Thursday, February 28, 2013

Why are you scoffing at the possibility of Burke?

Pope Pius XIII?

"You mean to tell me you are willing to bet your fortune on Raymond Burke?" My friend was absolutely incredulous.

"Yes!" I replied as confidently as I had stated the next pope was going to be Raymond Burke when the question inevitably came up at lunch today.

"No one in that conclave will want him!" He shook his head and gave that look like I had totally lost my mind.

"That very well could be the case, but I think the Holy Ghost wants Burke, and why not?" And indeed, why not?

I agree with my friend that an extremely small minority would even, at least at this time, entertain electing Raymond Cardinal Burke to the Throne of Peter. In fact, the idea might very well make some of them sick to their stomachs. However, there are some good reasons why, in the end, Burke will be elected Supreme Pontiff.

First, we have had a long period of administration by theologians, and judging by the mess they have left behind, a true administrator, either a proven pastor or a canon lawyer, who can bring some order to a wounded and disgraced Vatican will be elected. Check for Burke.

Second, while there will be a strong inclination to elect an Italian after over a quarter of a century of non-Italians holding the high office, given, once again, the mess that is in the Vatican there will be a stronger hesitancy to elect an Italian (read "Bertone") insider. A non-European with Vatican experience, but some distance between himself and Bertone and his politicians, will look very attractive. The Cardinal Electors aren't beholding to Bertone and the Vatican diplomatic corpse once the doors are locked, and chances are that a good many of them would like to take some power away from the office of Vatican Secretary of State (we can only hope). Check for Burke.

Third, the "Report of the Three Cardinals" will be handed out as the Cardinal Electors enter the conclave, and that report will definitely point out those who were loyal, and by consequence, will also point out clearly who is "dirty". They are "dirty" in that they are at the center of the scandal or close enough that the publicity fallout would be catastrophic if they were elected pope. That "dirty list" will greatly limit who the Cardinal Electors will be able to choose, and I can say with confidence, that this "dirty list" will include most if not all of Benedict's close circle, the most liberal and progressive candidates, and more than likely, a good many "conservatives" of the Communio crowd (read "New Theologians"). The short list, and don't kid yourself, it will be very short, will include Burke. Check for Burke.

At this point someone might point out that a candidate from South America or Africa stands a better chance. Not so fast. Both South America and Africa have been burned due to the on going clash between the Hegelian Marxists of Liberation Theology, and the thinly veiled Marxists in clerical collars in Africa (read Turkson) on one side, and on the other side, the Hegelian New Theologians of the Communio crowd. The greater the similarity, the greater the division (and hate). The disgraced Communio crowd will never elect a Marxist or anyone who comes from a hotbed of Marxism such as South America or Africa. Once again, check for Burke.

Fourth, Burke is the most brilliant, most qualified individual left. Even if we consider this on a purely human level, those who would dislike Burke most would have to concede they would be better off with someone of his caliber to take the reins of this Vatican, a Vatican that the Catholic world in general will demand a house cleaning of once the "Report of the Three Cardinals" is eventually leaked. His enemies may even see it as opportunity to hand Burke a bucking horse in the hopes that he is thrown and breaks his neck, so to speak.

Lastly, I just have a feeling, so I'm calling it for Raymond Burke.

It's in the hands of the Holy Ghost, and ultimately He will decide, and it will be decided beyond all human reason and motive. May God's Will be done!

But don't be so sure God's Will isn't Raymond Burke...


Novena Prayer for the Election of a Supreme Pontiff

While Ars Orandi is not affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, the Society is often on the front lines in the Spiritual Combat. As is usual in times of distress and crisis, the Society bids its priests and the laity whom they serve to turn to prayer. In light of these most distressing and truly sorrowful events of the last few days, culminating in today's abdication of the Throne of Peter, the Society proposes, once again, a call to prayer, which is fully endorsed and likewise encouraged by this weblog and its contributors. Please join us in offering this novena prayer, starting on March 1st, for the election of a Supreme Pontiff:

Veni, Creator Spiritus
Veni, Creator Spiritus
Mentes tuorum visita
Imple superna gratia
Quae tu creasti pectora


Qui diceris Paraclitus
Altissimi donum Dei
Fons vivus, ignis, caritas
Et Spiritalis unctio


Tu septiformis munere
Digitus paternæ dexteræ
Tu rite promissum Patris
Sermone ditans guttura


Accende lumen sensibus
Infunde amorem cordibus
Infirma nostri corporis
Virtute firmans perpeti


Hostem repellas longius
Pacemque dones protinus
Ductore sic te prævio
Vitemus omne noxium


Per te sciamus da Patrem
Noscamus atque Filium
Teque utriusque Spiritum
Credamus omni tempore


Deo Patri sit gloria
Et Filio, qui a mortuis
Surrexit, ac Paraclito
In sæculorum sæcula. Amen.

Come, Holy Ghost, Creator
Take possession of our souls
Infuse with heavenly grace
The hearts Thou hast created



Thou Who art called the Paraclete
Best gift of the Most High God
Living fountain, fire, charity
And spiritual unction



Thou sevenfold gift
Finger of God’s right hand
Thou promise of the Father
Teaching speech and understanding

Enkindle the light of our minds
Pour love into our hearts
The infirmity of our body
Confirm with perpetual strength

Repulse the enemy even further
And give peace in his stead
May Thou so lead us
That we evade all harm

Through Thee grant us to know
Father as well as Son
And with Both Thee, Spirit, Trinity
Forever may we believe in

Let glory be to God the Father
And to the Son, Who from the dead
Has arisen, and the Paraclete
Unto ages of ages. Amen.


Collect for the Election of the Supreme Pontiff (From the Votive Mass Pro Eligendo Summo Pontifice)



O Lord, with suppliant humility, we entreat Thee, that in Thy boundless mercy Thou wouldst grant the most Holy Roman Church a pontiff, who by his zeal for us, may be pleasing to Thee, and by his good government may be ever honored by Thy people for the glory of Thy name. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son who with Thee livest and reignest world without end. Amen.
V. Most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
R. Pray for us who have recourse to thee!
St. Pius V, pray for us.
St. Pius X, pray for us.

Who Was Pope Benedict XVI? Ratzinger's Dystopian Ecclesiology


Who Was Pope Benedict XVI?

An exclusive Ars Orandi series: an in depth and critical analysis of the Ratzinger papacy.



Ratzinger's Dystopian Ecclesiology

One of the most urgent areas for critical examination is Pope Benedict XVI’s vision for the Church’s future. Benedict’s vision of the Church’s future will, no doubt, have a profound impact on the conclave and the policies of the next papacy, and many of the Church’s mainstream intelligentsia fully realize this.
Ever since the announcement that Pope Benedict XVI will abdicate the Throne of Peter at the end of the month, Dr. Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican, has pumped out, with breathless exuberance, one “Letter from Rome” after another. In the last few days, he has produced about one letter per day. Of particular note, however, is his “Letter from Rome” #15, entitled: “The Pope’s Vision for the Future”, which highlights Ratzinger’s ecclesiology. Moynihan’s “Letter” demonstrates, frighteningly, how uncritically the Pope’s vision is being accepted by the Church’s mainstream intelligentsia.

Dr. Moynihan’s excitement over the abdication of the Throne of Peter, as though it were one of the greatest papal acts in history, is rivaled in Letter #15 by his absolute adoration for Ratzinger’s justification for the wrecked and diminished Church of the post-Vatican II era. Clearly intended to heap praise upon the abdicating pontiff, Moynihan recalls five radio homilies given by Ratzinger in 1969, which catalogued the coming catastrophe for the Church Militant. Ratzinger posited that the Church Militant was positioned upon an evolutionary precipice, from which it would lose a great deal, would lose its members, its institutions, and its place in the societies of men. It would become the Church of the poor and destitute, not in the manner it had before, that is as a shining beacon set on the hill leading the poor and destitute sinner to salvation, but it would become the Church of the poor and destitute, because she would, herself, become poor and destitute. As the future Pope put it:

It will become small and will have to start pretty much all over again. It will no longer have use of the structures it built in its years of prosperity... It will be a more spiritual Church, and will not claim a political mandate flirting with the Right one minute and the Left the next. It will be poor and will become the Church of the destitute.

Theoretically, this poor and destitute Church was to find in the vacuum of her desolation a new “power”, a spiritual center, completely cut off from the world. Ratzinger was to return to this theme in the days after the death of Pope John Paul II, mentioning in the funeral homily how the Church of the future was to be smaller, poorer, and as a result stronger spiritually. The lack of detail in his sermon left open various avenues of interpretation. However, the meaning of his reference to the “smaller” Church Militant was to become clear in the last years of his pontificate.

Moynihan goes on to recall the Holy Father’s now infamous visit to Germany in 2011 when he revisited this notion of a desolate Church in an address to Catholic workers in Freiburg im Breisgau, September 25. Moynihan writes:

"For some decades now we have been experiencing a decline in religious practice and we have been seeing substantial numbers of the baptized drifting away from Church life," Benedict began.

So, in a sense, he was saying that the vision he had set forth in 1969 had, by 2011, come to pass.

