousands of intending migrants of whom hundreds have died at sea just this year in trying to reach Italy?

The ones principally responsible for this chaos are the Pope and his proconsuls like Galantino. Bassetti has simply sniffed the air and is now realizing that Italians are tired of the ideological silliness propagated by the Vatican and the Italian bishops. Silliness inflicted on the skins of Africans and Italians.

This papacy is a disaster: Pope Francis does not even seem to be aware of the damages he is causing. He is too full of himself ( the Holy See has just authorized the sale of T-shirts showing 'Bergoglio Super-Pope to generate more funds for Peter's Pence), the Petrine ministry has become a farce, but a tragic farce. We are seeing the cost of the ideological vacuity of this old Jesuit deficient in culture and bloated with arrogant ideology, but the author of the tragedy will never accept he is responsible for it.

[Wow! Harsh words worthy of Mundabor!]

One must ask nonetheless why the Church, at the central level, and in Italy, has not listened to the negative comments of the bishops from the African countries, and from the government leaders of those countries who have warned us that it is 'the dregs' of their society who are seeking to reach Europe. So all that talk of synodality and of decentralization do not count at all in this case?

Was it – and is it - difficult to see the network of interests, from the criminal to the geopolitical to the simple economic or ambiguous, of those who are responsible for pulling the strings in this puppet show, taking advantage of the political and cultural weaknesses of this nation which aspears to have been devastated in terms of brains and common sense, above everything else?

The Church, at its central level, if properly warned by local bishops, should be able to see who and what are really behind the 'man at sea' scenario. And be most vigilant, if only she employs the wisdom and prudence she has had for centuries. Unless…
TERESA BENEDETTA
00martedì 15 agosto 2017 21:59

Detail from THE ASSUMPTION, Guido Reni, 1617.

Holy Virgin, Holy Mother,
assumed into Heaven, pray for us”

Homily by Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas
Church of the Holy Innocents
August 15, 2017

Permit me to begin by acknowledging the most welcome presence as our deacon this evening Br. Leo Camurati of the St. Joseph Province of Dominicans – one of the few mainstream religious communities that has maintained its Catholic identity and has a fine future, with a glut of vocations, so much so that the Dominican House of Studies in Washington had to engage in a major capital campaign for expansion.

I should also note that it was that institution where I studied for my licentiate in theology and where I learned genuine Catholic theology (since my seminary had not provided that). I should also mention that some years back, I intended to attend Christmas morning Mass at St. Agnes when the pastor asked me to preach, completely out of the blue, and then, likewise completely unexpected, importuned me to be the celebrant of the Mass.

I had never celebrated in the Extraordinary Form (except as boy, “playing priest”) and the then-Paul Camurati was the master of ceremonies who gently and effectively guided me through a Mass, which was both valid and licit. Thanks, Br. Leo.


Today the Church Universal – in all her rites – and all the Orthodox Churches and even Anglicans and Lutherans celebrate the bodily assumption of Our Lady. For the sake of clarity, let us make sure we understand precisely what we are celebrating.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium and Venerable Pope Pius XII’s dogmatic definition Munificentissimus Deus, informs us:

“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians(n. 966).


As you undoubtedly know, the definition of the Assumption occurred on All Saints Day in 1950. That fact leads some people to assert that this dogma was a modern invention of the Catholic Church. However, such an assertion fails to reflect either history or the proper notion of doctrinal development.

The first church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary was under the title of her Dormition or Assumption – already in the fourth century. Obviously, something believed in the fourth century cannot be an invention of the twentieth century.

More to the point: When the Church defines a dogma, she is acknowledging a doctrine which has been believed all along and throughout the Church. That having been said, it must also be noted that dogmatic definition rarely occurs unless a doctrine is contested, which was never the case with the Assumption – unlike the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which had a rather checkered history, with some of the greatest theological luminaries (including St. Thomas Aquinas) having serious questions about it.

On the contrary, even every so-called reformer of the Protestant movement of the sixteenth century accepted and taught the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven.

So, what inspired Pius XII to define an uncontested doctrine? Clearly, it was the Holy Spirit. But why? Christians had always believed that the Assumption was a privilege accorded to Mary in view of both her Immaculate Conception and her divine maternity.

I think there were two phenomena on the horizon, perhaps yet unknown to Pope Pius, which moved him to teach this truth of faith infallibly. The Assumption would be able to underscore the dignity of the human body and the dignity of women, concepts to be assaulted not long after in the dominant culture, especially brought on by the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

From the very beginning of Christianity, we find movements that depreciated the human body. The epistles of St. John take aim at the Gnostics, probably the earliest Christian heretics. According to their theories, the entire physical universe was evil, created by an evil god; only the spiritual had meaning and value. If that were true, then the Incarnation would not be salvific, nor the means of our own future resurrected bodies.

The Gnostics have had numerous descendants in history: the Manichees, who attracted the young Augustine to their number; the Cathars of the Middle Ages, whom St. Dominic fought with every fiber of his being; the Jansenists, who despised the body to such a degree that Parisians quipped that the nuns of Port Royale were “as pure as angels and as proud as devils.”

When disdain of the body takes full control, ironically enough, it usually ends up in total depravity. The “logic” goes something like this: If the body has no inherent dignity, then do with it whatever you wish. On the contrary, if the body is what St. Paul says it is, namely, a temple of the Holy Spirit, then it must be reverenced. Our age, whether it knows it or not, has revived the Manicheeism of old, with the result that “anything goes.” Manichees glory in orgies. And why not?

This lack of appreciation for the body has crept into the consciousness even of practicing Catholics. How many believers tend to think of the afterlife as a gathering of disembodied souls, perhaps flitting around on two cute wings?

But, no, Christian doctrine holds that after the General Judgment, our souls will be reunited to our bodies; the disembodied soul is a temporary, incomplete state of human existence. Jesus, right now, reigning gloriously in Heaven has a body; Mary, right now, at her Son’s right hand, has a body. And since bodies need a space, Heaven has a zip code! That realization caused St. Thomas Aquinas – good Aristotelian philosopher that he was – to declare: “Thomas is his body.”

Therefore, it is incumbent on us to take care of the body given to us at our conception: what we put into it and what we do with it. After all, a temple is sacred. That said, we must avoid the opposite contemporary error – worshiping the body. The cult of the body mistakes the creature for the Creator.

I am always perversely amused by some of my neighbors, who are out running bright and early every morning but can’t get into their car to go to church on Sunday. Some days I feel like telling them that if they don’t get their priorities straight, on the last day they will find their trim, sculpted, beautiful bodies burning in Hell!

Now, let’s get back to something a bit more pleasant. The Risen Christ in His male body and the Assumed Virgin in her female body – the New Adam and the New Eve – represent the fullness of humanity – male and female. They anticipate the general resurrection and stand ready to welcome all Christ’s brethren and Mary’s children. Yes, a woman is essential to the complete picture.

If you pay attention to the conventional wisdom (and you shouldn’t) you will hear a non-stop drumbeat: The Catholic Church is anti-woman. Really? Let’s do a little fact-check on that assertion. First of all, those usually making that accusation, somehow or other, never seem to lob that charge at Orthodox Judaism or Islam, where the status of women really could use some attention.

If we start with the central mystery of the Christian faith – the Incarnation – we see that the greatest event in human history takes place with no male involvement whatsoever, just a young woman cooperating with her God.

The veneration of Mary the Virgin brought in its wake veneration of all women. For the first time in history, women had a dignity proper to them; in the Christian scheme of things, they were no longer valued for the pleasure they gave men in bed or the sons they bore them. The esteem for virginity actually fostered the creation of the order of virgins in the Church, which eventually evolved into female religious life. In the Middle Ages, women were queens, scholars, foundresses of religious orders, abbesses and ecclesiastical reformers.

Interestingly, one of the criticisms leveled against the Catholic Church by the Protestants of the sixteenth century was that the Church gave too high a place to women – a sure sign of a corrupt Church!

In our own country, if you told someone in the 1940s or 50s or 60s that your school principal or college president or hospital administrator was a woman, that person would know that you were referring to a nun. Secular society had not yet caught up with the Church. But then came the women’s liberation movement with its radical feminism. “Isms” are usually dangerous, and the radical feminism of the 60s and 70s was devastating.

There is, however, a good feminism, which the Church always practiced – even without having a name for it. That good feminism was given form in a particular way by Pope John Paul II in his homilies, addresses, and actions.

I am thinking especially of his apostolic letter, Mulieris Dignitatem, promulgated during the Marian Year of 1988, on the Solemnity of the Assumption. I heartily recommend a careful reading or re-reading of that insightful document.

The Holy Father astutely observes that equality is not sameness; rather, the correct relationship between the sexes is that of complementarity. In reality, John Paul was following a trajectory of reflection on what he dubbed “the feminine genius” that began with the Pope Pius XII and was continued by Blessed Pope Paul VI. Waxing poetic – as he was wont to do – the Pope proclaims:

The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine “genius” which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations; she gives thanks for all the charisms which the Holy Spirit distributes to women in the history of the People of God, for all the victories which she owes to their faith, hope and charity: she gives thanks for all the fruits of feminine holiness. (n. 31).


