Daily Archives: July 7, 2012
The latest events have persuaded me that an important attempt could be made to promote understanding between the Vatican and the SSPX: that is, to promote… understanding.
What if it was decided that Archbishop Mueller is sent to Zaitzkofen on an extended holiday (what a luck! In his very old diocese!) to, erm, deepen his understanding of Catholic doctrine?
During a stay of, say, six months (which could be extended to twelve if the need should arise) he could be properly instructed in a German-speaking, idyllic, understanding, error-free environment, where every enormity he says will be lovingly corrected and met with an understanding smile – he was a pupil of Lehmann, poor man – and a pat on the back.
After the six months, he could come back to his duties and resume his office – and the negotiations with the SSPX – starting from a new footing, made of real understanding.
What do you think?
Writing about the impressive (as always) reaction of the SSPX to the astonishing appointment of the goat as head-gardener, Christopher Gillibrand of Catholic Church Conservation (a fountain of wisdom and useful information these days, I have already mentioned his blog posts more than once) has, almost as an aside, a most useful observation.
As the Holy Father is now in Castelgandolfo to reflect about his self-inflicted troubles and the Vatican activity comes more or less to a halt, I think Gillibrand’s suggestion would make an excellent summer reading for the newly appointed Archbishop
Goat Bock Mueller.
I give below the suggestion verbatim. I merely allow myself to notice the insistence of the author for a word with which the newly appointed guardian of Catholic doctrinal orthodoxy seems not to be very familiar, not even after the extensive research one imagines necessary before publishing a book with one’s name on it: dogma.
Text as follows:
I can always send the new CDF a copy of Mariologia by Father Benedictus Henricus Merkelbach OP. It has three extensive chapters on these matters.The first beginsDogma fidei est Matrem Dei fuisse Virginem ante partem et in ipsa conceptione Filii sui(it is a dogma of the Faith that the Mother of God remained a Virgin before birth and in the Conception of her Son.The secondDogma fidei est Matrem Dei esse virginem in partu(it is a dogma of the Faith that the Mother of God remained a Virgin at birth)The thirdDogma fidei est Matrem Dei esse virginem post partum(it is a dogma of the Faith that the Mother of God remained a Virgin after birth)In summary!Triplex Virginitas Mariae scil ante partum, in partu, et post partum est de fide.He can return it only if a a letter is attached saying that he gives assent to the teaching of the Church in all ages but our own
It is very embarrassing to say “we got it so wrong we should all resign and apply for a job at McDonald’s”. Particularly when the people in question lead the Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum visited by people from all over the world.
Therefore – and in order to avoid having to resign – the responsible for the museum have decided to back pedal a bit at a time, in order to look less ideologised, blind and stupid when the time comes to say “erm, aah, well, actually….”.
For the moment they limit themselves to show the arguments of the thinking minds together with those of the liberals; but frankly, everyone knows the game is up.
McDonald’s awaits. Perfectly honourable profession. Much better than working at the denigration of such an excellent man, one of the key people in the XX century, and one who saved the backside of so many Jews they could fill the entire Gaza strip with them.
Time to wake up, boys and girls.
Summorum Pontificum is, no doubt, the great accomplishment of this papacy (and will probably remain the only one). His reach is certainly of historical significance, and I would not be surprised if in 100 years the 7 July 2007 were to be still remember as the day the Church symbolically started to march towards sobriety.
The problem with Summorum Pontificum, though, is that for such a great theoretical accomplishment not much has been accomplished. The intention to “free” the Traditional Mass from the freeze in which it had been kept prisoner for more than 35 years was not accompanied by the desire to really use it. Rather, the Traditional Mass was moved more or less from the freezer to the fridge, and left there.
Following a typical mark of this pontificate, Summorum Pontificum is a good example of Pope Ratzinger’s way of thinking: continuation of progressive policies, whilst being perceived to be a friend of those of traditional inclinations.
In my eyes, with it the Pontiff had the following objective:
1. link his name with a policy which would ensure his name remains respected when the tide turns.
2. give the traddies some fodder, so they can think he is his friend.
3. avoid any enforcement in practice, and
4. continue undisturbed with more or less scandalous and very often mediocre appointments, once the reputation of “conservative Pope friend of the tradition” has been established.