He then posed the question this situation inevitably calls forth: should the Church not change?

"This prompts the question: should the Church not change? Must she not adapt her offices and structures to the present day, in order to reach the searching and doubting people of today?"

His answer?

"Yes, there are grounds for change," he said. "There is a need for change. Every Christian and the whole community of the faithful are called to constant change."

But, what type of change?

His answer: that the Church must "set herself apart from her surroundings, become in a certain sense 'unworldly.'"

It is clearly evident that the desolation of the Church has indeed come about, as the Holy Father, himself, has pointed out on numerous occasions. However, we are led to believe, by the Pope and his cheering section at Inside the Vatican, that this desolation is something to be embraced. This desolation, this great falling off, this “silent apostasy” as Pope John Paul II called it, is a crisis that should not be wasted. It is a crisis that will bring about a desired change.

The change desired seems acceptable enough at first glance. It is termed as a turning away from the modern world, a change that will set the Church Militant apart from her surroundings so that she might become “unworldly.” However, what is meant by this unworldliness? The Holy Father answers this question in the most astonishing way!

The Church is immersed in the Redeemer’s outreach to men. When she is truly herself, she is always on the move, she constantly has to place herself at the service of the mission that she has received from the Lord. And therefore she must always open up afresh to the cares of the world, to which she herself belongs, and give herself over to them…

The change desired, the change that is to make the Church “unworldly”, the change that will detach a desolated Church Militant from the world, is for the Church to constantly give herself up to the cares of the world and to give herself over to them. As Pope Benedict XVI stated, “once liberated from material and political burdens and privileges, the Church can reach out more effectively and in a truly Christian way to the whole world, she can be truly open to the world.”

The Ratzinger argument is as follows:

The Church must be ravaged by a loss of faith and a great falling off to become desolate and poor so that she can become detached from the world, and this desolate and ravaged Church will detach herself from the world by giving herself over to the cares of the world. Moynihan’s panting veneration for the Holy Father blinds him to the complete irrationality, even insanity, of the argument.

Imagine the businessman who sits down at a board of directors meeting to announce a grand new scheme to bring success to the corporation. First, he tells the board of directors that all the company’s energies should be focused on changing its products so that it will lose the majority of its customer base, and will have to close most of its plants and lay off most of its work force. Once the company has been reduced to a desolate ruin it will be free to unshackle itself from the economic system to which it had always belonged, and with that accomplished, the company will be able to freely embrace the very same system once again. Such a businessman would certainly lose his job, and ought to be committed to an asylum.

However, as Moynihan points out, this is exactly the insane vision that Pope Benedict has for our future. The Church should lose her privileges, her glories; parishes should close, cathedrals should be boarded up, schools and universities abandoned and lost, religious orders should die out, and the secular world should bear down upon the Church, persecute her and drive her back into the catacombs. All this so that the Church can become unworldly by embracing the cares of the world! What freedom! What a grand and wondrous gateway to “true holiness”, Moynihan booms. One would think that a whipped dog is the most holy thing on the face of the earth!

Could there be a more frightening vision for the future of the Church than this dystopian fantasy that borders on a maniacal hatred for Holy Mother Church? Well, yes. The Holy Father does mention something which utterly chills when one considers all the incumbent ramifications. Moynihan relates the Holy Father’s words from the same address in Germany: “One could almost say that history comes to the aid of the Church here through the various periods of secularization, which have contributed significantly to her purification and inner reform.”

Secularization means a turning away of society and culture from the consideration of the divine, and the placing of the laws of men before the divine Law stipulated by God and taught by the Holy Catholic Church. In times of secularization there is a turning away from God, and, of course, a consequent loss of souls. The Holy Father stated outright that this loss of souls is a good thing, a thing that purifies and reforms the Church. Times of secularization are hardly reforming catalysts for the Church Militant, but are, rather, historical realities that indicate the faithlessness of her members who have failed in the Divine Commission of the Church’s Founder. Any reform following times of secularization or some other crisis is due to those heroic saints who take up anew the rigors of that Commission with fidelity and courage. Those true reformers, at least to my knowledge, never extolled the loss of souls as something good. Yet Pope Benedict XVI did. He did so with a certain degree of callousness that makes one fearfully wonder if he no longer believes in the possibility of eternal damnation for those whose souls are being lost in this time of secularization. And Dr. Moynihan speaks of this to Benedict’s credit? This is absolutely incredible! We are dealing here with statements from the Holy Father that needs be scrutinized and severely criticized, certainly not celebrated with blind affection.

“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isaias 5:20).

How far has Ratzinger and his generation fallen from the ecclesiology of former generations of pontiffs, theologians, and saints! The Church has never been a mere institution or worldly society guilty of sin in the same way that her members are. The divine economy is not an exchange between God and the Church, but rather an exchange between God and individual sinners, through the agency of the Church. The Catholic Church is a society of men, but it is at the same time a divine society, with Jesus Christ as her Head (Col 1:18), and she was founded by Jesus as a visible institution (Matt 5:14; 16:18-19; Acts 9:4). The Church must be a society of men, a divine society, and a visible institution so that the Church can carry out her primary mission on earth, which is the training of men for heaven.

Our Blessed Lord tells His disciples:

You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. (Matt 5:14)

The Church Christ founded is a visible institution. She is visible in both a material and formal manner. Materially, the Church is not a mere private profession made by individuals; rather, it is a public body that publicly demonstrates the profession of her members. Formally, the Church is visible in that she will ever be recognized as the true Church founded by Jesus Christ, as a divine society that contains the means necessary for the salvation of souls.

It is difficult to fathom how Ratzinger’s dystopian Church of the future fits into this conception of the true Church, both visible and vibrant, easily recognizable as the divine society established by Christ, and with Him as her head. The Church is called the Bride of Christ in the Holy Scriptures, and is depicted as having prepared herself for Him (Apoc. 19:7). How does the Pope’s dismantled and diminished Church resemble, even remotely, the splendour of the Bride of Christ adorned for her King?

What’s more, Scripture teaches us that Christ’s Church is marked by vivacious growth.

And he said: To what shall we liken the kingdom of God? or to what parable shall we compare it? It is as a grain of mustard seed: which when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that are in the earth: And when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches, so that the birds of the air may dwell under the shadow thereof. (Mark 4:30-32)

Pope Benedict XVI would have us believe that the Church must de-evolve, but such a notion is completely foreign to the Scriptures, which over and over again depict a Church sprouting from small and humble beginnings into a great and glorious tree. While not formal marks of the Church, visible growth and grandeur accompany the Church presented to us in the pages of the New Testament, and is easily discernible in her history. Indeed, the traditional understanding of the visible Church was well expressed by Pope Leo XIII who recommended that, after every low Mass, the faithful should not only pray for the liberty of Holy Mother Church, but that we should also pray for her exultation: pro libertate et exaltatione sanctae Matris Ecclesiae. In Benedict’s vision, what are we now supposed pray for? her degradation and humiliation?

And what is to be gained by this degradation and humiliation of the Church that was achieved remarkable well by Ratzinger’s generation of vandals? According to Benedict XVI, “when all the suffering is past, a great power will emerge from a more spiritual and simple Church.” Details regarding this new power are a bit fuzzy, though. This power, apparently, has something to do with a greater openness to the cares and concerns of the world, as pointed out above. A spiritual and simple Church is obviously opposed to the visibly exulted Church for which Catholics used to pray after low Mass. This notion of a “spiritual Church” smacks of the notion of an “invisible Church”. It wasn't until the advent of Protestantism that the notion of a spiritual or invisible Church gained traction among those who were openly rejecting the visible institutions and organs of authority that belonged to the Church by divine prerogative. Membership, it was argued, was based on an internal profession and adhering to Christ, an essentially spiritual membership that transcended any material indications of membership (i.e. the sacraments, obedience to the teaching office of the Church, etc.). Is the Holy Father advocating this same notion of an invisible Church?

Benedict XVI falls short of proffering the Protestant version of the invisible Church because he is coming from a different perspective and has a very different motive. It would seem, rather, that the Holy Father is attempting to reconstruct the Hegelianism of Hans Urs von Balthasar. Von Balthasar argued, in the same way, for the evolution of a more “spiritual” Church, arising from the synthesis of opposing contradictions, thesis and antithesis. The visibly exulted Church, which is marked by progress in growth, is too triumphal and exclusive for von Balthasar’s emerging Ecumenical Church, which is “catholic” in the sense that it’s a synthesis of all the world’s religions. The exulted Church for which Catholics used to pray is obsolete in this regard, and must eventually disappear. The influence of von Balthasar’s synthesis-church is evident in Ratzinger’s dystopian ecclesiology. An obsolete Catholicism, the exulted Catholicism that Pope Leo XIII wished all Catholics to pray for, is now, in Ratzinger’s view, giving way to von Balthasar’s evolving synthesis-church.