The Pope does not shy away from tackling the feminist argument, while warning us about the perils of a derailed feminism:

In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person. The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman.

Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness... (n. 10)

“The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity; they are merely different” (n. 10)"...

Thus, by considering the reality “Woman – Mother of God,” we enter in a very appropriate way into this Marian Year meditation. This reality also determines the essential horizon of reflection on the dignity and the vocation of women. In anything we think, say or do concerning the dignity and the vocation of women, our thoughts, hearts and actions must not become detached from this horizon.

The dignity of every human being and the vocation corresponding to that dignity find their definitive measure in union with God. Mary, the woman of the Bible, is the most complete expression of this dignity and vocation. For no human being, male or female, created in the image and likeness of God, can in any way attain fulfilment apart from this image and likeness. (n. 5)


Our Lady had two roles in life: as a virgin and as a mother. Sad to say, both roles have fallen on hard times in the past few decades. The witness of Mary needs to be highlighted for the benefit of all women and for the good of all society. In her dual identity as virgin and mother, she gives a face to the dignity of woman. Her glorious assumption also gives hope.

From the glory of Heaven, Mary does not merely offer a holy and hopeful example; she actively intercedes for her children still on their earthly pilgrimage home. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council in their Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, bring that document to a conclusion with a stirring Marian reflection:

This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth. . . until they are led into the happiness of their true home. (n. 62)


Early on in this homily, I said that the Blessed Virgin has her place at her Son’s right hand. Where does that idea come from? In ancient Israel, the most powerful woman in the kingdom was the queen mother. And so, we read that when Bathsheba entered the royal chamber, King Solomon stood and bowed to his mother as she assumed a throne next to his. Indeed, to this day, in traditional Judaism, petitioners approach a man’s mother with a request in the assurance that her plea will find a favorable hearing with her son. That conviction is likewise an intensely Catholic conviction as well.

Hans Urs von Balthasar comments poignantly that Mary is “Queen of the Apostles without any pretensions to apostolic powers: she has other and greater powers.” I would suggest that it was consideration of those “other and greater powers” that inspired Pius XII to define the dogma we celebrate today.

The humble Virgin of Nazareth, under divine inspiration, exclaimed in her Magnificat, which the Church sings every day : “Ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes” (“For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.”).

Today we are proud to say that we have a Mother who provides us with her holy example and her powerful intercession. We are equally proud to take our place in that long line of believers who have fulfilled her prophecy in calling her “blessed.”

Sancta Virgo, Sancta Mater, Assumpta in caelum, ora pro nobis.
Holy Virgin, Holy Mother, assumed into Heaven, pray for us.

***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Once again, Pope Francis
does not offer Assumption Mass


In 2013, Bergoglio's first year as pope, I wondered whether he would honor a tradition established by the popes since the second half of the 20th century and the first 12 years of the 21st, of celebrating the Mass of the Assumption in Castel Gandolfo where they usually spent the hot summer months.

But since the Argentine pope disdains 'vacations', claims he has never really taken a vacation, and indicated early enough that he thought the idea of spending any time in the apostolic residence in Castel Gandolfo was contrary to his 'humble simple way of life', I thought that papal tradition on the Feast of the Assunta was about to be discarded by him as he did the tradition that popes lived in the papal apartment of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace.

Surprisingly, however, he did bother to go to Castel Gandolfo on August 15, 2013, and celebrated the Mass of the Assumption, as his predecessors did before him, at the parish church of St. Tommasso Villanova, a short walk from the Apostolic Palace there. It was the second and last time he has gone to CG so far (the first time having been to meet with Benedict XVI on March 21, 2013).

In the past three years, he has chosen to hold the annual Lenten retreat of the pope and the Curia at the Pauline Center in Ariccia - like Castel Gandolfo, another city in the Alban Hills north of Rome, not far from Castel Gandolfo, when he could very well use Castel Gandolfo for this purpose without any sanctimonious sillies 'accusing' him of indulging in luxury! (I suppose he wants to help the Pauline Fathers financially with the sum paid by the Vatican for the weeklong board and lodging of the pope and some 30 officers of the Curia. In which case, why not spread the largesse around and choose another order's center every year?)

Anyway, I didn't have to hold my breath for what he would do at Assumption Day in 2014, because he was in Seoul, South Korea at that time.

Ah, but what about 2015? Not only did he not go to Castel Gandolfo, he also did not celebrate a public Mass on the Solemnity of the Assumption, limiting himself to the Angelus prayer in St. Peter's Square. Ditto this year.

For someone who made a big deal out of announcing his great devotion to Mary in his early days as pope, what's with underplaying the Solemnity of the Assumption? Especially because, in the months of July and August, he takes a breather from his daily Masses in the chapel of Casa Santa Marta [his idea of vacation?], one would think he might consider offering the Assumption Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, or in Santa Maria Maggiore, or any of the many Marian shrines that abound in Rome.

Oh, I know, the Vatican will say that in August, all the Romans are in the mountains or by the seaside taking their Ferragosto holiday, and the only tourists in Rome are those who can bear the excruciating summer heat of the Eternal City, ergo, who would the pope say Mass for? In Castel Gandolfo, they might point out, the other popes said Assumption Mass because the parish church there only holds about 250 people.

But don't you think the Romans who stay in Rome in August and the tourists who brave the city's summer would welcome the treat of a papal Mass they could attend on the Solemnity of the Assumption?Surely there are enough non-vacationing priests in the Vatican to fill up the necessary roles of assisting at a papal Mass, or even enough visiting priests who would jump at the chance to assist at a papal Mass!)

It's Bergoglio's opportunity to establish an alternative Assumption 'tradition' for the popes. It could even be an added August attraction for tourist agencies to guarantee a seat in St. Peter's for the pope's Assumption Mass.

But 'snubbing' the Assumption as he does???? Sometimes his ideas of PR amaze me.




TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 16 agosto 2017 01:29
About that 'formal correction'
of the pope - and apostasy in the Church


In the preceding page, I remarked that Louie Verrecchio wrote about how Cardinal Burke says nothing of the 'act of formal correction' he had indicated earlier this year would be proposed after Easter - presumably by him and the other DUBIA cardinals (now minus one with the death of Cardinal Meisner) - in the address he gave in St. Louis last July 22.

At which time I said, "The point is well-taken but there may be plausible explanations for that, chief among them being that there seems to be no precedent in modern times (or ever?) for such a formal act of correction, how it would be done, and whether it means anything at all, let alone have any formal validity, other than as a stronger expression of the DUBIA as objective statements borne out by Amoris laetitia which the pope refuses to refute.

So I was pleased to find out that on the same day, August 14, The Remnant published Part 2 (I cannot find the link to Part 1) of a lengthy interview with Cardinal Burke in which he does talk about the correction, in the process answering the questions I raised:

Setting aside the question of timing, please explain how the process for the execution of a “formal correction” would proceed should a response to the five dubia not be forthcoming? How is a formal correction officially submitted, how is it addressed within the Church’s hierarchal structure, etc.?
The process has not been frequently invoked in the Church, and not now for several centuries. There has been the correction of past Holy Fathers on significant points, but not in a doctrinal way.

It seems to me that the essence of the correction is quite simple. On the one hand, one sets forth the clear teaching of the Church; on the other hand, what is actually being taught by the Roman Pontiff is stated. If there is a contradiction, the Roman Pontiff is called to conform his own teaching in obedience to Christ and the Magisterium of the Church.

The question is asked, “How would this be done?” It is done very simply by a formal declaration to which the Holy Father would be obliged to respond. Cardinals Brandmüller, Caffarra, Meisner, and I used an ancient institution in the Church of proposing dubia to the Pope.

This was done in a very respectful way and not in any way to be aggressive, in order to give him the occasion to set forth the Church’s unchanging teaching. Pope Francis has chosen not to respond to the five dubia, so it is now necessary simply to state what the Church teaches about marriage, the family, acts that are intrinsically evil, and so forth. These are the points that are not clear in the current teachings of the Roman Pontiff; therefore, this situation must be corrected. The correction would then direct itself principally to those doctrinal points.

There have been cases, as I mentioned, of the correction of past Roman Pontiffs on non-doctrinal points where cardinals have gone to the Holy Father on one thing or the other such as, for example, matters dealing with administration of the Church.

Another question can also be raised. The Pope is the principle of unity of the bishops and all the faithful. However, the Church is being torn asunder right now by confusion and division. The Holy Father must be called on to exercise his office to put an end to this.


So then, the next step would be a formal declaration stating the clear teachings of the Church as set forth in the dubia. Furthermore, it would be stated that these truths of the Faith are not being clearly set forth by the Roman Pontiff. In other words, instead of asking the questions as was done in the dubia, the formal correction would be stating the answers as clearly taught by the Church.


But immediately preceding the above, the cardinal gave an answer that warmed the cockles of my heart, because another Eminence confirms my choice for some time now to use the word apostasy as a more appropriate and less disputable term than heresy to describe the many Bergoglian heterodoxies.

