On and on and
on.....
March 16, 2008
Another Tradition revived and the sedes start again...
Today I surfed over to sede-central.
I make a pilgrimage there once in a while to see the latest diatribe against the
Pope. I wasn't disappointed. The more the Pope revives of Tradition those
"feverish fingers" begin furiously typing again. A sample:
Furthermore
it should be noted that despite Ratzinger’s thrilling baroque miters and
dazzling florid copes complete with hand-embroidered curlicues — both worn
by him on Christmas — he has not taken a single step backward from the real
problem infecting our Catholic institutions: ecumenism. The Old Modernist is
as determined as ever to force ecumenism down the throats of Catholics, even
if he has to administer the poison in a towering baroque miter and a splendid
cope. Yet so many traditional Catholics look at these garments, which are
nothing but theatrical costumes if they are not clothing the truth, and get
goose bumps because of their illusion that, with Ratzinger, the end of Vatican
II and Modernism is at hand.
Students
of history know that all of the great revolutionaries who succeeded in
establishing their revolutions were not the radicals like Robespierre and
Julius Caesar, but the moderates like Napoleon and Augustus, who carefully
respected existing institutions, traditions, and trappings, but cleverly used
these things as grease in order to let pass the substance of their reform.
The
same may be said for Cromwell, whose radical regime did not last, but whose
principles lasted because they were cloaked in monarchy by the restoration of
the Stuarts in the person of Charles II in 1661. The radical Puritans had
chopped off the head of their king Charles I in 1649, had established the
supremacy of Parliament under their control, and then not long after the death
of Cromwell in 1658 invited back a king, Charles II, who became what British
monarchs have been ever since: powerless creatures of Parliament who parade in
costume from time to time, busying their days in many cases with immorality
and luxurious pastimes. The revolution was established under the cover of the
lacy and velvety baroque cloaks of Charles II. Proof of this fact is that when
James II, successor to Charles, tried to undo what the Puritans had done, he
was expelled from the throne in what is dubiously entitled the “Glorious
Revolution” of 1688.
Ratzinger’s revolution was Vatican II. He was one of
its principal architects and mentors. He was its midwife. His revolution is
now in trouble, as its effects are being felt: widespread defection of the
youth from any religion whatsoever, the “silent apostasy” of Europe, the
disappearance of vocations. He is trying to save his revolution by the tried
and true methods of old revolutionaries. As history also proves, most of the
conservatives fall for it.
Don't you just feel the sense of desperation
in the vitriol used to denigrate the Holy Father ? The more the Pope tries to
restore balance, the more unbalanced these people get. "Ratzinger's
revolution was Vatican II" ? "He was one of its principal architects
and mentors" ? "He was its midwife" ? Is this guy for real ? In
May 2005 I wrote this:
(W)hen the choice was known, they hailed him as the “Architect of the New Religion” I mean are these people serious ?
Another visionary has stated that the current Pope was the " right hand man of" Karl Rahner who supposedly "controlled the Council". This is almost laughable when one compares these ridiculous statements with the actual facts. For as the then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:
"Thus, it was agreed that Karl Rahner and I together would produce a second, more developed version. This second text, much more Rahner's work than my own, was then distributed among the Fathers and evoked some rather bitter reactions.
(From this it is more than evident Rahner didn't control the council after all ! Bp. Fulham)
As we worked together, it became obvious to me that, despite our agreement in many desires and conclusions, Rahner and I lived on two different theological planets. In questions such as liturgical reform, the new place of exegesis in the Church and in theology, and in many other areas, he stood for the same things I did, but for entirely different reasons. Despite his early readings of the Fathers, his theology was totally conditioned by the tradition of Suarezian scholasticism and its new reception in the light of German idealism and of Heidegger. His was a speculative and philosophical theology in which Scripture and the Fathers in the end did not play an important role and in which the historical dimension was really of little significance. For my part, my whole intellectual formation had been shaped by Scripture and the Fathers and profoundly historical thinking.
The great difference between the Munich school, in which I had been trained, and Rahner's became clear to me during those days, (1962) even though it still took a while for our parting of the ways to become outwardly
visible."