Von Balthasar, like Pope Benedict XVI, argued that Catholics needed to be identifiably “Roman Catholic”, and he criticized theologians like Karl Rahner for de-emphasizing the unique attributes of Catholic Christianity. However, this “Catholic identity” is merely an aesthetic Catholicism; Catholics were to possess, in other words, the odour of Catholicism so that they could provide an antithesis to other world religions. Differences must be respected and retained, but not because they are true or absolute, in and of themselves. In von Balthasar’s Hegelianism there are no absolutes, but only the emerging synthesis. Catholics must remain Catholic not because Catholicism is true, but because they must be an antithesis to Buddhism, Hinduism, Protestantism, etc. Likewise, Buddhists must remain Buddhists; Jews must remain Jewish; Hindus must remain Hindu; Protestants must remain Protestant. In this way, a new synthesis can evolve from the experience of intertwining the various faiths. Von Balthasar’s Hegelianism is clearly evident in Benedict’s recent statements, such as the following:

Dialogue, when it reflects the priority of faith, can open to the action of God with the firm conviction that we cannot build unity alone: it is the Holy Spirit who guides us toward full communion, who allows us to grasp the spiritual wealth present in the different Churches and ecclesial communities. (Concluding remarks at the Tomb of St. Peter for the Week of Christian Unity, 2013.)

In this respect, it appears that unity is not achieved by conversion to the truth, as the adherence of the mind to reality, and in regards to the divine realities, by adhering to the doctrines taught by Christ and His Church. Rather, unity is achieved by walking hand-in-hand with others of different faiths to achieve a “truth” that exists beyond all those faiths, and this includes Catholicism. This “truth” is the Hegelian synthesis, a truth that is reduced, not to the conforming of the mind to reality, but a conforming of the mind to the lived experience of the intertwining of faiths. This is certainly not what the Catholic Church has always taught in regards to religious truth.

Benedict’s ecclesiology reveals him as a disciple of Neo-Modernists such as Maurice Blondel, Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar, the school of the Nouvelle Théologie. Only a few traditionalists, however, seem willing to seriously point this out. Joseph Ratzinger, of course, has never made his ecclesiology a secret; he has mentioned it on numerous occasions. Why then is there so much silence from traditionalists? Perhaps one of the reasons is that the Holy Father has held out an olive branch to traditionalists, and traditional Catholics are too worried about upsetting the apple cart. However, Benedict’s motives must be investigated, especially now that his pontificate has come to a close, regardless of any benefits his actions might have gained for traditionalists. At this point in time, Benedict’s so-called “traditionalism” needs to be investigated in the wider context of his background in Neo-Modernism. Further reflection and scrutiny needs to be given to the possibility that Benedict’s flirtation with traditionalism was an attempt to re-establish a traditional aesthetic as a mere antithesis in a Hegelian construct. At any rate, his motives need to be honestly and critically investigated, and this, no matter how attractive his ideas may seem or how much is arguments might resonate with some traditionalists.

Indeed, the idea of the Church as a small and decimated remnant resonates in a profound way with the traditional Catholic experience. When the Holy Father speaks of a desolate and diminished Church it is easy for traditionalists to believe the pope is speaking directly to them. After all, the traditionalists in the years following the Second Vatican Council were driven into the catacombs, so to speak, when they were denied access to their former parish churches that fell victim to the sledgehammer and wrecking crew. Traditionalists found themselves in small, separated groups, assisting at the Traditional Latin Mass in hotel lobbies and cemetery mausoleums, forsaken by a church leadership that never attempted to hide its disdain for traditional Catholics and the Traditional Latin Mass. This memory is still fresh in the minds and hearts of traditionalists. However, when the Holy Father speaks about a small and diminished Church, he is speaking about the whole Catholic Church, and not any specific group of Catholics, much less traditionalists.

The idea also resonates with traditionalists because the current crisis in the Church is so severe and unsettling that it perhaps portends, to some degree at least, the predicted End Times. The traditionalist wonders, at least subconsciously, if he is not a member of that faithful Remnant that will be left on the earth upon the eve of the Apocalypse. However, this way of thinking isn’t very helpful when scrutinizing Ratzinger’s ecclesiology. The pope is not addressing the eschatological role of the Church Militant. He is explaining, rather, a stage of its evolution, wherein the Church is becoming less visible in order to become more “spiritual”, which is completely at odds with what the Church has always taught about her own nature and mission.

In fact, recent developments in the traditional Catholic corner of the Church Militant belies just how much the traditional Catholic experience radically differs from Ratzinger’s dystopian vision of the evolving Church. After a decade of unprecedented growth, not to mention the ascendancy of traditional arguments to the official recognition of the Magisterium (i.e. that the Traditional Latin Mass had never been abrogated), traditionalists can hardly make the argument that they are a disparate, diminished, desolate group still lurking about in the shadows of the catacombs. The growth and vibrancy of traditional Catholic communities, the ever increasing number of Masses offered according to the old liturgical books, indicates that traditionalists are living and practicing an authentic ecclesiology, the ecclesiology that was set down by Christ, which lives and grows from the humility of a mustard seed to become a vast tree that bears much fruit. Growth and vibrancy are the marks of the divine society established by Jesus, and not desolation, not diminished numbers, not closed churches and cathedrals.

It is now, obviously, been left to the traditionalists to live and to grow the Church Militant by the grace of God and the guidance of the Holy Ghost, because, it would seem, the Church’s leadership is convinced, insanely perhaps, that capitulation and defeat are good things. Dr. Robert Moynihan looks to Benedict XVI’s dystopian ecclesiology to find an insight into the Holy Father’s abdication of the Throne of Peter. However, there’s no insight to be found here, unless, of course, the Holy Father is so satisfied with capitulation and defeat for the Church Militant he has decided to embody that capitulation and defeat in his own person by surrendering the Throne of Peter. I wish, however, it was that innocent. I’m afraid, unfortunately, that in the grand scheme of things there’s something far more sinister to the Pope’s ecclesiology than mere surrender.

Recipes for Lent: Saint Antony Soup

This is an excellent dish for Ash Wednesday or Good Friday.

3 tablespoons oil of choice
1 cup barley
1 carrot, finely grated
2 leeks, sliced
1 bay leaf
1/3 cup fresh parsley, minced
salt to taste
7 cups water
chopped mushrooms

Heat the oil in a soup pot and add the barley, stirring continuously for one minute. Immediately add the carrot, leeks, bay leaf, parsley, salt, and water.

Cook the soup over low to medium heat, covered, for 40 to 45 minutes, until the barley is tender. Add more water if needed. Add the mushrooms during the last 20 minutes of simmering. Remove the bay leaf. Serve hot.

Serve with plain white bread or a soft pretzel, water or weak coffee.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Who Was Pope Benedict XVI? An Exclusive Ars Orandi Series

Part One: Ratzinger's Dystopian Ecclesiology


Who Was Pope Benedict XVI?

An exclusive Ars Orandi series: an in depth and critical analysis of the Ratzinger papacy.


Introduction: The Ratzinger Enigma

The pontificate of Benedict XVI will be remembered, I’m convinced, as an enigma. It seems at every turn we come across one contradiction after another. Benedict is a theologian and churchmen highly respected in traditionalist circles. He is, after all, the Pontiff who courageously, in the estimation of the Society of St. Pius X and many other traditionalists, declared that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated, and gave all the priests of the Latin Church the freedom to offer the Immortal Mass. Michael Davies, that beloved icon of the Catholic traditionalist movement, was convinced that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was not only a friend to the Traditional Latin Mass, but, as Dr. John Rao recently recollected, was also “a man who had become very much aware of the havoc being wreaked by the doctrinal Revolution taking place within the Church and wanted to halt and reverse it through his labors at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”. In regards to this Pope, Rao continues,

Here was the pope who then, several years later, told the world openly what we Traditionalists desperately needed to hear from the voice of the Supreme Pontiff: that the Mass of the Ages could not be wiped from the face of the Earth. The Revolution was palpably being thwarted. Peter was awakening from slumber. The impossible was becoming possible.

There’s no doubt that Pope Benedict XVI has surrounded himself at least in the trappings of traditional Catholicism, that he has befriended those of a traditional mindset, and resurrected a certain traditional aesthetic. This cannot be overlooked, and they should be praised for what they are. However, at the same time Pope Benedict XVI has done and said things that go beyond the mere appearance of opposing the philosophical and theological underpinnings of authentic Catholic traditionalism. Dr. John Rao must admit,

Yes, I am fully aware that my fellow Traditionalists have all too justly pointed to a role both theological and pastoral, first as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and then as Pope Benedict XVI, that does not seem to fit the happy picture that I am painting. Yes, there has also been so much more that I wanted him to do that he could not seem to bring himself to carry to fruition.