People talk about a de facto schism. I am absolutely in opposition to any kind of formal schism — a schism can never be correct. [Not to mention that the orthodox Catholics would not declare schism at all, formal or not, because they do uphold the one true Church - and why would they allow the Bergoglian apostates to appropriate it for their false church?]

People can, however, be living in a schismatic situation if the teaching of Christ has been abandoned. The more appropriate word would be the one Our Lady used in her Message of Fatima: apostasy. There can be apostasy within the Church and this, in fact, is what is going on. In connection with the apostasy, Our Lady also referred to the failure of pastors to bring the Church to unity.


The cardinal refers to the mention of apostasy in the Message of Fatima - which is not, of course, in the text of the Third Message that the Vatican released in 2000, while there are plausible accounts that it is the mention of apostasy at the highest levels of the Church that has caused the popes to edit that out of the message that has been made public. Our Lady appears to have been just as prophetic about this Great Apostasy in the Church as she was about the two World Wars and Communism.

I just saw for the first time today a quotation from Paul VI cited in Corriere della Sera of October 22, 1977, in which he said:

The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.

This was a far stronger assertion than the much-quoted 'smoke of Satan' line from his homily on the ninth anniversary of his coronation as Pope, in which he said he had the sensation that "from some fissure, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God".

I went back to look up the original homily but unfortunately, the Vatican site only carries an extended paraphrased account of it in Italian. What follows the 'smoke of Satan' quotation, which is enclosed in direct quotation marks, is paraphrase, as follows (my translation):

There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. No one trusts the Church anymore. We trust in the first profane prophet that comes along from the media or from some social organization and run to him to ask him if he has the formula for true life.

Doubt has entered our consciousness and has come in through windows that should instead be open to the light. From science, which we have devised to find objective truths that are not detached from God but which would make us seek him even more and celebrate him with greater intensity, has come instead criticism and doubt. It is the scientists who exert themselves most thoughtfully and even painfully [in search of truths] who end up telling us, "I don't know, we don't know, we cannot know".

Schools end being arenas of confusion and often absurd contradictions. Progress is celebrated in order to be able to demolish it later with the strangest and most radical revolutions, to cancel out what was previously won, to turn back to primitiveness after having so exalted the progress of the modern world.

Even in the Church, this uncertainty reigns. It was thought that the [Second Vatican] Council would be followed by a sunny day in the history of the Church. Instead we have had clouds, tempest, darkness, uncertainty. We preach ecumenism yet we detach ourselves ever more from others. We seek to excavate abysses instead of filling them up...

These are the words of a man clearly disillusioned by what followed Vatican-II, signs and symptoms which have reached their peak today in the era of Bergoglio.

Sorry, got into the apostasy thing so much I forgot to provide the link to the Burke interview:
http://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/frontpage/interview-with-cardinal-burke-discriminating-mercy-defending-christ-and-his-church-with-true-love-2/#more-19405




TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 16 agosto 2017 02:17
August 15, 2017

Canon212.com


PewSitter




TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 16 agosto 2017 02:28
The clear-eyed realism of Joseph Ratzinger is very much in evidence in this fragment of a reflection on the Papacy that he wrote 14 years before he became Pope at a time when no one, least of all he himself, could have imagined he would one day be Pope...

Papal primacy:
The power of God over weakness

by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
from CALLED TO COMMUNION (1991)


…In order to understand the way in which Peter is a rock, a quality he does not have of himself, it is useful to keep in mind how Matthew continues the narrative.

It was not by “flesh and blood” but by the revelation of the Father that he had confessed Christ in the name of the Twelve. When Jesus subsequently explains the figure and destiny of the Christ in this world, prophesying death and resurrection, it is flesh and blood that respond: Peter “scolds the Lord”: “By no means shall this ever be” (16:22).

To which Jesus replies: “Be gone, behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block (skandalon) for me” (16:23). Left to his own resources, the one who by God’s grace is permitted to be the bedrock is a stone on the path that makes the foot stumble.

The tension between the gift coming from the Lord and man’s own capacity is rousingly portrayed in this scene, which is some sense anticipates the entire drama of papal history. In this history we repeatedly encounter two situations.

On the one hand, the papacy remains the foundation of the Church in virtue of a power that does not derive from herself.

At the same time, individual popes have again and again become a scandal because of what they themselves are as men, because they want to precede, not follow, Christ, because they believe that they must determine by their own logic the path that only Christ himself can decide: “You do not think God’s thoughts, but man’s (Mt 16:23)

…The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.

But the New Testament shows us more than the formal aspect of a structure; it also reveals to us the inward nature of this structure…It depicts the tension between skandalon and rock. In the very disproportion between man’s capacity and God’s sovereign disposition, it reveals God to be the one who truly acts and is present.

If in the course of history the attribution of such authority to men could repeatedly engender the not entirely unfounded suspicion of human arrogation of power, not only the promise of the New Testament but also the trajectory of that history itself prove the opposite.

The men in question are so glaringly, so blatantly unequal to this function that the very empowerment of man to be the rock makes evident how little it is they who sustain the Church but God alone who does so, who does so more in spite of men than through them.

The mystery of the Cross is perhaps nowhere so palpably present as in the primacy as a reality of Church history. That its center is forgiveness is both its intrinsic condition and the sign of the distinctive character of the God’s power…

When the Church adheres to these words in faith, she is not being triumphalistic but humbly recognizing in wonder and thanksgiving the victory of God over and through human weakness. Whoever deprives these words of their force for fear of triumphalism or of human usurpation of authority does not proclaim that God is greater but diminishes him, since God demonstrates the power of his love, and thus remains faithful to the law of the history of salvation, precisely in the paradox of human impotence.

For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.

When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone: “flesh and blood” do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood. To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is.

Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it…


TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 16 agosto 2017 02:28

The clear-eyed realism of Joseph Ratzinger is very much in evidence in this fragment of a reflection on the Papacy that he wrote 14 years before he became Pope at a time when no one, least of all he himself, could have imagined he would one day be Pope...

Papal primacy:
The power of God over weakness

by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
from CALLED TO COMMUNION (1991)


…In order to understand the way in which Peter is a rock, a quality he does not have of himself, it is useful to keep in mind how Matthew continues the narrative.

It was not by “flesh and blood” but by the revelation of the Father that he had confessed Christ in the name of the Twelve. When Jesus subsequently explains the figure and destiny of the Christ in this world, prophesying death and resurrection, it is flesh and blood that respond: Peter “scolds the Lord”: “By no means shall this ever be” (16:22).

To which Jesus replies: “Be gone, behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block (skandalon) for me” (16:23). Left to his own resources, the one who by God’s grace is permitted to be the bedrock is a stone on the path that makes the foot stumble.

The tension between the gift coming from the Lord and man’s own capacity is rousingly portrayed in this scene, which is some sense anticipates the entire drama of papal history. In this history we repeatedly encounter two situations.

On the one hand, the papacy remains the foundation of the Church in virtue of a power that does not derive from herself.

At the same time, individual popes have again and again become a scandal because of what they themselves are as men, because they want to precede, not follow, Christ, because they believe that they must determine by their own logic the path that only Christ himself can decide: “You do not think God’s thoughts, but man’s (Mt 16:23)

…The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.

But the New Testament shows us more than the formal aspect of a structure; it also reveals to us the inward nature of this structure…It depicts the tension between skandalon and rock. In the very disproportion between man’s capacity and God’s sovereign disposition, it reveals God to be the one who truly acts and is present.

If in the course of history the attribution of such authority to men could repeatedly engender the not entirely unfounded suspicion of human arrogation of power, not only the promise of the New Testament but also the trajectory of that history itself prove the opposite.

The men in question are so glaringly, so blatantly unequal to this function that the very empowerment of man to be the rock makes evident how little it is they who sustain the Church but God alone who does so, who does so more in spite of men than through them.

The mystery of the Cross is perhaps nowhere so palpably present as in the primacy as a reality of Church history. That its center is forgiveness is both its intrinsic condition and the sign of the distinctive character of the God’s power…

When the Church adheres to these words in faith, she is not being triumphalistic but humbly recognizing in wonder and thanksgiving the victory of God over and through human weakness. Whoever deprives these words of their force for fear of triumphalism or of human usurpation of authority does not proclaim that God is greater but diminishes him, since God demonstrates the power of his love, and thus remains faithful to the law of the history of salvation, precisely in the paradox of human impotence.

For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.

When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone: “flesh and blood” do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood. To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is.

Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it…


TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 16 agosto 2017 02:28
The clear-eyed realism of Joseph Ratzinger is very much in evidence in this fragment of a reflection on the Papacy that he wrote 14 years before he became Pope at a time when no one, least of all he himself, could have imagined he would one day be Pope...

Papal primacy:
The power of God over weakness

by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
from CALLED TO COMMUNION (1991)


…In order to understand the way in which Peter is a rock, a quality he does not have of himself, it is useful to keep in mind how Matthew continues the narrative.

It was not by “flesh and blood” but by the revelation of the Father that he had confessed Christ in the name of the Twelve. When Jesus subsequently explains the figure and destiny of the Christ in this world, prophesying death and resurrection, it is flesh and blood that respond: Peter “scolds the Lord”: “By no means shall this ever be” (16:22).

