Follow the link to the blog “Call Me Jorge” and read an interesting page from an interesting book about the Middle Ages. if you click the page the click will lead you to the internet version of the book.
Then try to explain the differences between the approach of a King of the past, and the approach of a Pope of the present. A Pope who would not only invite the Jew to his discussion, but would insist that he eats kosher as he assures him that the Old Covenant still applies to him and wonders why men must bicker because of matters that only interest theologians.
Finally, you may want to wonder what the Saint of the past would have thought of a Pope like the present one, and how would he have gauged the latter’s chances of salvation unless repentance intervenes before death.
Whenever I read these stories from the past I feel a sense of vertigo at the thought of how the most elementary sense of Christianity has deteriorated in our time. At the same time, it is consoling to know that even in places like Cluny mistakes of the sort were made; not that the Cluny monks would have been in the least interested in “dialogue” as it is understood today (the “I am OK, you are OK” sort; they certainly had the conversion of the infidels in mind at all times), but that they too were able to lack in prudence at times.
Every Jew (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else) is evangelisation material. Every Jew (or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever else) is in danger of damnation if he dies in the denial of Christ. This being the case, one can only imagine what will might happen to a Pope that encourages infidels in their own error, and scolds the Catholics who want to convert them.
Francis must be an atheist. There is no other way how he could, otherwise, be able to sleep at night.
Today, Kindergarten Pope has given us another little sermon about how bad we are when we insist on being Catholics. Not only conversion (we knew that already), but even honest to God Catholic apologetics is now clearly a no-no. Shut up already, will you? Your Catholicism is “self-enclosed”, “exclusive”. It creates “competition”. It is divisive. It does not do anything for the unity of the Christians. You are bad. Don’t ya know that “all of us are at the service of the one Gospel!”?
Whenever you hear some off-the-cuff comment ask yourself: what would Satan do? You will notice he would probably do just like TMAHICH.
Religions are made of differences. Religions are differences. What defines us as Catholics is not what we have in common with other religions or with other Christians. What makes us Catholics as opposed to everyone else is exactly that in which we are different from all the others.
When we stand up in Church and recite the Creed, we do nothing else than stand up and state our difference, solemnly proclaiming what divides us from others. Actually, and if we really want to be authentically Catholic, we are stating what divides the others from us, from the One True Church of Christ. If we did not do so, we would simply not deserve to be called Catholics.
What Francis’ true stance is concerning the Creed, the Dogmas specific to Catholicism, and the entire patrimony of unique Catholic Truth is very easy to grasp: to him, they are obstacles in that they “divide” Christians; and we are “bent on imposing a uniformity based on merely human calculations”. Therefore, in so far as they lead to Catholic apologetics (which, by their very nature, they must necessarily do) these Truths of the Church must be, according to Francis, an enemy to “peace” among the Christians, to this famed “union” of people just meeting and discussing of … what is utterly obvious to all of them.
A union, this, which – like the rest of Francis’ thinking, talking and acting – is clearly perverted. The “union” that Francis has in mind does not consist in others becoming Catholics (and how could they, if the attitude to conversion is “no, no, no!”? How can this happen even by a happy, subtle, gradual process, if even apologetics is not desired?), rather this “union” seems to consist in Catholics and all the others “meeting” somewhere “out there”, in a vague and utterly undefined region where Truth just does not count and which can, therefore, only be in hell.
To “focus on what unites us” is just a hypocritical, subtle, satanic way of saying that we should “forget the truths for which we stand”. There can be no other meaning, then we have to deal with Truth here, not with the pitiful decision to avoid football talk in the home of the fresh Champions League Final losers.
Did Jesus focus on what “united” him to the Pharisees and Sadducees? Did he say to us that He is the Son of Man but hey, chill out dude, whatever, the most important thing is to get along? Did He ask Peter to focus on what unites him to, say, the Essenes? What does Francis think, that Jesus’ Cross is the product of ecu-maniacal thinking and “meeting the other half way”?
This man is subversive every day. Every thought of his is profoundly anti-Catholic. He appears so festered, so rotten in his hate for the Church that – as “Rabbitgate” clearly showed – he is even unable to realise how easily and naturally he goes against Her all the time. The man truly has no clue even when he is faking it. He is an amateur even at being a Jesuit.