Immediately after Summorum Pontificum, many bishops started to openly oppose it. Year after year, the Pope did nothing to allow a decent implementation of his great historic initiative, and one of those bishops who was most active in the opposition to traditional liturgy was now, by his own choice, moved to the Congregation for Divine Worship. You can’t have better evidence that Pope Benedict never wanted Summorum Pontificum to be implemented.
Summorum Pontificum will remain, I am afraid, a symbol of what this pontificate could have been, and at the same time a good example of the Pontiff’s rather duplicitous policy of giving conservative Catholics some cookies in theory, so that the thus won reputation coud allow him to continue to protect the liberal V-II old guard (of which he is integral part) in practice.
Look on the internet at the way the newly appointed head of the Congregation for the Divine Worship, Roche, arranged his own chapel/prayer room, and tell me whether ever Bugnini would have tolerated something like that.
Pope Benedict does not seem to have a problem with it.
This will be published from the Italian magazine Panorama today.
If what is alleged is true, the chap was born around 1982, from a prelate who evidently learned the lesson of the Sixty-Eighters so well he was still practising free love many years later.
Whilst we do not know the source, this looks like the next stage of the Vatileaks affair, in the sense that it seems to come from the same people.
I am, obviously, not worried as both Cardinals (Bertone and the influential dad) seem to have the confidence of the Holy Father, and we all know how good he is in selecting the very worst.
The Panorama article makes some names of Cardinals, as the allegations are precise enough as to not allow many alternatives as to who the involved prelates might be. I prefer not to report the names, as it might well be that this last “leak” is motivated by a desire to slander without any proof, spreading a climate of falseness and lies. Still, this will make the round of the planet today, so it’s better you read it here…
I wouldn’t bet my pint that the slander hypothesis is the case, though: if the leakers are the same we have seen operating in the past, we will probably see the evidence of what they say rather soon. They seem to be very well informed, and very determined.
Illegitimate sons of Cardinals aren’t really a novelty, and their papas generally provide for them a good situation. The most famous example is probably Cesare Borgia, in Italy called Il Valentino: bishop at 15 (of Valencia, hence the name) and cardinal at 18, one can’t say papa wasn’t providing for his personal welfare… still, one would have thought these things are out of fashion now…
As it stands, we are solidly on our way of having all the Church corruption of the XVI Century, without any of the theological orthodoxy.
Mala tempora currunt.
Hat tip to Chris Gillibrand at Catholic Church Conservation.
Those who wish can instruct themselves here.
Some excerpt lovingly chosen by yours truly. Emphases mine. If the link should not work, follow the original site to click around.
The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers. The words of the prophet Isaias (vii, 14) are understood in this sense by
- St. Irenaeus (III, 21; see Eusebius, Church History V.8),
- Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35),
- Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., III, 13; Adv. Judæos, IX),
- St. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 84),
- St. John Chrysostom (Hom. v in Matth., n. 3; in Isa., VII, n. 5);
- St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxviii, n. 7),
- Eusebius (Demonstrat. ev., VIII, i),
- Rufinus (Lib. fid., 43),
- St. Basil (in Isa., vii, 14; Hom. in S. Generat. Christi, n. 4, if St. Basil be the author of these two passages),
- St. Jerome and Theodoretus (in Isa., vii, 14),
- St. Isidore (Adv. Judæos, I, x, n. 3),
- St. Ildefonsus (De perpetua virginit. s. Mariæ, iii).
The contrary doctrine is called:
- “madness and blasphemy” by Gennadius (De dogm. eccl., lxix),
- “madness” by Origen (in Luc., h, vii),
- “sacrilege” by St. Ambrose (De instit. virg., V, xxxv),
- “impiety and smacking of atheism” by Philostorgius (VI, 2),
- “perfidy” by St. Bede (hom. v, and xxii),
- “full of blasphemies” by the author of Prædestin. (i, 84),
- “perfidy of the Jews” by Pope Siricius (ep. ix, 3),
- “heresy” by St. Augustine (De Hær. h., lvi).
There’s a lot to click about, but most importantly there’s a lot to be ashamed of.