To which Jesus replies: “Be gone, behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block (skandalon) for me” (16:23). Left to his own resources, the one who by God’s grace is permitted to be the bedrock is a stone on the path that makes the foot stumble.

The tension between the gift coming from the Lord and man’s own capacity is rousingly portrayed in this scene, which is some sense anticipates the entire drama of papal history. In this history we repeatedly encounter two situations.

On the one hand, the papacy remains the foundation of the Church in virtue of a power that does not derive from herself.

At the same time, individual popes have again and again become a scandal because of what they themselves are as men, because they want to precede, not follow, Christ, because they believe that they must determine by their own logic the path that only Christ himself can decide: “You do not think God’s thoughts, but man’s (Mt 16:23)

…The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.

But the New Testament shows us more than the formal aspect of a structure; it also reveals to us the inward nature of this structure…It depicts the tension between skandalon and rock. In the very disproportion between man’s capacity and God’s sovereign disposition, it reveals God to be the one who truly acts and is present.

If in the course of history the attribution of such authority to men could repeatedly engender the not entirely unfounded suspicion of human arrogation of power, not only the promise of the New Testament but also the trajectory of that history itself prove the opposite.

The men in question are so glaringly, so blatantly unequal to this function that the very empowerment of man to be the rock makes evident how little it is they who sustain the Church but God alone who does so, who does so more in spite of men than through them.

The mystery of the Cross is perhaps nowhere so palpably present as in the primacy as a reality of Church history. That its center is forgiveness is both its intrinsic condition and the sign of the distinctive character of the God’s power…

When the Church adheres to these words in faith, she is not being triumphalistic but humbly recognizing in wonder and thanksgiving the victory of God over and through human weakness. Whoever deprives these words of their force for fear of triumphalism or of human usurpation of authority does not proclaim that God is greater but diminishes him, since God demonstrates the power of his love, and thus remains faithful to the law of the history of salvation, precisely in the paradox of human impotence.

For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.

When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone: “flesh and blood” do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood. To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is.

Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it…


TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 16 agosto 2017 04:40
'Dialog' has become one of those facile catchwords of the liberals that has become repellent to me - I shiver whenever it is said in their usual context. Especially with the advent of Bergoglio, who advocates perpetual dialog that never resolves anything because every reconciliation or synthesis between thesis and antithesis simply gives rise to a new thesis to be countered with another anti-thesis, etc, ad infinitum ad nauseam... Valli brings us a great reflection on this topic...

Dialog? No, thanks.
Dispute is better!

Translated from

August 11, 2017

Today I wish to discuss "the inflation of dialog – when we are enjoined to 'open a dialog' with everyone, and if possible with all. When the subject we wish to 'dialog' about is not important as much as the relationship that we develop through dialog. The process itself is the goal".

This criticism of ecumenical dialog as an end in itself, and cultivated as a good in itself, beyond the question of which parties are in dialog, does not come from a representative of conservative Catholicism. Nor is he even Catholic. He is Jürgen Moltmann (Hamburg, 1926), the evangelical theologian who taught in Tuebingen and author of the famous B]Theologie der Hoffnung
(Theology of hope), published in 1964.

His reflections on dialog are found in the article «La Riforma incompiuta. Problemi irrisolti, risposte ecumeniche» (The unfinished reform: Unresolved problems and ecumenical responses), published in Concilium (n.2, 2017, p.142), which is made even more interesting by the fact that Moltmann makes a distinction between 'dialog' and 'dispute'.

He writes: "Dialog in our day does not function for the truth" but rather for 'communion', and thus undergoes a kind of sugarcoating. The effort to avoid sharp differences leads to a flattening out, and theology suffers for it.

"In the past," writes the 91-year-old Moltmann, from long experience, " people lamented the litigiousness of some theologians (rabies theologicorum), but now theology has become so innocuous that it barely merits public consideration".

In search of 'communion', all asperities have been planed down as to virtually disappear - and what remains is often merely an expression of mutual tolerance devoid of content, in which emotion has been substituted for the truth.

On the other hand, Moltmann is explicit in praise of 'dispute':

"We must learn once again to say NO. A controversy can bring truth to light much more than 'tolerant' dialog. We need a theological culture of dispute, conducted with resolve and respect, out of love for the truth. Without a profession of faith, theology is devoid of value, and theological dialog degenerates into a mere exchange of opinions".


The veteran theologian cannot be clearer, and it is significant that his revaluation of dispute – as against the inflation of dialog – comes in the 500th anniversary year of the Reformation, which is taking place amidst multiple hymns to dialog and apparently little attention to the question of truth. "Do communion and truth no longer go hand in hand?," Moltmann asks.

"There is even proof," comments Suilvio Brachetta in Vita nuova, the Catholic weekly of the Diocese of Trieste, "that the middle way has disappeared: discussions today are either dialog or polemics. There is hardly ever any constructive debate in order to demonstrate something. We attend relaxed meetings, with little scientific content, and participants oscillate between considering arguments serenely or the contentious impulses of those who seek to assert themselves with fire and fury. In general, people prefer monologues, because it does not have to be 'proven' at all costs – the speaker does not need to marshal counter arguments, but simply 'opposes' himself with his own monologue."

Observations we can all share, to which, however, Stefano Fontana, also in Vita nuova, adds a further reflection: "Silvio Brachetta is right to say that any dialog without truth is a dead one and to praise the Protestant theologian Moltmann for saying so. But it must not be forgotten that the absolutization of dialog in the Church comes precisely from the penetration of the Protestant mindset into the Catholic Church".

"The question of Catholic abuse of dialog," writes Fontana, "is an old one. Already the pre-Vatican-II works of Karl Rahner laid down the foundations of dialog without content. The conciliarism that followed Vatican II applied and developed the concept, misusing the encyclical Ecclesiam Suam of Paul VI. It is true, that today 'dialog happens without its participants knowing what to dialog about', and yet, precisely with respect for the truth, we must not forget that this vice is owed to the penetration of Protestantism into the Catholic mind".

It is equally significant that the concern about dialog as an end in itself should be manifested today by a Protestant like Moltmann.

Fontana proceeds to a necessary analysis:

"Catholcic theology has always taught that faith has two aspects: fides qua, or one's personal act of faith, and fides quae, which is the revealed truth Catholics believe based on the authority of God who has revealed it. Luther separates the two aspects – or rather, he eliminates the second, since he believes that faith is nothing but a subjective relationship of the individual conscience with God.

It is a 'fiducial' faith, a blind faith, in which one places oneself in the hands of the Other without any substantial reason. Indeed, Protestant faith is a faith without dogmas, in which the Church is merely spiritual, made up of all those who entrust themselves in this fiducial manner to Christ. That is why, there is no Protestant unity based on a common confession of the same contents of faith, as the Church has always taught, starting from the Confessors of the faith, but unity is assumed from the coming together of single subjectivities in one act of faith. This subjective 'coming together' [con-venire] replaces the reasons themselves for agreeing [convenire].

The emphasis is displaced towards the action rather than on the contents of the action. That is why today, even in the Catholic Church, pastoral work 'as ecclesial action' precedes doctrine, of which it is independent, and indeed, reformulates doctrine. That is why at every ecclesial convention, there is an insistence on the beauty of 'coming together', even if the meeting actually hosts people who hold a thousand diverse dogmatic heresies. That is why they speak of a 'plural' or 'open' Church, in the terminology of Karl Rahner – who was Catholic in form but Protestant in substance – a church in which everyone, including heretics and atheists could be part. Fides quae is lost from sight, or at any rate, considered of secondary importance. Heresy becomes de-rubricized as simply a difference of opinion."


Fontana's reasoning is crystalline and does not need further explanations, but it is Fontana himself who actualizes everything he wrote by referring to an episode that has caused so much pain:

"In recent days, we witnessed the tragedy of little Charlie Gard. The men of the Church came on the scene too late, sputtered diverse opinions, the newspaper Avvenire diverted attention from the real issues and argued the exact opposite of what it said in 2009 for Eluana Englaro [Italian lady whose father succeeded in getting the hospice to cut off her life support because she had been 'nothing but a vegetable' for some time]

We are no longer even able to profess together the elementary principles of the natural moral law, let alone the Ten Commandments. On too many things, we allow the individual conscience to 'discern'. The Church of 'coming together' increasingly does not know what or Who it is that we should come together about – whether it is on the Christ of faith or the Logos who reveals the truth because he is the Truth, no longer seems to matter."


Fontana refers in his article to Paul VI's Ecclesia Suam (1964) which can be effectively considered the origin of the 'dialogic turning point' in theology. Yet Papa Montini does not say in it that dialog is valuable in itself, but that we must dialog in order to convert others, and although Romano Amerio in Iota Unum spoke of the inconsistent and impossible equation "between the duty incumbent on the Church to evangelize the world and its duty to dialog with it", we must remember that Paul VI advocated a 'dialog of sincerity', and with regard to ecumenism, he said: "We are ready to study how to accommodate the legitimate wishes of our Christian brothers who are separated from us" because "nothing could be more desired by us than to embrace them in a perfect union of faith and charity" but "we must also say that it is not in our power to transgress on the integrity of faith and on the demands of charity".