Why it that there is so much that Benedict could have done, but could not bring himself to do? Why is there a role “both theological and pastoral” that Benedict has played that “does not seem to fit” as the Pope for traditional Catholics? There are many things that just don’t fit. In the process of freeing the Traditional Latin Mass, Benedict does so by constructing a legal novelty, radically changing liturgical law without so much as a flinch. A happy novelty is still a novelty; a convenient fiction is still a fiction. One moment the Pope is condemning the “hermeneutic of rupture”, and the next moment he is promoting, even giving the red hat, to rupturists of the Bologna school. One moment Benedict lifts the excommunications of the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, and then the next moment he appoints the Society’s greatest detractor to head up the Confraternity responsible for relations with the Society. One moment he proposes the infusion of traditional practices into the “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite”, and then the next moment he condones and endorses an organization such as the Neocatechumenal Way that has made liturgical abuse its institutional identity. One moment he promotes an authentic “Catholic identity”, and then the next moment he seems to endorse religious indifferentism and “a big tent” mentality that seeks to bend that identity to allow as many people as possible to claim “full communion”. This is a Pope who, as it would seem in one breath, paid lip service to subsidiarity, but at the same time called for a one world economic power.

The contradictions are too numerous to overlook, or to dismiss with a “well, at least we have Summorum Pontificum!” shrug of the shoulders. If traditionalists don’t, or aren't willing to, take a hard look at these contradictions, they very well could allow an inherent weakness in this Pope’s policies undermine all that has been achieved these past eight years. Likewise, it would be a very dangerous oversight not to look at Joseph Ratzinger’s theological and philosophical roots to gain a more complete, and revealing, picture of his policies as pope.

Joseph Ratzinger was one of many theological minds at the heart of the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology) of the 20th century, which stood opposed to Thomism and, as a consequence, to the Church’s doctrinal formulations up to that point in time. Despite having been condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani generis, the Nouvelle Théologie was promoted by thinkers such as Joseph Ratzinger, and this New Theology unfortunately ended up shaping not only the “spirit of Vatican II” but much of the content of the Vatican II documents, themselves, most particularly the style and “method” of those documents. While Joseph Ratzinger came to represent the “conservative” camp of the Nouvelle Théologie, nevertheless the entire project, not only its liberal camp, but also its conservative camp, was a radical departure from Tradition, as well as from the philosophical and theological methodologies promoted by previous popes that were the basis of the Church’s doctrinal formulations. The New Theology was more than a departure from the Scholastic method; it was a departure from dogma, and with dogma, the faith; the Nouvelle Théologie was a departure from common sense, right reason, and, as Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. succinctly put it, “it revisits Modernism” (Where is the New Theology Leading Us?).

Does Pope Benedict XVI’s background as a theologian of the Nouvelle Théologie explain, at least in part, the contradictions of his papacy? I think that in large measure it does, and it also can help us understand Benedict’s teachings regarding ecumenism and ecclesiology, his “traditional” aesthetics and attitude toward the Traditional Latin Mass, and his often mind boggling appointments to bishoprics and dicasteries. It becomes clear, after taking into account this bigger picture, that contrary to the hopes of too many traditionalists, Benedict XVI never intended on fostering a restoration of Tradition. Rather, his vision is something entirely different, and it is important that we take this apart, dissect it, and hopefully come to realize that this vision, this something that doesn't seem "to fit", is really something quite dangerous.

Now that we have reached, in a rather extraordinary manner, the end of the Ratzinger papacy, it is time to ask the question: Who was Pope Benedict XVI? The current situation allows us to take a more thorough and critical approach to the Ratzinger pontificate. The current situation, in fact, demands a more critical look at Benedict’s life, thought and his governance of the Church, as his vision may very well shape the Church for years to come. There are many Catholics these days who style themselves as conservative, who believe, quite wrongly, that any criticism of a post-Vatican II pope is tantamount to heresy. Those “Neo-Cats” will not like these essays. Likewise, there are will be more than a few traditional Catholics who for various reasons will want to disavow themselves of any hard critical review of Pope Benedict XVI. Perhaps they fear the perception that they will appear to be looking a gift horse in the mouth (Beware New Theologians bearing gifts!), or they want to spin this pontificate as a complete turn-about of the Church Militant toward Tradition (which I don't think it has been). I suspect that those "moderate" traditionalists won't like these essays either. However, despite what these potential detractors might say, this is not an attempt to condemn the papacy of Joseph Ratzinger (I just lost the sedevacantists! my friends are becoming fewer and fewer!), or to belittle the gains made by the traditionalist critique during his pontificate; rather, it is an attempt to come to a deeper understanding, from a traditional Catholic perspective, of Pope Benedict XVI and how this papacy has changed the Church Militant and will continue to impact the progress of Catholic traditionalism. This is intended to be a critical study, without fear of asking the tough questions, about Ratzinger’s past, his thought, and his governance.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Recipes for Lent: Some Fish Sauce Recipes

From
Loaves and Fishes: Menus and Recipes for Fridays and Lent
by Katharine Morrison McClinton and Julianna Morrison Ashley


Almond Butter Sauce

1/2 cup butter
1/2 cup blanched almonds sliced
1 teaspoon onion juice
1 teaspoon chopped chives
1 teaspoon lemon juice
Dash of each: salt, pepper, nutmeg

Melt butter in saucepan and add other ingredients stirring constantly.


Anchovy Sauce

2 teaspoons anchovies mashed with fork
3/4 cup melted butter
1/4 cup sherry

Simmer over medium heat, add salt and pepper and 1 teaspoon lemon juice.


Bechamel Caper Sauce

2 tablespoons butter
1/4 small onion minced
1/4 cup flour
1 pt. milk

Cook onion in butter and add flour then milk. Add 1/4 cup chopped capers, 1/12 teaspoon lemon juice, salt, pepper, parsley.


Bercy Sauce

1 cup Bechamel Caper Sauce (from above)
1/2 cup fish stock
3 tablespoons melted butter
1 teaspoon chopped parsley
salt, pepper

Mix all ingredients together and pour over fish and brown under the broiler.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Recipes for Lent: Red Snapper Marinière

Red Snapper Marinière

Excellent for the main course of the day's principle meal on days of full abstinence.

(4 servings)

4 tablespoons olive oil
4 red snapper fillets, about 8 ounces each
3 tablespoons finely chopped fresh parsley
A pinch of fresh thyme
3 shallots, finely chopped
Salt and freshly ground black pepper to taste
1 cup dry white wine, more if needed
4 teaspoons butter
Finely chopped fresh chervil, as garnish

1. Heat the oil in a good-size skillet. Add the snapper fillets and cook over low-medium heat for 2 minutes. Turn the fillets over.

2. Add the parsley, thyme, shallots, salt, pepper, and the wine. Bring the liquid to a boil. Keep the low-medium heat, cover the skillet, and continue cooking for another 8 minutes. (If wine evaporates, add a few tablespoons extra to keep the moisture in the skillet.)

3. When the fillets are cooked and most of the liquid has evaporated, dot 1 teaspoon butter on the top of each fillet. Cover the skillet for a half minute. Serve immediately, accompanying each fillet with some of the sauce, and topping each with the finely chopped chervil.

Substitutes for Red Snapper: Grouper, Bass, or Rockfish.

Pairs well with coleslaw, steamed or sauteed green vegetables, light breads; Pinot Grigio/Pinot Gris, Pinot Blanc.

Table-side herbs as a substitute for table-side salt or pepper: a dash of fennel or paprika, respectively.

On Holy Communion During Lent

From
The Liturgical Year
by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B.

Of all the works whereby a Christian can sanctify the time of Lent, there is none so pleasing to God as to assist at the holy sacrifice of the Mass, in which is offered the Victim of man’s salvation. But now that his own unworthiness is more than ever evident to him, ought he to abstain from partaking, by Holy Communion, of this life-giving and purifying Host? Such is not our Saviour’s will. He came down from heaven, not to judge, but to save us. He knows how long and rugged is the road we have to traverse, before we reach that happy day, on which we shall rest with Him, in the joy of His Resurrection. He has compassion on us; He fears lest we faint in the way; and He, therefore, offers us the divine food, which gives light and strength to our souls, and refreshes them in their toil. We feel that our hearts are not yet pure enough; let us then, with a humble and contrite heart, go to Him, who has come that He may restore to our souls their original beauty. Let us, at all times, remember the solemn injunction which this Saviour so graciously deigned to give us: “Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, ye shall not have life in you.”

If, therefore, sin has no longer dominion over us; if we have destroyed it by true sorrow and sincere confession, made efficacious by the absolution of God’s priest: let us not deprive ourselves of the Bread of life, no matter how great soever our infirmities may seem; for it is for us that our Jesus has prepared the feast. If we feel that the chains of sin are still upon us; if by self-examination made with the light of the truth that is now granted to us, we discover in our souls certain stains, which the false principles of the world and too easy a conscience have hitherto made us overlook; let us lose no time, let us make a good confession: and when we have made our peace with the God mercy, let us approach the holy Table, and receive the pledge of our reconciliation.

Yes, let us go to Holy Communion, during this season of Lent, with the most heart-felt conviction of our unworthiness. It may be that hitherto we have sometimes gone with too much familiarity, on account of our not sufficiently understanding our nothing ness, our misery, and the infinite holiness of the God who thus unites Himself with His sinful creatures. Henceforth, our heart shall be more truthful; blending together the two sentiments of humility and confidence, we will say, with an honest conviction, those words of the centurion of the Gospel, which the Church puts upon our lips, when she is distributing to us the Bread of life: “Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldest enter under my roof; say but the word, and my soul shall be healed.”