Forget what unites us. Focus on what divides us instead. “Unity” away from Truth means being disunited from God, and united with the world and his false promises of cheap mutual delusion. The only thing that stays between us and Francis’ “unity” is… Christ. We stand by Christ’s Truth, we stand by His Cross. This is what counts. But hey: the moment you are ready to forget Christ everything falls into place, becomes so easy, and becomes so… Francis. I love vanilla, you love chocolate, let’s not quarrel about that…
We are different. And we are, by the by, the only shop in town. We proudly proclaim what separates us from every other religion or “denomination”. We proudly proclaim the Truth of this difference, make of it our banner, and move to the conquest – that is: the conversion – of those who are wrong. Which is: all others.
When I am so old and gone in the head that I am unable to eat anything else than semolina, the stupid kindergarten “wisdom” of Francis might – just might, and according to brain function decay – make an impression on me. But certainly not before. This rhetoric is at the cheapest level of stupidity imaginable in a Pope. It is the negation of what a Pope is. It is good for the little children and those who have returned to that state. It should deeply offend everyone else.
Francis should consider resigning and wheelchairing off to Venezuela as a defrocked layman. His being Pope is, ipso facto, a huge statement of the Catholic difference, as the Petrine Office is possibly the most immediate, planetary known symbol of what divides us from everyone else. There is nothing else that screams “self-enclosed” and “exclusive” like it. And being a Cardinal, a Bishop or simply a priest means also shouting an entire world of thinking, living and believing in utter contrast to the secular mentality out there.
If Francis were, therefore, coherent, he would resign and abandon the habit, practising what he preaches to his kindergarten audience and becoming just another preacher of good-ism.
But he will not, because by all rhetoric of union he bloody well likes to be the Pope, and savours every minute. TMAHICH.
We are different. We are different from non-Catholics, and we are very different from Francis.
Pray for him that he may discover it before he dies, and acts accordingly. Nothing is impossible to God. But the odds are that he will spend eternity in the company of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Martini. He will have plenty of time to play the “what unites us” game with them, then.
Though I doubt he would like it.
I wonder when Francis will hit the bottom.
A video that has been posted to my comment box (with many thanks to Harold Norwood) is the latest example of this.
This seven-minutes-too-long video seems an improvised after-lunch initiative after a glass too much; an extemporaneous, obviously unplanned address at Protestants of the Pentecostal variety.
The quality of the video is clearly amateurish. Francis does not talk in any structured way. He sits in a very strange manner, at an uncomfortable angle. When he gets near to the camera, the image is unflattering. The camera moves and zooms in and out in a way that would make a professional – and even a good amateur – cringe. It is as if someone had switched on a camera after a grappa or two and had said “will you say something for us, Holy Father?” And there goes the Rambling Bishop, never able to say “no” to a switched-on camera…
It is as if Francis would insist on devaluing the office of the Pope at any possible and impossible occasion. Try to imagine Benedict XVI, or even Paul VI, trusting the image and the message of the Church to improvised camera talks.
What he says, though, is even worse than how he says it. There is in this message no mention whatever of who is right and who is wrong. The Church and heretics are “un po’… mi permetto la parola… separati” (“a bit… I allow myself the word… separated”), as if even mentioning to Heretics that they have separated themselves from the Church of Christ were not acceptable. The reasons for the separation are in ous sins, he says, so that it really can’t be seen anymore who would be to blame for the existence of hundred of millions of Protestants. Why did you choose death, Thomas More? Why did you march to the scaffold, Bishop Fisher? Don’t you know we are all sinners?
He even calls the chap “brother bishop”. Countless Catholics have suffered persecution or death to avoid this utter crap. This man just doesn’t care.
This separation between the Bishop of Rome and other, erm, er “bishops” (his words, not mine) would be the fruit of “malintesi”, “misunderstandings”. There’s a long history of sins on both sides, you see.
Who is guilty for this? Everyone! Because you see, we are all sinners, so the boundaries between the wrong sects and the right Church can be wonderfully blurred.