Nor does Paul VI hesitate to warn against relativism, and yet his encyclical has been used abundantly in a relativistic sense. By eliminating all the points in which Montini stigmatizes "ambiguous compromise' as well as irenism and syncretism ("Our dialog cannot be carried out in weakness with respect to our commitment to our faith… Only whoever is fully faithful to the doctrine of Christ can be an fefective apostle"), Ecclesiam Suam has been reduced to the manifesto of a superficial and indistinct friendship between the Church and the world, and as Brachetta rightly reminds us, we had to wait for Cardinal Ratzinger, with DOMINUS IESUS of 2000, to denounce that 'ideology of dialog' which, having penetrated into the Catholic Church, "would replace mission and the urgency of calling to conversion".

In short, despite the concerns of Paul VI, relativism did enter the Church and has used the idea of dialog in an exploitative way. That is why whoever has the truth at heart should take on Moltmann's proposition and re-value dispute, the lively exchange of opinions and controversy that calls for all arguments to be on the table.

But in order to dispute, one must be able to reason, and today, that is precisely the problem. Because our crisis of faith is perhaps, first of all, a crisis of reason. [And of common sense – because where reason implies a systematic marshaling of arguments to justify a position, common sense is an instinctive grasp of what is right.]


TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 16 agosto 2017 16:56

Detail from THE ASSUMPTION, by Guido Reni (1617).

'Holy Virgin, Holy Mother,
assumed into Heaven, pray for us'

Homily by
Rev. Peter M.J. Stravinskas
Church of the Holy Innocents
August 15, 2017

Permit me to begin this evening by acknowledging the most welcome presence as our deacon this evening Br. Leo Camurati of the St. Joseph Province of Dominicans – one of the few mainstream religious communities that has maintained its Catholic identity and has a fine future, with a glut of vocations, so much so that the Dominican House of Studies in Washington had to engage in a major capital campaign for expansion.

I should also note that it was that institution where I studied for my licentiate in theology and where I learned genuine Catholic theology (since my seminary had not provided that).

I should also mention that some years back, I intended to attend Christmas morning Mass at St. Agnes when the pastor asked me to preach, completely out of the blue, and then, likewise completely unexpected, importuned me to be the celebrant of the Mass. I had never celebrated in the Extraordinary Form (except as boy, “playing priest”) and the then-Paul Camurati was the master of ceremonies who gently and effectively guided me through a Mass, which was both valid and licit. Thanks, Br. Leo.


Today the Church Universal – in all her rites – and all the Orthodox Churches and even Anglicans and Lutherans celebrate the bodily assumption of Our Lady. For the sake of clarity, let us make sure we understand precisely what we are celebrating.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, citing Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium and Venerable Pope Pius XII’s dogmatic definition Munificentissimus Deus, informs us:

“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians” (n. 966).


As you undoubtedly know, the definition of the Assumption occurred on All Saints Day in 1950. That fact leads some people to assert that this dogma was a modern invention of the Catholic Church. However, such an assertion fails to reflect either history or the proper notion of doctrinal development.

The first church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary was under the title of her Dormition or Assumption – already in the fourth century. Obviously, something believed in the fourth century cannot be an invention of the twentieth century.

More to the point: When the Church defines a dogma, she is acknowledging a doctrine which has been believed all along and throughout the Church.

That having been said, it must also be noted that dogmatic definition rarely occurs unless a doctrine is contested, which was never the case with the Assumption – unlike the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which had a rather checkered history, with some of the greatest theological luminaries (including St. Thomas Aquinas) having serious questions about it. On the contrary, even every so-called reformer of the Protestant movement of the sixteenth century accepted and taught the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven.

So, what inspired Pius XII to define an uncontested doctrine? Clearly, it was the Holy Spirit. But why? Christians had always believed that the Assumption was a privilege accorded to Mary in view of both her Immaculate Conception and her divine maternity.

I think there were two phenomena on the horizon, perhaps yet unknown to Pope Pius, which moved him to teach this truth of faith infallibly. The Assumption would be able to underscore the dignity of the human body and the dignity of women, concepts to be assaulted not long after in the dominant culture, especially brought on by the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

From the very beginning of Christianity, we find movements that depreciated the human body. The epistles of St. John take aim at the Gnostics, probably the earliest Christian heretics. According to their theories, the entire physical universe was evil, created by an evil god; only the spiritual had meaning and value. If that were true, then the Incarnation would not be salvific, nor the means of our own future resurrected bodies.

The Gnostics have had numerous descendants in history: the Manichees, who attracted the young Augustine to their number; the Cathars of the Middle Ages, whom St. Dominic fought with every fiber of his being; the Jansenists, who despised the body to such a degree that Parisians quipped that the nuns of Port Royale were “as pure as angels and as proud as devils.”

When disdain of the body takes full control, ironically enough, it usually ends up in total depravity. The “logic” goes something like this: If the body has no inherent dignity, then do with it whatever you wish. On the contrary, if the body is what St. Paul says it is, namely, a temple of the Holy Spirit, then it must be reverenced.

Our age, whether it knows it or not, has revived the Manicheeism of old, with the result that “anything goes.” Manichees glory in orgies. And why not?

This lack of appreciation for the body has crept into the consciousness even of practicing Catholics. How many believers tend to think of the afterlife as a gathering of disembodied souls, perhaps flitting around on two cute wings? But, no, Christian doctrine holds that after the General Judgment, our souls will be reunited to our bodies; the disembodied soul is a temporary, incomplete state of human existence.

Jesus, right now, reigning gloriously in Heaven has a body; Mary, right now, at her Son’s right hand, has a body. And since bodies need a space, Heaven has a zip code! That realization caused St. Thomas Aquinas – good Aristotelian philosopher that he was – to declare: “Thomas is his body.”

Therefore, it is incumbent on us to take care of the body given to us at our conception: what we put into it and what we do with it. After all, a temple is sacred. That said, we must avoid the opposite contemporary error – worshiping the body. The cult of the body mistakes the creature for the Creator.

I am always perversely amused by some of my neighbors, who are out running bright and early every morning but can’t get into their car to go to church on Sunday. Some days I feel like telling them that if they don’t get their priorities straight, on the last day they will find their trim, sculpted, beautiful bodies burning in Hell!

Now, let’s get back to something a bit more pleasant. The Risen Christ in His male body and the Assumed Virgin in her female body – the New Adam and the New Eve – represent the fullness of humanity – male and female. They anticipate the general resurrection and stand ready to welcome all Christ’s brethren and Mary’s children. Yes, a woman is essential to the complete picture.

If you pay attention to the conventional wisdom (and you shouldn’t) you will hear a non-stop drumbeat: The Catholic Church is anti-woman. Really? Let’s do a little fact-check on that assertion.

First of all, those usually making that accusation, somehow or other, never seem to lob that charge at Orthodox Judaism or Islam, where the status of women really could use some attention.

If we start with the central mystery of the Christian faith – the Incarnation – we see that the greatest event in human history takes place with no male involvement whatsoever, just a young woman cooperating with her God.

The veneration of Mary the Virgin brought in its wake veneration of all women. For the first time in history, women had a dignity proper to them; in the Christian scheme of things, they were no longer valued for the pleasure they gave men in bed or the sons they bore them. The esteem for virginity actually fostered the creation of the order of virgins in the Church, which eventually evolved into female religious life.

In the Middle Ages, women were queens, scholars, foundresses of religious orders, abbesses and ecclesiastical reformers. Interestingly, one of the criticisms leveled against the Catholic Church by the Protestants of the sixteenth century was that the Church gave too high a place to women – a sure sign of a corrupt Church!

In our own country, if you told someone in the 1940s or 50s or 60s that your school principal or college president or hospital administrator was a woman, that person would know that you were referring to a nun. Secular society had not yet caught up with the Church. But then came the women’s liberation movement with its radical feminism. “Isms” are usually dangerous, and the radical feminism of the 60s and 70s was devastating.

There is, however, a good feminism, which the Church always practiced – even without having a name for it. That good feminism was given form in a particular way by Pope John Paul II in his homilies, addresses, and actions. I am thinking especially of his apostolic letter, Mulieris Dignitatem, promulgated during the Marian Year of 1988, on the Solemnity of the Assumption. I heartily recommend a careful reading or re-reading of that insightful document.

The Holy Father astutely observes that equality is not sameness; rather, the correct relationship between the sexes is that of complementarity. In reality, John Paul was following a trajectory of reflection on what he dubbed “the feminine genius” that began with the Pope Pius XII and was continued by Blessed Pope Paul VI. Waxing poetic – as he was wont to do – the Pope proclaims:

The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine “genius” which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations; she gives thanks for all the charisms which the Holy Spirit distributes to women in the history of the People of God, for all the victories which she owes to their faith, hope and charity: she gives thanks for all the fruits of feminine holiness. (n. 31)

The Pope does not shy away from tackling the feminist argument, while warning us about the perils of a derailed feminism:
In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person.

The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman.

Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women.

In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. (n. 10)

He sums it all up thus:
“The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity; they are merely different” (n. 10)...
Thus, by considering the reality “Woman – Mother of God,” we enter in a very appropriate way into this Marian Year meditation. This reality also determines the essential horizon of reflection on the dignity and the vocation of women.

In anything we think, say or do concerning the dignity and the vocation of women, our thoughts, hearts and actions must not become detached from this horizon. The dignity of every human being and the vocation corresponding to that dignity find their definitive measure in union with God.

Mary, the woman of the Bible, is the most complete expression of this dignity and vocation. For no human being, male or female, created in the image and likeness of God, can in any way attain fulfilment apart from this image and likeness. (n. 5)


Our Lady had two roles in life: as a virgin and as a mother. Sad to say, both roles have fallen on hard times in the past few decades. The witness of Mary needs to be highlighted for the benefit of all women and for the good of all society. In her dual identity as virgin and mother, she gives a face to the dignity of woman. Her glorious assumption also gives hope.

From the glory of Heaven, Mary does not merely offer a holy and hopeful example; she actively intercedes for her children still on their earthly pilgrimage home. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council in their Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, bring that document to a conclusion with a stirring Marian reflection:

This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth. . . until they are led into the happiness of their true home. (n. 62)


Early on in this homily, I said that the Blessed Virgin has her place at her Son’s right hand. Where does that idea come from?

In ancient Israel, the most powerful woman in the kingdom was the queen mother. And so, we read that when Bathsheba entered the royal chamber, King Solomon stood and bowed to his mother as she assumed a throne next to his. Indeed, to this day, in traditional Judaism, petitioners approach a man’s mother with a request in the assurance that her plea will find a favorable hearing with her son. That conviction is likewise an intensely Catholic conviction as well.

Hans Urs von Balthasar comments poignantly that Mary is “Queen of the Apostles without any pretensions to apostolic powers: she has other and greater powers.” I would suggest that it was consideration of those “other and greater powers” that inspired Pius XII to define the dogma we celebrate today.

The humble Virgin of Nazareth, under divine inspiration, exclaimed in her Magnificat, which the Church sings every day: “Ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes” (For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.)

Today we are proud to say that we have a Mother who provides us with her holy example and her powerful intercession. We are equally proud to take our place in that long line of believers who have fulfilled her prophecy in calling her “blessed.”

Sancta Virgo, Sancta Mater, Assumpta in caelum, ora pro nobis.
Holy Virgin, Holy Mother, assumed into Heaven, pray for us.


***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I wrote a brief account of how Pope Francis has sort of snubbed the Solemnity of the Assumption in the past two years by failing to celebrate a public Mass on this day. I shall post it as soon as I have reconstructed it.



TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 16 agosto 2017 16:56


I thought I would share these words from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger about the Papacy, from 1991 , at least 14 years before he was elected pope, and at which time no one, least of all himself, ever thought he would one day become Pope. Much of what he says rings very actual today...

PAPAL PRIMACY:
The power of God over human weakness

by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
from CALLED TO COMMUNION (1991)

…In order to understand the way in which Peter is a rock, a quality he does not have of himself, it is useful to keep in mind how Matthew continues the narrative. It was not by “flesh and blood” but by the revelation of the Father that he had confessed Christ in the name of the Twelve.

When Jesus subsequently explains the figure and destiny of the Christ in this world, prophesying death and resurrection, it is flesh and blood that respond: Peter “scolds the Lord”: “By no means shall this ever be” (16:22). To which Jesus replies: “Be gone, behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block (skandalon) for me” (16:23).

Left to his own resources, the one who by God’s grace is permitted to be the bedrock is a stone on the path that makes the foot stumble.

the tension between the gift coming from the Lord and man’s own capacity is rousingly portrayed in this scene, which is some sense anticipates the entire drama of papal history. In this history we repeatedly encounter two situations.
- On the one hand, the papacy remains the foundation of the Church in virtue of a power that does not derive from herself.
- At the same time, individual popes have again and again become a scandal because of what they themselves are as men, because they want to precede, not follow, Christ, because they believe that they must determine by their own logic the path that only Christ himself can decide: “You do not think God’s thoughts, but man’s (Mt 16:23)

…The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church...

the New Testament shows us more than the formal aspect of a structure; it also reveals to us the inward nature of this structure…It depicts the tension between skandalon and rock; in the very disproportion between man’s capacity and God’s sovereign disposition, it reveals God to be the one who truly acts and is present.

If in the course of history the attribution of such authority to men could repeatedly engender the not entirely unfounded suspicion of human arrogation of power, not only the promise of the New Testament but also the trajectory of that history itself prove the opposite.

The men in question are so glaringly, so blatantly unequal to this function that the very empowerment of man to be the rock makes evident how little it is they who sustain the Church but God alone who does so, who does so more in spite of men than through them.

The mystery of the Cross is perhaps nowhere so palpably present as in the primacy as a reality of Church history. That its center is forgiveness is both its intrinsic condition and the sign of the distinctive character of the God’s power…

When the Church adheres to these words in faith, she is not being triumphalistic but humbly recognizing in wonder and thanksgiving the victory of God over and through human weakness.

Whoever deprives these words of their force for fear of triumphalism or of human usurpation of authority does not proclaim that God is greater but diminishes him, since God demonstrates the power of his love, and thus remains faithful to the law of the history of salvation, precisely in the paradox of human impotence.

For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.

When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone: “flesh and blood” do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood.

To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is. Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it…

An assertion of Jesus that we must keep in mind even if the Vicar of Christ and Successor of Peter today appears to be the greatest skandalon for the faith.

The context for the above excerpt will be better appreciated in this interview with an American theologian on the book CALLED TO COMMUNION when Ignatius Books, which first published the English edition in 1996, re-issued it in 2005 after its author became Pope…

CALLED TO COMMUNION:
Joseph Ratzinger's
primer on ecclesiology

Interview with Fr. Matthew Lamb
Ave Maria University

NAPLES, Florida, JUNE 24, 2005 (Zenit) - When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger released his book "Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today," he called it a primer of Catholic ecclesiology.

In it, the future Benedict XVI outlined the origin and essence of the Church, the role of the papacy and the primacy of Peter, and the Body of Christ's unity and communio.

Fr. Matthew Lamb, director of the graduate school of theology and professor of theology at Ave Maria University, shared with us an overview of some of those themes as they appear in Cardinal Ratzinger's book.

What is Cardinal Ratzinger's understanding of the origin and essence of the Church, as outlined in his book?
Reading the book is a feast for mind and heart. At the time of its release, Cardinal Ratzinger called it a "primer of Catholic ecclesiology." As with his other theological writings, this book beautifully recovers for our time the great Catholic tradition of wisdom, of attunement to the "whole" of the Triune God's creative and redemptive presence.

"Catholic" also means living out the "whole" of this divine presence. Such a sapiential approach shows how the New Covenant draws upon and fulfills the covenant with Israel. Israel was chosen and led out of Egypt in order to worship the true and only God and thus witness him to all the nations.

In his preaching, teaching and actions, Jesus Christ fulfilled the messianic promises. At the Last Supper Our Lord initiated the New Covenant in his most sacred Body and Blood. Ratzinger wrote: "Jesus announces the collapse of the old ritual and ... promises a new, higher worship whose center will be his own glorified body."

Jesus announces the eternal Kingdom of God as "the present action of God" in his own divine person incarnate. As the Father sends Jesus Christ, so Jesus in turn sends his apostles and disciples.

The origin of the Church is Jesus Christ who sends the Church forth as the Father sent him. The Apostles and disciples, with their successors down the ages, form the Church as the ecclesia, the gathering of the "people of God."


Drawing upon his own doctoral dissertation on the Church in the theology of St. Augustine, Ratzinger shows that the people of God are what St. Paul calls the "body of Christ."

The essence of the Church is the people of God as the Body of Christ, head and members united by the Holy Spirit in visible communion with the successors of the Apostles, united with the Pope as successor to Peter. The Church continues down the ages the visible and invisible missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit through preaching and teaching, the sanctifying sacraments and the unifying governance of her communion with the successor of Peter.

In "Called to Communion," what were his thoughts on the role of the Pope in the Church?
"You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church ... I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven."In Matthew 16:17-19, these true words of the Lord Jesus transcend confessional polemics. From them Ratzinger brings out the role of the Pope.

Reflecting on the commission given to Peter he sees that he is commissioned to forgive sins. He writes that it is a commission to dispense "the grace of forgiveness. It constitutes the Church. The Church is founded upon forgiveness. Peter himself is the personal embodiment of this truth, for he is permitted to be the bearer of the keys after having stumbled, confessed and received the grace of pardon."

What did Cardinal Ratzinger note about the primacy of Peter and the unity of the Church?
He first shows the mission of Peter in the whole of the New Testament tradition. The essence of apostleship is witnessing to the resurrection of Jesus. Ratzinger shows the primacy of Peter in this role, as attested by St. Paul who, even when confronting St. Peter, acknowledges him in First Corinthians 15:5 as "Cephas" -- the Aramaic word for "rock" -- in his witness to the risen Lord.