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Reading for Lent: St. Cyril of Jerusalem


From
St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures

Lecture II: On Repentance and remission of sins, and concerning the adversary

EZEKIEL xviii. 20--23: “The rightheousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins.”

1. A FEARFUL thing is sin, and the sorest disease of the soul is transgression, secretly cutting its sinews, and becoming also the cause of eternal fire; an evil of a man's own choosing, an offspring of the will. For that we sin of our own free will the Prophet says plainly in a certain place: Yet I planted thee a fruitful vine, wholly true: how art thou turned to bitterness, (and become) the strange vine? The planting was good, the fruit coming from the will is evil; and therefore the planter is blameless, but the vine shall be burnt with fire since it was planted for good, and bore fruit unto evil of its own will. For God, according to the Preacher, made man upright, and they have themselves sought out many inventions. For we are His workmakship, says the Apostle, created unto good works, which God afore prepared, that we should walk in them. So then the Creator, being good, created for good works; but the creature turned of its own free will to wickedness. Sin then is, as we have said, a fearful evil, but not incurable; fearful for him who clings to it, but easy of cure for him who by repentance puts it from him. For suppose that a man is holding fire in his hand; as long as he holds fast the live coal he is sure to be burned, but should he put away the coal, he would have cast away the flame also with it. If however any one thinks that he is not being burned when sinning, to him the Scripture saith, Shall a man wrap up fire in his bosom, and not burn his clothes? For sin burns the sinews of the soul, [and breaks the spiritual bones of the mind, and darkens the light of the heart].

2. But some one will say, What can sin be? Is it a living thing? Is it an angel? Is it a demon? What is this which works within us? It is not an enemy, O man, that assails thee from without, but an evil shoot growing up out of thyself. Look right on with thine eyes, and there is no lust. [Keep thine own, and] seize not the things of others, and robbery has ceased. Remember the Judgment, and neither fornication, nor adultery, nor murder, nor any transgression of the law shall prevail with thee. But whenever thou forgettest God, forthwith thou beginnest to devise wickedness and to commit iniquity.

3. Yet thou art not the sole author of the evil, but there is also another most wicked prompter, the devil. He indeed suggests, but does not get the mastery by force over those who do not consent. Therefore saith the Preacher, If the spirit of him that hath power rise up against thee, quit not thy place. Shut thy door, and put him far from thee, and he shall not hurt thee. But if thou indifferently admit the thought of lust, it strikes root in thee by its suggestions, and enthrals thy mind, and drags thee down into a pit of evils.

But perhaps thou sayest, I am a believer, and lust does not gain the ascendant over me, even if I think upon it frequently. Knowest thou not that a root breaks even a rock by long persistence? Admit not the seed, since it will rend thy faith asunder: tear out the evil by the root before it blossom, lest from being careless at the beginning thou have afterwards to seek for axes and fire. When thine eyes begin to be diseased, get them cured in good time, lest thou become blind, and then have to seek the physician.

4. The devil then is the first author of sin, and the father of the wicked: and this is the Lord's saying, not mine, that the devil sinneth from the beginning: none sinned before him. But he sinned, not as having received necessarily from nature the propensity to sin, since then the cause of sin is traced back again to Him that made him so; but having been created good, he has of his own free will become a devil, and received that name from his action. For being an Archangel he was afterwards called a devil from his slandering: from being a good servant of God he has become rightly named Satan; for "Satan" is interpreted the adversary. And this is not my teaching, but that of the inspired prophet Ezekiel: for he takes up a lamentation over him and says, Thou wast a seal of likeness, and a crown of beauty; in the Paradise of God wast thou born: and soon after, Thou wast barn blameless in thy days, from the day in which thou wast created, until thine iniquities were found in thee. Very rightly hath he said, were found in thee; for they were not brought in from without, but thou didst thyself beget the evil. The cause also he mentions forthwith: Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty: for the multitude of thy sins wast thou wounded, and I did cast thee to the ground. In agreement with this the Lord says again in the Gospels: I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Thou seest the harmony of the Old Testament with the New. He when cast out drew many away with him. It is he that puts lusts into them that listen to him: from him come adultery, fornication, and every kind of evil. Through him our forefather Adam was cast out for disobedience, and exchanged a Paradise bringing forth wondrous fruits of its own accord for the ground which bringeth forth thorns.

5. What then? some one will say. We have been beguiled and are lost. Is there then no salvation left? We have fallen: Is it not possible to rise again? We have been blinded: May we not recover our sight? We have become crippled: Can we never walk upright? In a word, we are dead: May we not rise again? He that woke Lazarus who was four days dead and already stank, shall He not, O man, much more easily raise thee who art alive? He who shed His precious blood for us, shall Himself deliver us from sin. Let us not despair of ourselves, brethren; let us not abandon ourselves to a hopeless condition. For it is a fearful thing not to believe in a hope of repentance. For he that looks not for salvation spares not to add evil to evil: but to him that hopes for cure, it is henceforth easy to be careful over himself. The robber who looks not for pardon grows desperate; but, if he hopes for forgiveness, often comes to repentance. What then, does the serpent cast its slough, and shall not we cast off our sin? Thorny ground also, if cultivated well, is turned into fruitful; and is salvation to us irrecoverable? Nay rather, our nature admits of salvation, but the will also is required.

6. God is loving to man, and loving in no small measure. For say not, I have committed fornication and adultery: I have done dreadful things, and not once only, but often: will He forgive? Will He grant pardon? Hear what the Psalmist says: How great is the multitude of Thy goodness, O Lord! Thine accumulated offences surpass not the multitude of God's mercies: thy wounds surpass not the great Physician's skill. Only give thyself up in faith: tell the Physician thine ailment: say thou also, like David: I said, I will confess me my sin unto the Lord: and the same shall be done in thy case, which he says forthwith: And thou forgavest the wickedness of my heart.

7. Wouldest thou see the loving-kindness of God, O thou that art lately come to the catechising? Wouldest thou see the loving-kindness of God, and the abundance of His long-suffering? Hear about Adam. Adam, God's first-formed man, transgressed: could He not at once have brought death upon him? But see what the Lord does, in His great love towards man. He casts him out from Paradise, for because of sin he was unworthy to live there; but He puts him to dwell over against Paradise: that seeing whence he had fallen, and from what and into what a state he was brought down, he might afterwards be saved by repentance. Cain the first-born man became his brother's murderer, the inventor of evils, the first author of murders, and the first envious man. Yet after slaying his brother to what is he condemned? Groaning and trembling shalt thou be upon the earth. How great the offence, the sentence how light!

8. Even this then was truly loving-kindness in God, but little as yet in comparison with what follows. For consider what happened in the days of Noe. The giants sinned, and much wickedness was then spread over the earth, and because of this the flood was to come upon them: and in the five hundredth year God utters His threatening; but in the six hundredth He brought the flood upon the earth. Seest thou the breadth of God's loving-kindness extending to a hundred years? Could He not have done immediately what He did then after the hundred years? But He extended (the time) on purpose, granting a respite for repentance. Seest thou God's goodness? And if the men of that time had repented, they would not have missed the loving-kindness of God.

9. Come with me now to the other class, those who were saved by repentance. But perhaps even among women some one will say, I have committed fornication, and adultery, I have defiled my body by excesses of all kinds: is there salvation for me? Turn thine eyes, O woman, upon Rahab, and look thou also for salvation; for if she who had been openly and publicly a harlot was saved by repentance, is not she who on some one occasion before receiving grace committed fornication to be saved by repentance and fasting? For inquire how she was saved: this only she said: For your God is God in heaven and upon earth. Your God; for her own she did not dare to say, because of her wanton life. And if you wish to receive Scriptural testimony of her having been saved, you have it written in the Psalms: I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon among them that know me. O the greatness of God's loving-kindness, making mention even of harlots in the Scriptures: nay, not simply I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon, but with the addition. among them that know me. There is then in the case both of men and of women alike the salvation which is ushered in by repentance.

10. Nay more, if a whole people sin, this surpasses not the loving-kindness of God. The people made a calf, yet God ceased not from His loving-kindness. Men denied God, but God denied not Himself. These be thy gods, O Israel, they said: yet again, as He was wont, the God of Israel became their Saviour. And not only the people sinned, but also Aaron the High Priest. For it is Moses that says: And the anger of the Lord came upon Aaron: and l prayed for him, saith he, and God forgave him. What then, did Moses praying for a High Priest that sinned prevail with God, and shall not Jesus, His Only-begotten, prevail with God when He prays for us? And if He did not hinder Aaron, because of his offence, from entering upon the High Priesthood, will He hinder thee, who art come out from the Gentiles, from entering into salvation? Only, O man, repent thou also in like manner, and grace is not forbidden thee. Render thy way of life henceforth unblameable; for God is truly loving unto man, nor can all time worthily tell out His loving kindness; nay, not if all the tongues of men unite together will they be able even so to declare any considerable part of His loving-kindness. For we tell some part of what is written concerning His loving-kindness to men, but how much He forgave the Angels we know not: for them also He forgives, since One alone is without sin, even Jesus who purgeth our sins. And of them we have said enough.