We must find each other as brothers, and cry together as brothers. How this finding and crying will help reconcile different theologies he does not say; but he doesn’t seem very aware the theological differences are there, either, so this is par for the course. His theology seems to stop at the requirement that Catholics and Heretics “praise Jesus Christ as the only Lord of History”, though I was never aware that non-Catholics worship Baal. Similarly, he seems to think that if people “hug”, the Lord will complete the work in some way, performing a “miracle” for which he has no intention of doing anything sensible, or truthful, whatsoever.
After-lunch fluff for the masses.
Heavens, this one is Pope. He should be the one who forcefully extols the Truth of the Only Church. He should be the one warning all the time that outside of the Church there is no salvation. He should stress his role of Vicar of Christ and Successor of Peter, and his duty to call all the shattered sheep to be united in the only place where they are supposed to be, rather than presenting himself merely as a “brother” wishing a hug, and not even daring to say which one is the right side.
This is Francis’ ecumenism: I am OK, you are OK. We are separated. Shit happens. No need to examine why, because it’s everyone’s fault.
Not only there is in this video no mention whatever of the intrinsic superiority of the Church compared to every heresy, and of the danger for the heretic’s soul if he continues in error; but there is an insisted lowering of the Papacy to buddy level, and of the Church to just the role of a member of the family of Christ. Manzoni’s citation is the only thing that can be saved of these seven minutes; but it clearly does not save the flawed argument of one waiting for miracles, rather than being Pope. There is no defence of Catholic Truth, no call to conversion; there is not even the wish for the heretics’ conversion, then this expected miracle does not necessarily entail it; and the Proddies listening to it will get this message very clearly: if both sides have sinned, both sides must change.
Let’s hug. God will sort it out.
One of these days we will wake up to find on youtube videos of Francis chatting with Monsignor Ricca, or cooking a proper kosher meal together with his buddy, the Rabbi.
This amateurish video and its confused rambling are a fitting reflection of this amateurish and confused papacy, and of a man completely addicted to media appearances and willing to sink himself and the papacy to casual rambling level for the sake of an easy popularity and of insipid, emotional, illogical, nonsensical hot air that carefully avoids the issue – to wit: heresy – and prefers to take refuge in easy waffling about the obvious fact that “we are all sinners”.
Of course we are all sinners. But they are heretics. This makes a big difference for Catholicism, but I am not sure it does for Francis.
The fish stinks from the head down. Looking at this head, can you be surprised at the mighty stink?
The video above comes from the excellent blog of Louie Verrecchio. Once again, Mr Verrecchio says it better than I ever could, so I thought I would not deprive my readers of this pearl. If the video does not work on your screen, the link will lead you directly to it.
The video is short, and I really suggest to watch it to the end.
I allow myself to only add a little detail: shortly after the 1:00 mark, Francis addresses a greeting to “the Muslims of the entire world, our brothers”. Then, he stops and openly encourages an applause or cheer, which is denied to him in the most evident manner. If dozen of thousand of Italians had cheered, the noise would have been deafening. As it is, he gets the faintest of courtesy claps, possibly from the clergy present.
It’s good to see not everyone is blind, and willing to follow this obviously blind man.
Enjoy the video.
A rather robust and on the whole not at all disappointing speech from Pope Francis yesterday in front of the diplomatic corps. The text is everywhere.
Whilst we Catholic bloggers are obviously not grading Popes’ speeches, this is the beginning of a Pontificate which might well become rather disquieting. It is, therefore, natural that his public utterances are now watched with particular – actually, anxious – attention.
My take on the speech follows. If you want to read it, fine. If you think Popes’ speeches must not be commented on, click away now. Your comment will be thrashed.
So there we are.
1. No ad libitum additions. This being a speech in front of diplomatic corps, adding them might have been a bit too much spontaneity. Or it might be that the Pontiff prefers to reflect well in advance on all he wants to say. This is probably the wisest course of conduct, as spontaneous language may lack the clarity of a prepared speech.