As such he is the guarantor of the one common Gospel. All the synoptic Gospels agree in giving Peter the primacy in their lists of apostles. The mission of Peter is above all to embody the unity of the apostles in their witness to the risen Lord and the mission he entrusted to them.


As Ratzinger points out, the sees or bishoprics identified with the apostles later become pre-eminent and, as Irenaeus testifies in the second century, these sees are to acknowledge the decisive criterion exercised by "the Church of Rome, where Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom. It was with this Church that every community had to agree; Rome was the standard of the authentic apostolic tradition as a whole."

How does the papacy facilitate communion or communio in the Church?
The papacy facilitates communio precisely by witnessing to the transcendent reality of the risen Lord. This was evident in the first successors to Peter. Like him, they witnessed to the commission Peter received -- many early popes were martyred.

The keys of the Kingdom are the words of forgiveness only God can truly empower. The papacy promotes communion by fidelity to the truth of the gospel and the redemptive sacramental mission of forgiveness. [I bet Bergoglio has never thought about his notion of 'mercy' in terms of the Petrine ministry as Cardinal Ratzinger points out here. On the other hand, he may say he is only following the Lord's words to Peter that "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven", in his, Bergoglio's arbitrary dicta that some sins the Church always considered sins can - like divorce and adultery which Jesus himself branded sins - with this Successor of Peter, no longer be considered sin.]

Ratzinger writes: "By his death Jesus has rolled the stone over the mouth of death, which is the power of hell, so that from his death the power of forgiveness flows without cease."

Later Ratzinger returns to this theme of the need of the apostles and their successors for forgiveness as they are given a mission only the Triune God could fulfill.

His words find an echo after he was elected Benedict XVI: "The men in question" -- the apostles -- "are so glaringly, so blatantly unequal to this function" -- of being rock solid in their faith and practice -- "that the very empowerment of man to be the rock makes evident how little it is they who sustain the Church but God alone who does so, who does so more in spite of men than through them."

Only through such forgiveness in total fidelity to Jesus Christ and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit will full communion in the Body of Christ come about. Ratzinger's Eucharistic ecclesiology follows the Fathers of Church in uniting the vertical dimension of the risen body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist with the horizontal dimension of the gathering of the followers of Christ.

"The Fathers summed up these two aspects -- Eucharist and gathering -- in the word communion, which is once more returning to favor today," Ratzinger wrote.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 16 agosto 2017 17:10
Cardinal Burke gets ragged on
for that 'act of correction' on AL

Did he promise it, and if he did, then what now?


Because it is the news item that has been drawing reactions, I will reconstruct first my August 16 post on Cardinal Burke and what he said most recently about an act of correction addressed to the pope about the unanswered DUBIA on Amoris laetitia.

On August 14, in the previous page, I had remarked on Louie Verrecchio's remark that such an act of correction may, in fact, never happen - because he and other 'traditional' bloggers like Mundabor have repeatedly mocked Cardinal Burke and his fellow DUBIA cardinals for being all bark and no bite vis-a-vis a pope they consider heretical. Verrecchio's remark was due to the fact that in a much though belatedly publicized address on July 22 in St. Louis, Missouri. Burke made no mention of the 'act of correction' that he had indicated earlier this year would be proposed after Easter - presumably by him and the other DUBIA cardinals (now minus one with the death of Cardinal Meisner).

I thought then that Verrecchio had a point
"but there may be plausible explanations for that, chief among them being that there seems to be no precedent in modern times (or ever?) for such a formal act of correction, how it would be done, and whether it means anything at all, let alone have any formal validity, other than as a stronger expression of the DUBIA as objective statements borne out by Amoris laetitia which the pope refuses to refute."

On the same day I made the comment, I did not realize that The Wanderer had published the second part of a lengthy interview with Cardinal Burke
http://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/frontpage/interview-with-cardinal-burke-discriminating-mercy-defending-christ-and-his-church-with-true-love-2/#more-19405
in which he is asked about the 'act of correction', and his reply appeared to answer the questions I raised:

Setting aside the question of timing, please explain how the process for the execution of a “formal correction” would proceed should a response to the five dubia not be forthcoming? How is a formal correction officially submitted, how is it addressed within the Church’s hierarchal structure, etc.?
The process has not been frequently invoked in the Church, and not now for several centuries. There has been the correction of past Holy Fathers on significant points, but not in a doctrinal way.

It seems to me that the essence of the correction is quite simple. On the one hand, one sets forth the clear teaching of the Church; on the other hand, what is actually being taught by the Roman Pontiff is stated. If there is a contradiction, the Roman Pontiff is called to conform his own teaching in obedience to Christ and the Magisterium of the Church.

The question is asked, “How would this be done?” It is done very simply by a formal declaration to which the Holy Father would be obliged to respond. Cardinals Brandmüller, Caffarra, Meisner, and I used an ancient institution in the Church of proposing dubia to the Pope. This was done in a very respectful way and not in any way to be aggressive, in order to give him the occasion to set forth the Church’s unchanging teaching.

Pope Francis has chosen not to respond to the five dubia, so it is now necessary simply to state what the Church teaches about marriage, the family, acts that are intrinsically evil, and so forth. These are the points that are not clear in the current teachings of the Roman Pontiff; therefore, this situation must be corrected. The correction would then direct itself principally to those doctrinal points.

There have been cases, as I mentioned, of the correction of past Roman Pontiffs on non-doctrinal points where cardinals have gone to the Holy Father on one thing or the other such as, for example, matters dealing with administration of the Church.

Another question can also be raised. The Pope is the principle of unity of the bishops and all the faithful. However, the Church is being torn asunder right now by confusion and division. The Holy Father must be called on to exercise his office to put an end to this.
So then, the next step would be a formal declaration stating the clear teachings of the Church as set forth in the dubia.


Furthermore, it would be stated that these truths of the Faith are not being clearly set forth by the Roman Pontiff. In other words, instead of asking the questions as was done in the dubia, the formal correction would be stating the answers as clearly taught by the Church.


August 16, 2017
Even Father Z gets into fisking the above paragraphs to make the point that Burke never says he will do something about the act of correction, or that the act of correction will be done somehow, but that his verbs are always in the subjunctive, 'would...', not 'will...'

Does this indicate that for Burke and the two other remaining DUBIA cardinals, the 'act of correction' is nothing but a principle and a process that exist only as a potential for now, and may never be exercised? After all, he did not object or comment on the questioner's proviso about 'setting aside the matter of time'.

It was always easy to imagine that such an act of correction would affirmatively re-state the Church teachings that are referred to interrogatively in the DUBIA, i.e., as declarative statements without the question marks. To be accompanied by some respectful injunction to the effect that the Holy Father is bound by his duty to 'confirm his brothers in the faith' and 'to be the visible symbol of unity of the Church' to promulgate these corrections as a necessary supplement-clarification to Amoris laetitia.

But how would the cardinals formulate their statement of what would be the consequence for the pope himself, for the Church and for the faithful if the pope refused to do this? Beyond, that is, the already dire and tragic consequences that have already followed?

More importantly, however, what Cardinal Burke fails to state - and what his interviewer failed to ask him - is the exact mechanism whereby this act of correction would take place. Especially since a doctrinal act of correction directed at the pope hasn't been done for centuries.

Will it be enough for the DUBIA cardinals to issue an act of correction with the signatures of as many prelates, priests and faithful as they can get? I cannot imagine it done by physically convening the opponents of AL's anti-Catholic propositions, since it is doubtful they could even get the signature now of all the 13 cardinals who signed that October 2015 letter of protest to the pope against the manipulation of the family synods.


Apostasy in the Church -
and did Our Lady explicitly predict it?


Anyway, the subsequent backlash to Cardinal Burke's statement in THE WANDERER has sidetracked me from the second part of my original August 16 post (I have expanded on it in this post) about something Cardinal Burke said which, IMHO, is just as important if not more essentially so than a putative act of correction. Namely, the paragraph that preceded the above discussion of the 'act of correction, in which the cardinal said:

People talk about a de facto schism. I am absolutely in opposition to any kind of formal schism — a schism can never be correct. People can, however, be living in a schismatic situation if the teaching of Christ has been abandoned.

[But formal schism means a formal breaking away from the authority of the Church of Rome - and even Mons. Lefebvre and the FSSPX did not do that. Besides, my usual caveat has been: In the de facto schism with Bergoglio over his anti-Catholic teachings, neither the orthodox Catholics nor the Bergoglians would declare schism at all - the first, because the one true Church of
Christ is our Church, and why should we leave it?; the second, because the church of Bergoglio depends on the institutions and infrastructure of the one true Church, otherwise it would be nothing, so the Bergoglians certainly never will 'break away'!

Although Mons. Lefebvre openly disobeyed John Paul II's instruction not to proceed with consecrating the four bishops that he did [and for which he and the bishops were forthwith excommunicated], the FSSPX was never formally in schism, because it never formally 'un-recognized' John Paul II as pope and has continued to recognize his successors as pope - i.e., the FSSPX was never even sedevacantist, despite their major difference with the Vatican over whether they should be required to profess at least 'nominal acceptance of the documents of Vatican II'.]