11. But if concerning us men thou wilt have other examples also set before thee, come on to the blessed David, and take him for an example of repentance. Great as he was, he fell: after his sleep, walking in the eventide on the housetop, he cast a careless look, and felt a human passion. His sin was completed, but there died not with it his candour concerning the confession of his fault. Nathan the Prophet came, a swift accuser, and a healer of the wound. The Lord is wroth, he says, and thou hast sinned. So spoke the subject to the reigning king. But David the king was not indignant, for he regarded not the speaker, but God who had sent him. He was not puffed up by the array of soldiers standing round: for he had seen in thought the angel-host of the Lord, and he trembled as seeing Him who is invisible[4]; and to the messenger, or rather by him in answer to God who sent him, he said, I have sinned against the Lords. Seest thou the humility of the king? Seest thou his confession? For had he been convicted by any one? Were many privy to the matter? The deed was quickly done, and straightway the Prophet appeared as accuser, and the offender confesses the fault. And because he candidly confessed, he received a most speedy cure. For Nathan the Prophet who had uttered the threat, said immediately, The Lord also hath put away thy sin. Thou seest the swift relenting of a merciful God. He says, however, Thou hast greatly provoked the enemies of the Lord. Though thou hadst many enemies because of thy righteousness, thy self-control protected thee; but now that thou hast surrendered thy strongest armour, thine enemies are risen up, and stand ready against thee.

12. Thus then did the Prophet comfort him, but the blessed David, for all he heard it said, The LORD hath put away thy sin, did not cease from repentance, king though he was, but put on sackcloth instead of purple, and instead of a golden throne, he sat, a king, in ashes on the ground; nay, not only sat in ashes, but also had ashes for his food, even as he saith himself, I have eaten ashes as it were bread. His lustful eye he wasted away with tears saying, Every night will I wash my couch, and water my bed with my tears. When his officers besought him to eat bread he would not listen. He prolonged his fast unto seven whole days. If a king thus made confession oughtest not thou, a private person, to confess? Again, after Absalom's insurrection, though there were many roads for him to escape, he chose to flee by the Mount of Olives, in thought, as it were, invoking the Redeemer who was to go up thence into the heavens. And when Shimei cursed him bitterly, he said, Let him alone, for he knew that "to him that forgiveth it shall be forgiven[9]."

13. Thou seest that it is good to make confession. Thou seest that there is salvation for them that repent. Solomon also fell but what saith he? Afterwards I repented. Ahab, too, the King of Samaria, became a most wicked idolater, an outrageous man, the murderer of the Prophets, a stranger to godliness, a coveter of other men's fields and vineyards. Yet when by Jezebel's means he had slain Naboth, and the Prophet Elias came and merely threatened him, he rent his garments, and put on sackcloth. And what saith the merciful God to Elias? Hast than seen how, Ahab is pricked in the heart before Me? I as if almost He would persuade the fiery zeal of the Prophet to condescend to the penitent. For He saith, I will not bring the evil in his days. And though after this forgiveness he was sure not to depart from his wickedness, nevertheless the forgiving God forgave him, not as being ignorant of the future, but as granting a forgiveness corresponding to his present season of repentance. For it is the part of a righteous judge to give sentence according to each case that has occurred.

14. Again, Jeroboam was standing at the altar sacrificing to the idols: his band became withered, because he commanded the Prophet who reproved him to be seized: but having by experience learned the power of the man before him, he says, Entreat the face of the Lord thy God; and because of this saying his hand was restored again. If the Prophet healed Jeroboam, is Christ not able to heal and deliver thee from thy sins? Manasses also was utterly wicked, who sawed Isaiah asunder, and was defiled with all kinds of idolatries, and filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; but having been led captive to Babylon he used his experience of misfortune for a healing course of repentance: for the Scripture saith that Manasses humbled himself before the Lord, and prayed, and the Lord heard him, and brought trim back to his kingdom. If He who sawed the Prophet asunder was saved by repentance, shall not thou then, having done no such great wickedness, be saved?

15. Take heed lest without reason thou mistrust the power of repentance. Wouldst thou know what power repentance has? Wouldst thou know the strong weapon of salvation, and learn what the force of confession is? Hezekiah by means of confession routed a hundred and fourscore and five thousand of his enemies. A great thing verily was this, but still small in comparison with what remains to be told: the same king by repentance obtained the recall of a divine sentence which had already gone forth. For when he had fallen sick, Esaias said to him, Set thine house in order; for thou shall die, and not live. What expectation remained, what hope of recovery, when the Prophet said, for thou shalt die? Yet Hezekiah did not desist from repentance; but remembering what is written, When thou shalt turn and lament, then shalt thou be saved, he turned to the wall, and from his bed lifting his mind to heaven (for thickness of walls is no hindrance to prayers sent up with devotion), he said, "Remember me, O Lord, for it is sufficient for my healing that Thou remember me. Thou art not subject to times, but art Thyself the giver of the law of life. For our life depends not on a nativity, nor on a conjunction of stars, as some idly talk; but both of life and its duration. Then art Thyself the Lawgiver according to Thy Will." And he, who could not hope to live because of the prophetic sentence, had fifteen years added to his life, and for the sign the sun ran backward in his course Well then, for Ezekias' sake the sun turned back but for Christ the sun was eclipsed, not retracing his steps, but suffering eclipse, and therefore shewing the difference between them, I mean between Ezekias and Jesus. The former prevailed to the cancelling of God's decree, and cannot Jesus grant remission of sins? Turn and bewail thyself, shut thy door, and pray to be forgiven, pray that He may remove from thee the burning flames. For confession has power to quench even fire, power to tame even lions.

16. But if thou disbelieve, consider what befel Ananias and his companions. What streams did they pour out? How many vessels of water could quench the flame that rose up forty-nine cubits high? Nay, but where the flame mounted up a little too high, faith was there poured out as a river, and there spoke they the spell against all ills: Righteous art Thou, O Lord, in all the things that Thou hast done to us: for we have sinned, and transgressed Thy law. And their repentance quelled the flames. If thou believest not that repentance is able to quench the fire of hell, learn it from what happened in regard to Ananias. But some keen hearer will say, Those men God rescued justly in that case: because they refused to commit idolatry, God gave them that power. And since this thought has occurred, I come next to a different example of penitence.

17. What thinkest thou of Nabuchodonosor? Hast thou not heard out of the Scriptures that he was bloodthirsty, fierce, lion-like in disposition? Hast thou not heard that he brought out the bones of the kings from their graves into the light? Hast thou not heard that he carried the people away captive? Hast thou not heard that he put out the eyes of the king, after he had already seen his children slain? Hast thou not heard that he brake in pieces the Cherubim? I do riot mean the invisible beings;--away with such a thought, O man,--but the sculptured images, and the mercy-seat, in the midst of which God spoke with His voice. The veil of the Sanctuary he trampled under foot: the altar of incense he took and carried away to an idol-temple: all the offerings he took away: the Temple he burned from the foundations. How great punishments did he deserve, for slaying kings, for setting fire to the Sanctuary, for taking the people captive, for setting the sacred vessels in the house of idols? Did he not deserve ten thousand deaths?

18. Thou hast seen the greatness of his evil deeds: come now to God's loving-kindness. He was turned into a wild beast, he abode in the wilderness, he was scourged, that he might be saved. He had claws as a lion; for he was a ravager of the Sanctuary. He had a lion's mane: for he was a ravening and a roaring lion. He ate grass like an ox: for a brute beast he was, not knowing Him who had given him the kingdom. His body was wet from the dew; because after seeing the fire quenched by the dew he believed not. And what happened? After this, saith he, I, Nabuchodonosor, lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and I blessed the Most High, and to Him that liveth for ever I gave praise and glory. When, therefore, he recognised the Most High, and sent up these words of thankfulness to God, and repented himself for what he had done, and recognised his own weakness, then God gave back to him the honour of the kingdom.

19. What then? When Nabuchodonosor, after having done such deeds, had made confession, did God give him pardon and the kingdom, and when thou repentest shall He not give thee the remission of sins, and the kingdom of heaven, if thou live a worthy life? The LORD is loving unto man, and swift to pardon, but slow to punish. Let no man therefore despair of his own salvation. Peter, the chiefest and foremost of the Apostles, denied the Lord thrice before a little maid: but he repented himself, and wept bitterly. Now weeping shews the repentance of the heart: and therefore he not only received forgiveness for his denial, but also held his Apostolic dignity unforfeited.

20. Having therefore, brethren, many examples of those who have sinned and repented and been saved, do ye also heartily make confession unto the Lord, that ye may beth receive the forgiveness of your former sins, and be counted worthy of the heavenly gift, and inherit the heavenly kingdom with all the saints in Christ Jesus; to Whom is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

The Pope's Abdication: "A decidedly negative view"

I was recently contacted via the FaceBook page of Ars Orandi concerning "harsh" criticism of Pope Benedict XVI's abdication of the Throne of Peter. I've taken "a decidedly negative view" that may give a bad impression of traditional Catholics. I was also asked to explain the "Ars Orandi Official Position", which was "Quo vadis? Tweet that, Your Holiness", which in this reader's view was "puerile".