2. No trace of Liberation Theology. The mention of poverty seems to me perfectly in line with Catholic teaching; the Pope also makes reference to spiritual poverty; he even brilliantly links it to the “tyranny of relativism”. A Pope is, as he is Pope, obviously concerned with poverty. In fact, I don’t think many Popes weren’t: Pope Leo X perhaps, and a handful of others like him. As long as this does not become a criticism of Capitalism qua capitalism, or a programmatic stance to remake the planet and human nature with it, I think every Catholic should be pleased; nay, relieved.
3. “There is no true peace without truth!” A beautiful, beautiful statement, and possibly the main message this speech wanted to send out. Everything is based on Truth, and whoever betrays the Truth in the assumed interest of peace is, in fact, betraying both and achieving none.
4. “Pontiff means bridge builder”. Well, yes and no. Pontiff comes from the Latin Pontifex, the highest religious office among the Romans. The spiritual origin of this word are lost in the night of time – like many Roman religious customs and names: the Romans clung to their religious traditions so stubbornly that names were kept even after their meaning was lost -. At University, we were taught whilst the exact origin of the name is unknown, the most likely explanation is that in the very beginning what we today called “technology”, or “technical knowledge”, had a sacred meaning, as in those societal structures they were linked with higher wisdom. Pons facere might therefore well have referred to the “technology of bridge building”, a wisdom considered sacred and therefore in the hand of the Roman clergy, with their head aptly called the “bridge builder”, the Pontifex. Whilst Pope Peter is obviously free to take this word as an inspiration of what he wants to do, it does not seem correct to say or imply past generations have seen the role of the Pontiff as the one of “bridge builder” in the sense of “facilitator of dialogue”, unless of course we talk here of pure evangelisation work. The “bridges” of past Popes were meant to transmit Truth from one shore to the other. Which leads us nicely to the next point,
5. “Dialogue”. It is not entirely clear to me how the bridge building and the dialogue can be squared with wanting to base everything on Truth. If everything is based on Truth, “dialogue” also is. But then it’s not “dialogue” in the V II sense anymore, but pure, unadulterated, unapologetic evangelisation work. Did the Pontiff mean “dialogue” in this sense? I hope so, and his former extolling that peace must be based on Truth seems to enforce the point. Can the “dialogue” be understood in the (spirit of) V II sense of “I am OK where I am, you are OK where you are”? Methinks, he who wants it will be able to read the reference in this way, too. Still, we must be clear before V II “dialogue” was basically seen as evangelisation work: you talk to everyone because everyone needs the Truth.
6. St. Francis. Last time I looked, St. Francis’ “dialogue” with Islam took the form of Crusade and call to conversion. That’s the thing with the Truth, you see.
7. “Dialogue with Islam”. Dialogue with the Islamic world, surely? That is, with Muslims? What I know of Islam excludes that there may ever be any form of “dialogue” with Islam as religion. Like Catholicism, Islam is based on a set of beliefs that does not admit any negotiation and is, therefore, not a possible subject of any “dialogue”. Richard Lionheart certainly “dialogued” with Saladin, but it was not a dialogue between Christianity and Islam, which is intrinsically impossible. Christianity wants the death of Islam, Islam wants the death of Christianity. It’s as simple as that. Christ didn’t say “I am the way, the Dialogue and the Life”. From the Truth of Christ it necessarily follows that Islam has, qua Islam, no right of existence.
Assuming it was here meant “dialogue with Muslims of good will”, and assuming it is the same dialogue Richard had with Saladin (a practical approach to practical problems, not a negotiation on Truth or an acceptance of Lie) I think the dialogue certainly has its own place. If I want to have a Cathedral built in Kuwait City, I will need to dialogue. If I want to explore Sunday festivities for Christians living in Muslim countries, I will have to dialogue. But again, this “dialogue” can only ever be in the service of evangelisation with peaceful means. Still, this was a speech in front of diplomats, so peace and dialogues were naturally to be stressed.
I am, as already stated, relieved. But I also am a mistrustful guy, and the last fifty years have taught me to mistrust V II Popes, none of whom can be defined as “orthodox” by any pre-V II, that is, correct, standard of the word. Therefore, I will wait to see how seriously this Pope takes the concept of Truth, and how much in his mind “dialogue” is, as it necessarily must be, the servant of Truth.