The more appropriate word would be the one Our Lady used in her Message of Fatima: apostasy. There can be apostasy within the Church and this, in fact, is what is going on. In connection with the apostasy, Our Lady also referred to the failure of pastors to bring the Church to unity.

So Cardinal Burke confirms me in my own personal choice to call Bergoglio's anti-Catholicity as apostasy, rather than heresy.

But the more remarkable thing about his statement is that he refers to apostasy as a term used by Our Lady in her message at Fatima. However, the word never appears in the officially published texts of the so-called 'Three Secrets of Fatima', but according to some rather plausible accounts, it occurs in the part of the Third Secret that some people believe the Vatican has chosen not to publish.

One such account is from Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi (1909-1996), who was the personal papal theologian to Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II, and who revealed in a private letter to Prof. Baumgardner of Salzburg, who has been investigating the 'Third Secret': "In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."

Earlier, in March 1990 Cardinal Silvio Oddi (1910-2001), who was a personal friend of Pope John XXIII and who had spoken to him regarding the Secret, gave the following testimony to Italian journalist Lucio Brunelli in the journal Il Sabato: "It [the Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church." The Cardinal went on to say that "I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church: grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself...."

An interview given by then Cardinal Ratzinger to Vittorio Messori in 1984 for the magazine Jesus is often cited to show that there is more to the Third Secret than was made public in 2000, and in view of the known testimony about 'the great apostasy' supposedly spoken of in the 'Third Secret', his words are also cited as 'proof' that indeed the message of Fatima contained explicit words about such apostasy:

Cardinal Ratzinger, have you read what is called the Third Secret of Fatima: i.e., the one that Sister Lucia had sent to Pope John XXIII and which the latter did not wish to make known and consigned to the Vatican archives?[/B]
Yes, I have read it.

Why has it not been revealed?
Because, according to the judgement of the Popes, it adds nothing to what a Christian must know concerning what derives from Revelation: i.e., a radical call for conversion; the absolute importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the ‘novissimi’[the 'four last things' - death, judgment, heaven, hell - last stages of the soul in life and the afterlife].

If it is not made public — at least for the time being — it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for sensationalism. But the things contained in this ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions, first of all that of Fatima, in what is already known of what its message contains: Conversion and penitence are the essential conditions for salvation.

In which his words about 'the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Church' are said to refer to 'the great apostasy' supposedly mentioned in the 'unpublished' part of the Third Secret.We don't know.

'Any 'great apostasy' certainly threatens the faith and life of the Church' but to claim that Cardinal Ratzinger must have rather than 'could have' referred to that, is something only Benedict XVI - or the full definitive revelation of the Secrets of Fatima - can tell us.

The published words of the Third Secret are all the words of Sor Lucia who was describing in a 1942 letter what she had seen in the second vision of May 2017. Of the Three Secrets, the first is a description by of the vision of Hell shown to the three shepherd children by the Virgin. Only the Second Secret purports to be about the words said by the Virgin - in which she speaks about the coming end of World War I, predicts another great war, and refers to Russia and the need for its conversion if the world is to avoid wars and persecutions. Sor Lucia's account of it concludes with the words, "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."

Proponents of 'the great apostasy' theory point to the fact that in her so-called Fourth Memoir written in 1941, Sor Lucia writes the ff sentence immediately after the last sentence of the Second Secret: "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc", as though it were a continuation of the words she quoted earlier.

Much is made of the 'etc', which is really unlikely in any spiritual memoir, let alone about a Marian experience, but the same persons who uphold 'the great apostasy' theory also claim Our Lady's words come in the unpublished part of the Third Secret. Does not their own account make it seem it ought to have been part of the Second Secret?

Whatever the 'full message' of Fatima may have been, why are the 'Fourth Secret' advocates not jumping on Cardinal Burke's statement referring to apostasy as having been part of the message of Fatima? Does it not imply that 'the great apostasy' theory may be more real than we think? They could well add him to their anthology of 'testimony' about the 'Fourth Secret'.
www.tldm.org/News10/ThirdSecretGreatApostasy.htm

In any case, we do not need a prophecy to tell us that what has been happening in the Church and to the Church especially with the advent of Bergoglio amounts indeed to 'a great apostasy'.


P.S. I now have the link to Part 1 of the interview with Cardinal Burke, published by THE WANDERER on August 7:
http://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/frontpage/interview-with-cardinal-burke-discriminating-mercy-defending-christ-and-his-church-with-true-love/

TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 16 agosto 2017 17:10
For some reason, the posts I made after the last one above have disappeared - the last one was a translation of Aldo Maria Valli's very pertinent reflection on the inflation and abuse of 'dialog' as the panacea advocated for every problem....I had posts on the Assumption (Fr. Stravinskas's homily at Holy Innocents yesterday, and an account of how the Pope has chosen in 2016 and again this year, not to celebrate a Mass on Assumption Day; on the 8/15 PewSitter and Canon212 headlines; on some very pertinent reflections on the Papacy by Cardinal Ratzinger back in 2001; and Cardinal Burke on the formal correction that will follow the DUBIA and on apostasy in the Church... They were still there this morning when I entered a slight correction to my introduction to Valli's article, and I could not have accidentally deleted Valli's article by doing so because I certainly did not hit the Delete button, and in any case, one always get a confirmation alert before any post can be deleted. then how did the earlier 3 posts get deleted? It is so frustrating to deal with the unpredictable deus ex machina that cyberspace has become.. I am therefore leaving space to reconstruct those posts (which means having to translate Valli's article all over!)

8/17/17
Another losing battle with the Forum server today. I did manage to re-post the Assumption and Cardinal Burke items with only 'minor' inconveniences such as slooooow registration of words 10-15 seconds after they are typed. But I had to do the Cardinal Ratzinger/Papacy item three times over because the Forum server froze on me so I could not save what I had already posted, then Google Chrome shut up on its own (it's doing that a lot these days) with the same loss, and finally, I lost the Word document on which I was trying to compose the whole post first... In which time I could have re-translated the Valli article on dialog, which, believe me, is a must-read... So I am still behind in that....
TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 17 agosto 2017 02:55
August 16, 2017

Canon212.com


PewSitter


Cardinal Sarah:
The new revolutionaries are trying
to destroy the Christian family

People once again need to rise up like the Vendée Catholics in the 18th century

by Nick Hallett

Wednesday, 16 Aug 2017

Modern Western advocates of abortion and population control in Africa are like the French revolutionaries who massacred the people of Vendée, Cardinal Robert Sarah has said.

In a homily honouring the Vendée martyrs, published online by Famille Chrétienne, Cardinal Sarah praised the region and its inhabitants for resisting atheistic republicanism during the Revolution, but said that the Church and the traditional family still faced persecution.

“Who will rise today for God?” the cardinal asked. “Who will dare to confront the modern persecutors of the Church? Who will have the courage to rise up without any weapons other than the rosary and the Sacred Heart, to face the columns of death of our time?”

These modern “columns of death”, the cardinal explained, were “relativism, indifferentism and contempt for God”.

“Who will say to this world that the only freedom worth dying for is the freedom to believe?”


The War in the Vendée, which lasted from March to December 1793, was a popular uprising against France’s revolutionary republican government. It was led by the self-styled Catholic and Royal Army, which was largely composed of peasants.

In the aftermath of the rebellion, tens of thousands of civilians were massacred by the so-called “Infernal Columns” of republican general Louis Marie Turreau. Many of those who died have been beatified by the Church.

The Guinean cardinal said that those who advocate sterilisation, abortion and population control, especially for Africa, are the modern equivalent of those Infernal Columns.

“Once again today, more than ever, revolutionary ideologists want to annihilate the natural place of self-giving, joyful generosity and of love. I want to talk about the family! Gender ideology, and contempt for fertility and fidelity are the many slogans of this revolution.”

The cardinal added that, just as in the Vendée, modern revolutionaries want to exterminate families.

“These new revolutionaries are worried by the generosity of large families. They ridicule Christian families, for they embody all that they hate. They are ready to launch new Infernal Columns on Africa to put pressure on families and impose sterilisation, abortion and contraception. Africa, like the Vendée, will resist! Christian families everywhere must be the joyful spearheads of a revolt against this new dictatorship of selfishness!”

Cardinal Sarah called on the French people to live up to the reputation of their Vendean ancestors and stand up for traditional Christianity amid a new onslaught.

“Today in the East, Pakistan and Africa, our Christian brothers die for their faith, crushed by the pillars of persecuting Islamism. And you, people of France, you, people of Vendée, when will you rise with the peaceful weapons of prayer and charity to defend your faith?

“My friends, the blood of martyrs flows in your veins, be faithful to it! We are all spiritually sons of la Vendée martyre!”
TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 18 agosto 2017 05:57
August 17, 2017

PewSitter


Canon212.com





z2SD210823
00lunedì 23 agosto 2021 11:14
Che Dio vi benedica !
z2SD210823
00lunedì 23 agosto 2021 11:16
Che Dio vi benedica [url=https://www.reddit.com/]![/url]
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 17:08.
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com