First, let me reiterate that I'm always happy to receive respectful reader feedback, which this missive definitely was, and this did cause me to reflect and pray a bit more about what has been posted here over the last 72 hours or so.

It should be remembered that my response was a delayed response to begin with. Due to an illness and then having to write a couple articles, I've had some distance from this news story, especially when it first broke. It was only on Tuesday of this week that I finally got around to reading what was available in the form of criticism and analysis. In a way this was a good thing because I was able to see more of the forest.

What I found was that there is generally an overwhelming majority of analysts and pundits that seem giddy with excitement over the abdication. I immediately felt uncomfortable with this approach because the body of my own work over the last few months has been a careful perusal of the words and actions of Pope Benedict XVI over the last three years, and what I've found are extremely troublesome theological opinions proffered by the Holy Father accompanied by an uncritical reception by mainstream “conservative” Catholic analysts and journalists. My gut instinct told me from the first that this abdication was yet another troublesome element of a pontificate that is at best an enigma, and what I've seen so far indicates that "conservative" Catholics are once again accepting without question something that in nowise is good for the papacy or the Church, and this simply for no other reason than it comes from Benedict XVI who in their eyes can do no wrong.

It should be extremely evident that I'm completely opposed to this recent move by the Holy Father. I understand the reasons Benedict XVI gave for surrendering his office of Holy Roman Pontiff, and I couldn't disagree with him more. By his admission Benedict's intellectual faculties are fully intact, and according to the Vatican Press Corps, his health is "generally good". The only reports about the Holy Father's health that are floating around reveal that he is an old man. Geriatrics problems have never stopped men from fulfilling their office of pope in the past (neither did prison or exile, for that matter). So what are we to make of his excuse that he is not physically or mentally up to the task of governing the Church?

I draw three possible conclusions, which are probably not all mutually exclusive, and none are good.

First, Joseph Ratzinger is a quitter. The Holy Ghost sustains and guides not only the Church in general, but individuals in the exercise  of their offices, provided they cooperate with the workings of the Holy Ghost. Ratzinger's abdication of the Throne, therefore, when his health is generally good and his mentally faculties intact, is an indication that he is no longer willing to cooperate. This may seem harsh, but it is the Biblical standard set forth in 2 Cor 7:3. The Apostles died in their service to the Church. This first conclusion, though, is the one with which I'm generally inclined to disagree, though it certainly can give that bad impression.

Second, the state of the Church is ungovernable for a man of Joseph Ratzinger’s age. This very well could be the truth, but it says nothing in favor of his pontificate, and in addition the previous pontificate, that allowed the peace of the Church, and the Vatican in particular, to be so upset that the current pontiff must do what no other has done before him. There is, I strongly think, a lot of traction to this conclusion, especially in light of the recent rumors regarding the “Report of the three Cardinals”, which supposedly reveals a “homo-lobby” in the Vatican that approaches the degree of blackmail. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and it’s rather difficult to ignore all the signs of cultural Marxism having made significant in-roads in the Church during the 20th century. Can there be any doubt that we are reaping the rotten and poisonous fruits of that satanic infiltration?

As an aside, in regards to the possible ungovernable nature of the Vatican and the Church Militant, in general, I've often been frustrated with Benedict’s various distractions over the course of this pontificate. Were the “Jesus of Nazareth” books so critical that they needed to be penned by the Holy Roman Pontiff in such a time of grave crisis? If the “conservative” Catholic pundits are justified in defending this abdication in light of the ungovernable nature of the Vatican, they have to admit that Benedict, himself, is largely responsible by failing to prioritize governance above what can at best be described as a theological past-time. Herein lays the explanation of the “Ars Orandi official position”. Should a church leader, surrounded on all sides by corruption, dissension  and detraction, something that he, himself, termed “filth”, allow himself to be distracted by something as puerile as “tweeting”? It’s absolutely comical when seen in this light, and that is point of my sarcasm.

Third conclusion: the Holy Father is once again giving a nod of approval to Neo-Modernists such as Hans Küng who are calling for term limits on ecclesiastical offices as part of a radical “reform” of the Church toward a more democratic model. Roberto di Mattei touches on this in his reaction to theabdication. Three years ago I would have opposed such a conclusion as impossible for Joseph Ratzinger. However, my research into Ratzinger, and especially considering the last three years of his pontificate, have opened my eyes to the possibility Benedict XVI is still very much a disciple of his Neo-Modernist mentors and early colleagues. I think that this is a move intended, at least at some level, to diminish the monarchial nature of the papacy. This fits very well into the goals of the Revolution that sought from its commencement centuries ago to destroy hierarchy, nobility, and ultimately the image and likeness of God in man.

If, as I suspect, the second and third conclusions are valid and sound, then the horizon of the Church Militant’s future is one of ever increasing struggle. We have seen a growing number of, and growth within, traditional Catholic communities, and this in large measure is due to certain policies of the Ratzinger Papacy. However, two things need to born in mind. First, Benedict XVI isn't the first cause of this growth. Rather, it is the nature of the Church to vivaciously grow when it is authentic. This is the case with Catholic traditionalism where authentic Catholicism is flourishing. It must grow, and will grow, and this no matter if the current policies from Rome are positive or negative to that growth. The only thing that these policies affects is the rate of that growth. Second, the policies themselves must be examined, and even criticized, in relation to their intent. In this regard, few traditionalists seem willing to do so, perhaps because they fear biting the hand that feeds them. If that is the case, however, then I fear traditionalists won’t be prepared for the fight that lies ahead.

In closing, a quote from St. Robert Bellarmine:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29, Opera omnia, Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. 1, p. 418)

Obviously, if I'm arguing that he should not abdicate the Throne of Peter, I'm in no way judging Benedict XVI or calling for him to be deposed. Rather, it would seem that his "conservative" Catholic cheering section is the one calling for is deposition by supporting this abdication. How ironic that Ratzinger's critics, and I suppose that I'm definitely one of them, are the people opposed to his self-deposition!

Friday, February 22, 2013

Voris on the Homoheresy

As a former seminarian, it always surprises me that this is "news". This is something that those of us who were, or are still, in the butcher shop have known for a long time. The same individuals that caused us straight seminarians to keep our doors locked at night didn't just disappear. It stands to reason that those who recruited the gays eventually succeeded in paving the way for their gay recruits to achieve positions of even greater power and influence than they enjoyed.

A priest recently told me that the problem hasn't gone away. The homosexuals and cultural Marxists have just gotten better in disguising themselves when needed.



With the Pope Against the Homoheresy by Fr. Dariusz Oko, Ph.D.

TradNews Roundup

*All four of the Year in Review vidieo interview of Fr. Rostand, USA District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X.





*The Abdication Drama continues:
     *La Repubblica reports that the existence of a "gay lobby" within the Vatican contributed to the Pope's abdication. Vatican spokesman says these are "fantasies", but please just look the other way while this guy conveniently disappears. What a bunch of buffoons! Some of those who will choose the next pope don't even understand what the Church teaches about ordination, they are confused among each other on even the most basic questions of morality! They think we are as stupid as they are!
     *Reaction from prominent European traditionalists is anything but positive.
     *Rumors of a new ultimatum and deadline for the SSPX are not true. The Holy Father tweets, "not my problem anymore."
     *Mahoney: Conclave or bust!
     *Maybe an African Pope is the ticket? "The less contaminated the new pope is by the dominant Euro-USA secular liberal-left mindset, the better it will be for normal people everywhere, Catholic or not."
    *Because, of course, an essential duty of the pope is to fly on airplanes. Of course, that explains it!
     *Archbishop Robert Smith of Edmonton: The Pope is teaching us how to be a quitter! Thank God for the church leadership we have!
     *Pravda refuses to parrot the party-line. Exactly how is this a good thing?
     *Pope's pension is secured. For the rest of us who will have to work until the day we die, well...

I'm sorry folks, but this whole thing is simply ridiculous. Is this the Vatican leadership that the SSPX and traditional Catholics must submit? Between their tweeting, quitting, "gay lobbying"... it's all just one big, Vatican II, joke! And the joke is on us, brothers and sisters... the joke is on us. This action on the part of Benedict XVI, while legally acceptable, in practice will do little more than strip one more thing from the modern Church that is sacred and noble. Now the papacy can be judged by modernity, expediency and utility. How is that good for the Church?

One thing, and only one thing, will reform this mess, and that is a total abrogation of the Second Vatican Council and all the changes, in teaching and method, in governance, in liturgy and in theology that followed that Council. The Vatican II experiment was tried, and it failed. It has done thing but denude the Church Militant of the sacred, and we are approaching the point at which it can no longer be tolerated. It's time to return to Tradition!


*Shocker! VCII Vatican in cahoots with the Chinese government.

*Chronology of the Ratzinger papacy's relations with the SSPX.

*What exactly is American Catholicism?

*"Delegate" of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Bishop Azevedo, has a sex abuse skeleton in his closet. Is this the Vatican to which the SSPX must submit?

*When not promoting abortion and artificial contraception abroad (albeit, indirectly) CRS lectures us about government spending at home.