The touchstone of this will be in the new Pope’s approach to “ecumenism”. If his ecumenism will be of the “Assisi meeting” style, we will know Truth is sacrificed to “dialogue”. If he, on the other hand, will always be attentive to stress that everything, even the modern religion of “peace”, must be based on Truth, then I’d say this Pontificate might well surprise us.
It is important that we keep Francis in our prayers.
I have already mentioned the beautiful words of the Holy Father concerning what happens when one builds on sand.
I am certainly not being in any way original or innovative when I say exactly the same concept applies to the Liturgy.
One of the many concepts V II never understood (or willingly demolished) is the absolute centrality of the Liturgy in the life of the Church.
If the Church is the engine, the Liturgy is the motor oil. Exactly in the same way as the motor oil is absolutely indispensable for the life of the engine and a cheap oil will gravely impair the ability of the engine to work properly and lead to increased wear, bad liturgy will seriously impair the Church’s ability to function correctly.
One may think that a Pope with wrong liturgical ideas is half so bad if he is still orthodox on many Catholic issues, but this reasoning does not consider that in the same way as an engine can never work properly if the motor oil is mediocre, the Church will never work properly until she repairs her liturgy.
Bad liturgy leads to bad theology. This might not be immediately evident in the one or the other, but it is certainly evident in the life of the Church, and the fact the devastation of traditional Catholci thinking went hand in hand with the devastation of traditional theology is a chilling example of this.
Nor can we say that the Holy Father is a paragon of sound Catholic thinking, but with the idiosyncrasy of liking Pinocchio Masses.
If one can even think of celebrating a Pinocchio Mass, there’s an awful lot already wrong with him, and this wrong will come out however orthodox one may sincerely be – and I am sure the Holy Father is – in other matters.
Look at the video above (courtesy of Ars Orandi, another blog it is very difficult to praise enough), and see what the then-Cardinal made of the authentic Church teaching on religious liberty. His personal Gospel seems to read “Go ye therefore, and teach no nations, wearing a yarmulke in the name of Peace, Inclusiveness and Inter-religious Dialogue”.
In this case, bad liturgy not only led to the wrongest possible ecu-mania, but even to forgetfulness of the First commandment.
You see very clearly that one can be sincerely moved to be a good Catholic, but if one’s liturgy is awful his theology will not be much better.
The video above, besides being utterly ridiculous in itself (“Umbanda”? Seriously?), shows what happens when “it’s possible to leave in peace” comes before “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
If you liked Assisi I, II and III, you will love this Pontificate.
Please keep your seatbelt securely fastened.
From Vatican Radio’s website (with kudos to the eponymous flower)
November 04, 2011) Vatican’s top official for inter-religious dialogue is on a visit to India to follow up on the impetus given by the interfaith peace meeting convoked by Pope Benedict XVI on Oct. 27 in the central Italian town of Assisi. Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue accompanied by Council secretary Archbishop Pierluigi Celata left for India on Friday to hold meetings with representatives of Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism and Islam. Their schedule until Nov. 14 includes stops in Mumbai, Pune, New Delhi and Amritsar, home to the Golden Temple, Sikhism’s holiest shrine. Their schedule has been organized by the Indian bishops and includes a meeting with Muslim leaders in Mumbai on Sunday. A meeting with Hindus is scheduled from Nov. 6-10 in Pune and another meeting and a seminar with Sikhs is slated Nov. 11-12 in Amritsar. On Nov. 13 they are to hold a meeting and a seminar with Jains in the Indian capital before heading back to Rome.
This is grand, isn’t it?
He had the impetus. He just had to follow up on it….
I just have an “impetus” to have a ten-day holiday in India, too. I should really, really follow up on it. Pity I am not so much into this kind of ecumenism, let alone have people forking out for the costs….
I can vividly picture Cardinal Tauran sitting there in Assisi with his faithful secretary, thinking: “wow, these people are really, really cool! Like, soooo cool! I must get to know them better, all of them! I mean, like, we can learn soooo much from Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism and Islam! Perhaps I should pray in the Golden Temple? It would be, like, sooo cool!….”
Or perhaps he just wanted to profit from Assisi to take an exotic holiday the other side of the planet, with the programme looking very much like a sightseeing guide.