Milestones – Memoirs 1927 – 1977, Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius, San Francisco, 1998, pp 128 & 129
Do these people read the man’s books or do they tailor their remarks without regard to what he truly believes ? I can well recall a lecture at University years ago where we listened to the subject of the “author’s sincerity”. For almost an hour (no less) the lecturer droned on with what could have been put in one sentence: “Does the author mean what he says ?”
Already as a young priest at the Second Vatican Council he began to become worried and then sounded the alarm:
"Now and then, on returning from Rome, I found the mood in the Church and among theologians to be quite agitated. The impression grew steadily that nothing was now stable in the Church, that everything was open to revision. More and more the Council appeared to be like a great Church parliament that could change everything and reshape everything according to its own desires. (…)
When I came home after the Council’s first session, I had been filled with the joyful feeling, dominant everywhere, of an important new beginning. Now I became deeply troubled by the change in the ecclesial climate that was becoming ever more evident. In a presentation at the University of Münster on true and false renewal in the Church, I tried to sound a first warning signal, but few if any noticed. I then became more emphatic at the Bamberg Catholic Congress in 1966, so much so that Cardinal Döpfner expressed surprise at the "conservative streak" he thought he detected." Milestones pp 132 & 134.
I think anybody who watched his homily to the Cardinals at the conclave Mass will have been stunned by his blunt statement of the real problem within the Church today – bad theology. He said in part:
"How many winds of doctrine we have known in these last decades, how many ideological currents, how many fashions of thought? The small boat of thought of many Christians has often remained agitated by the waves, tossed from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, etc."
He went on:
"Every day new sects are born and we see realized what St. Paul says on the deception of men, on the cunning that tends to lead into error (cf. Ephesians 4:14). To have a clear faith, according to the creed of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. While relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of "doctrine," seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the "I" and its whims as the ultimate measure."
And he proposed a solution:
"We have another measure: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. "Adult" is not a faith that follows the waves in fashion and the latest novelty. Adult and mature is a faith profoundly rooted in friendship with Christ. This friendship opens us to all that is good and gives us the measure to discern between what is true and what is false, between deceit and truth. We must mature in this adult faith; we must lead the flock of Christ to this faith. And this faith, the only faith, creates unity and takes place in charity."
As to the charge of ecumenism
leveled above, indeed the Pope has made a commitment to ecumenism as the following text reveals:
Here I want to add something: both the image of the shepherd and that of the fisherman issue an explicit call to unity. “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must lead them too, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10:16); these are the words of Jesus at the end of his discourse on the Good Shepherd. And the account of the 153 large fish ends with the joyful statement: “although there were so many, the net was not torn” (Jn 21:11). Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn! But no – we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. Let us remember it in our prayer to the Lord, as we plead with him: yes, Lord, remember your promise. Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd!
HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI, St. Peter's Square, Sunday, 24 April 2005
To my mind this language is redolent of a beautiful prayer for the conversion of England composed by Pope St. Pius X's Cardinal Secretary of State Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val (by no means a modernist !) which used to be recited before the
Tantum Ergo in every Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in England before the Council:
O Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and our own most gentle Queen and Mother, look down in mercy upon England, thy Dowry, and upon us all who greatly hope and trust in thee. Through thee it was that Jesus our Savior and our Hope was given unto the world; and He has given thee to us that we might hope still more. Plead for us thy children, whom thou didst receive and accept at the foot of the Cross,
O sorrowful Mother. Intercede for our separated brethren, that they may be united togther with us in the One True Fold, with the chief Shepherd, the Vicar of Thy Son. Pray for us all, dear Mother, that by faith fruitful in good works we may all deserve to see and praise God together with Thee in our heavenly home. Amen.
When will the sedevacantists accept we have a Pope ? What criteria need to be in place before they would accept him ?
Perhaps we should recite the above prayer in the Good Friday liturgy and rename
it "For the Conversion of the sedes" without a "Flectamus genua"
("Let us bend the knee") - of course - since they refuse to bend the
knee to Benedict XVI !
+TF