*German bishops say it is perfectly OK to kill babies. Way to go novus ordo!

*A fifth straight Armageddon for the US Government! Really? How many Armageddons do we need before the end actually gets here? Rush nails it. It's just a farce, and that's all.

*Stanley Druckenmiller: "We have an entitlement problem."

*Patrick Buchanan: Death by Free Trade.

*0 Hedge: Central banks are the devil.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

St. Leo the Great, Sermon 42: On Lent


From
The Sermons of Pope St. Leo the Great
Sermon 42

In proposing to preach this most holy and important fast to you, dearly beloved, how shall I begin more fitly than by quoting the words of the Apostle, in whom Christ Himself was speaking, and by reminding you of what we have read: "behold, now is the acceptable time, behold now is the day of salvation." For though there are no seasons which are not full of Divine blessings, and though access is ever open to us to God's mercy through His grace, yet now all men's minds should be moved with greater zeal to spiritual progress, and animated by larger confidence, when the return of the day, on which we were redeemed, invites us to all the duties of godliness: that we may keep the super-excellent mystery of the Lord's passion with bodies and hearts purified. These great mysteries do indeed require from us such unflagging devotion and unwearied reverence that we should remain in God's sight always the same, as we ought to be found on the Easter feast itself. But because few have this constancy, and, because so long as the stricter observance is relaxed in consideration of the frailty of the flesh, and so long as one's interests extend over all the various actions of this life, even pious hearts must get some soils from the dust of the world, the Divine Providence has with great beneficence taken care that the discipline of the forty days should heal us and restore the purity of our minds, during which the faults of other times might be redeemed by pious acts and removed by chaste fasting.

As we are therefore, dearly-beloved, about to enter on those mystic days which are dedicated to the benefits of fasting, let us take care to obey the Apostle's precepts, cleansing "ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit" (2 Corinthians 7:1): that by controlling the struggles that go on between our two natures, the spirit which, if it is under the guidance of God, should be the governor of the body, may uphold the dignity of its rule: so that we may give no offense to any, nor be subject to the chidings of reprovers. For we shall be rightly attacked with rebukes, and through our fault ungodly tongues will arm themselves to do harm to religion, if the conduct of those that fast is at variance with the standard of perfect purity. For our fast does not consist chiefly of mere abstinence from food, nor are dainties withdrawn from our bodily appetites with profit, unless the mind is recalled from wrong-doing and the tongue restrained from slandering. This is a time of gentleness and long-suffering, of peace and tranquillity: when all the pollutions of vice are to be eradicated and continuance of virtue is to be attained by us. Now let godly minds boldly accustom themselves to forgive faults, to pass over insults, and to forget wrongs. Now let the faithful spirit train himself with the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, that through honour and dishonour, through ill repute and good repute, the conscience may be undisturbed in unwavering uprightness, not puffed up by praise and not wearied out by revilings. The self-restraint of the religious should not be gloomy, but sincere; no murmurs of complaint should be heard from those who are never without the consolation of holy joys. The decrease of worldly means should not be feared in the practice of works of mercy. Christian poverty is always rich, because what it has is more than what it has not. Nor does the poor man fear to labour in this world, to whom it is given to possess all things in the Lord of all things. Therefore those who do the things which are good must have no manner of fear lest the power of doing should fail them; since in the gospel the widow's devotion is extolled in the case of her two mites, and voluntary bounty gets its reward for a cup of cold water. For the measure of our charitableness is fixed by the sincerity of our feelings, and he that shows mercy on others will never want for mercy himself. The holy widow of Sarepta discovered this, who offered the blessed Elias in the time of famine one day's food, which was all she had, and putting the prophet's hunger before her own needs, ungrudgingly gave up a handful of grain and a little oil. But she did not lose what she gave in all faith, and in the vessels emptied by her godly bounty a source of new plenty arose, that the fullness of her substance might not be diminished by the holy purpose to which she had put it, because she had never dreaded being brought to want.

But, dearly-beloved, doubt not that the devil, who is the opponent of all virtues, is jealous of these good desires, to which we are confident you are prompted of your own selves, and that to this end he is arming the force of his malice in order to make your very piety its own snare, and endeavouring to overcome by boastfulness those whom he could not defeat by distrustfulness. For the vice of pride is a near neighbour to good deeds, and arrogance ever lies in wait hard by virtue: because it is hard for him that lives praise-worthily not to be caught by man's praise unless, as it is written, "he that glories, glories in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 10:17). Whose intentions would that most naughty enemy not dare to attack? Whose fasting would he not seek to break down? Seeing that, as has been shown in the reading of the Gospel , he did not restrain his wiles even against the Saviour of the world Himself. For being exceedingly afraid of His fast, which lasted 40 days and nights, he wished most cunningly to discover whether this power of abstinence was given Him or His very own: for he need not fear the defeat of all his treacherous designs, if Christ were throughout subject to the same conditions as He is in body. And so he first craftily examined whether He were Himself the Creator of all things, such that He could change the natures of material things as He pleased: secondly, whether under the form of human flesh the Godhead lay concealed, to Whom it was easy to make the air His chariot, and convey His earthly limbs through space. But when the Lord preferred to resist him by the uprightness of His true Manhood, than to display the power of His Godhead, to this he turns the craftiness of his third design, that he might tempt by the lust of empire Him in Whom the signs of Divine power had failed, and entice Him to the worship of himself by promising the kingdoms of the world. But the devil's cleverness was rendered foolish by God's wisdom, so that the proud foe was bound by that which he had formerly bound, and did not fear to assail Him Whom it behooved to be slain for the world.

This adversary's wiles then let us beware of, not only in the enticements of the palate, but also in our purpose of abstinence. For he who knew how to bring death upon mankind by means of food, knows also how to harm us through our very fasting, and using the Manichæans as his tools, as he once drove men to take what was forbidden, so in the opposite direction he prompts them to avoid what is allowed. It is indeed a helpful observance, which accustoms one to scanty diet, and checks the appetite for dainties: but woe to the dogmatizing of those whose very fasting is turned to sin. For they condemn the creature's nature to the Creator's injury, and maintain that they are defiled by eating those things of which they contend the devil, not God, is the author: although absolutely nothing that exists is evil, nor is anything in nature included in the actually bad. For the good Creator made all things good and the Maker of the universe is one, "Who made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them." Of which whatever is granted to man for food and drink, is holy and clean after its kind. But if it is taken with immoderate greed, it is the excess that disgraces the eaters and drinkers, not the nature of the food or drink that defiles them. "For all things," as the Apostle says, "are clean to the clean. But to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is clean, but their mind and conscience is defiled" (Titus 1:15).

But you, dearly-beloved, the holy offspring of the catholic Mother, who have been taught in the school of Truth by God's Spirit, moderate your liberty with due reasonableness, knowing that it is good to abstain even from things lawful, and at seasons of greater strictness to distinguish one food from another with a view to giving up the use of some kinds, not to condemning their nature. And so be not infected with the error of those who are corrupted merely by their own ordinances, "serving the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 9:26), and offering a foolish abstinence to the service of the lights of heaven: seeing that they have chosen to fast on the first and second days of the week in honour of the sun and moon, proving themselves in this one instance of their perverseness twice disloyal to God, twice blasphemous, by setting up their fast not only in worship of the stars but also in contempt of the Lord's Resurrection. For they reject the mystery of man's salvation and refuse to believe that Christ our Lord in the true flesh of our nature was truly born, truly suffered, was truly buried and was truly raised. And in consequence, condemn the day of our rejoicing by the gloom of their fasting. And since to conceal their infidelity they dare to be present at our meetings, at the Communion of the Mysteries they bring themselves sometimes, in order to ensure their concealment, to receive Christ's Body with unworthy lips, though they altogether refuse to drink the Blood of our Redemption. And this we make known to you, holy brethren, that men of this sort may be detected by you by these signs, and that they whose impious pretenses have been discovered may be driven from the society of the saints by priestly authority. For of such the blessed Apostle Paul in his foresight warns God's Church, saying: "but we beseech you, brethren, that you observe those who make discussions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you learned and turn away from them. For such persons serve not Christ the Lord but their own belly, and by sweet words and fair speeches beguile the hearts of the innocent" (Romans 16:17-18).

Being therefore, dearly-beloved, fully instructed by these admonitions of ours, which we have often repeated in your ears in protest against abominable error, enter upon the holy days of Lent with Godly devoutness, and prepare yourselves to win God's mercy by your own works of mercy. Quench your anger, wipe out enmities, cherish unity, and vie with one another in the offices of true humility. Rule your slaves and those who are put under you with fairness, let none of them be tortured by imprisonment or chains. Forego vengeance, forgive offenses: exchange severity for gentleness, indignation for meekness, discord for peace. Let all men find us self-restrained, peaceable, kind: that our fastings may be acceptable to God. For in a word to Him we offer the sacrifice of true abstinence and true Godliness, when we keep ourselves from all evil: the Almighty God helping us through all, to Whom with the Son and Holy Spirit belongs one Godhead and one Majesty, for ever and ever. Amen.