I truly hope the second hypothesis is true, and the Cardinal is just wasting the money of the faithful for his own pleasure.
To help you to recover after the orgy of crowd-pleasing peace slogans – and worse, as I might write separately – some points from Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos.
All emphases mine. Enjoy:
…although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act, it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself?
If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy.
Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth.
These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”
Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord’s Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, “the one mediator of God and men”. How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians.
So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.
I would like to explain to you the madness of the mentality engendered by Vatican II with two examples.
1) Some years ago I bought the “New Jerome Biblical Commentary” directly from Amazon (that is: without reading the introduction, etc.).When the tome arrived, I noticed that it was explicitly said that some of the contributions had been written by non-Cathlics, but their orthodoxy had been checked so there need be no worries.
This stroke me as very odd. Clearly, a non-Catholic is a person who is in error and no amount of ecu-maniacal waffle will ever change a iota in this. Why, therefore, a person who is in error might be asked to write a commentary about the truth is simply beyond me. “Ah, but we have checked!”, says the publisher; which sounds as logical as to say that you have asked the plumber to make a new chair for you, but you have checked that the chair is all right. One also wonders why it was so difficult to ask Catholic authors in the first place, as one assumes that there must still be a good number available. The only possible answer is that in the post Vatican II climate, it is considered bon ton to allow Protestants to explain Christianity to Catholics. I also wonder why the opinion about “orthodoxy” of a person who can even conceive to allow a Protestant to form Catholic consciences should be of any value. I mean, these are people telling me that the plumber is good enough to make me a new chair! Finally, I wonder whether even the texts from Catholic authors are properly orthodox: an editor so concerned with “ecumenism” as to invite Protestant authors might well choose only those among the Catholic authors who are most accepted by Protestants. You see, the one with orthodoxy is a slippery slope: if an editor doesn’t show that orthodoxy is the most important thing to him, he simply loses credibility.
Some people must stop drinking the Kool-aid (or the vodka) and start acting as Catholics. My tip to you: don’t buy the book, as the money can be better invested in writings of people of non dubious orthodoxy.
2) More recently, I ordered (always by Amazon, the situation in British bookstores being rather tragic, with “gay and lesbian” sections everywhere, and books of aggressive atheists prominently displayed in the meager “Christianity” section) a book called “A Benedictine daily prayer: a short breviary”. I thought this was safe, as it came directly from the religious order.
Fat chance. Once received the book, I noticed the comment that the book had been compiled in such a way as to be usable also by Protestants, in that those passages and prayers had been chosen, that are compatible with non-Catholic Christianity.This was explained with the fact that particularly in the US, such books are used in “ecumenical” communities. Which is as to say: as there are Catholics who pray together with Protestants (which as far as I know they are not even allowed to do; I might be wrong), let us protestantise ourselves. Here post-V II “ecumenism” shows its real face.
Isn’t it beautiful? You buy a (short) breviary from a Catholic religious order, and they give you something which has been purged from evidently Catholic elements in order to be acceptable to non-Catholics.
Idiots. No wait, let me rephrase this in a more polite manner. Idiots.
Also please note that the introduction made clear that the Benedictines themselves can’t use the version sold to me and must refer to properly orthodox sources instead. So, this compilation is not good enough for them, but I can use it. This is patronising besides being idiotic.
This is the situation we are in these tragic post-Vatican II years; years when you can’t even buy a Benedictine breviary without falling in the trap of ever-present ecu-maniacal spirit.
At that point I have decided that in principle I wouldn’t buy anything published after the V II years anymore. Thankfully, we have a wealth of books that are now becoming available again (think of Fulton Sheen, or Ronald Knox, and the likes) and if one looks long enough one can find real pearls of Catholic orthodoxy, like the never enough admired Iota Unum, also available online for free. The wealth of Catholic apologetics written in times above suspicion grows every day, and the next years will certainly see an explosion in supply as Catholics wake up to the drunkenness of the post Vatican II mentality.
I suggest that you follow, as far as practicable, the same pattern whenever you are not absolutely certain beforehand of the book’s orthodoxy (and no, the book coming from the Benedictines is not enough!).
In the present times, you trust everything published after V II at your own peril.