The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

"Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush"
and other Nursery Rhymes
(no pun intended)

May 1st 2005

Governor Bush from Our Great State greets Pope Benedict XVI

Well the sedevacantists are at it again. Although one of them could be read telling the faithful to “pray for a miracle” (we do believe in miracles after all, don’t we ?) the biggest miracle would not be the election of a Pope, but that they would accept the outcome ! Replete with fuzzy theology like: “we’re praying for a true Pope this time” (when the only way you get a Pope is from Cardinals) and since sedevacantists live in a dream world where there hasn’t been a Pope since 1958 and therefore no Cardinals – how can anybody of this ilk be praying for a “true Pope” ? No, the game was loaded before it even began – predictions of a John Paul III and when the choice was known, they hailed him as the “Architect of the New Religion” I mean are these people serious ?

When the “New Religion” (as they call it) began, Father Joseph Ratzinger was a professor of theology in Germany; by the time he was called to Rome by John Paul II (1981) the “New Religion” was already in place throughout the world and the now Cardinal Ratzinger had had little or nothing to do with designing it.

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 ?”

Applying this principle to the erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger’s works: does he write his books to make money (and controversial material is always good for sales), or does he believe what he writes ? I think the latter.

Yet another luminary has gone on record pointing to the Pope's commitment to ecumenism. 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 Sarament in England before the Council:

0 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, 0 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 ? It is always interesting that though they have no part in his election (not having been raised to the Sacred Scarlet themselves) they sit in judgment on the man, not possessing the authority to do so, and forgetting that the authority to judge resides in a future Pope and/or an ecumenical council ratified by the Pope.

Commenting upon canon 1556 of the old code of Canon Law (can. 1404 - 1983 Code), the eminent canonist Fr. Augustine writes as follows:

“The first or primatial see is subject to no one’s judgment. This proposition must be taken in the fullest extent, not only with regard to the object of infallibility. For in matters of faith and morals it was always customary to receive the final sentence from the Apostolic See, whose judgment no one dared to dispute as the tradition of the Fathers demonstrates. Neither was it ever allowed to reconsider questions or controversies once settled by the Holy See. But even the person of the Supreme Pontiff was ever considered as unamenable to human judgment, he being responsible and answerable to God alone, even though accused of personal misdeeds and crimes. (…) “God wished the causes of other men to be decided by men; but He has reserved to His own tribunal, without question, the ruler of this see.” No further argument for the traditional view is required. A general council could not judge the Pope, because, unless convoked or ratified by him, it could not render a valid sentence. Hence nothing is left but an appeal to God, who will take care of His Church and its head.”

A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law Vol VII
Rev. P.C. Augustine O.S.B., Herder, 1923 Pp 11 & 12

This is the very law of the Church, but sedevacantists seem higher than Christ’s Vicar himself !

Writing about the rejection of authority within the civil society, Leo XIII wrote as follows:

“But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, "I will not serve"; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. (…) The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs.”

Libertas Leo XIII June 20, 1888 para 14 & 15

What may be said of the state and the idea that the authority to govern comes from the people is equally a propos for the Church and today’s traditional Catholic movement. Absent a Pope (according to the sedevacantist theory) behold the shambles of the various Trad groups infighting as usual – the “efficient cause of unity” (to use the words of Leo XIII) being “simply in the free will of individuals.”

Since there is no Pope (according to the sedevacantists again) and since they are guided by nothing more than “man’s individual reason” which is “his only rule of life”, what obliges me to accept their vituperative assertions which, being freely asserted, may be just as freely denied ? What, then, is the logic of all of this ? It leads directly to anarchy which does not cause us to wonder why, in His wisdom, Our Divine Lord told us that He would found His Church upon a Rock - a perpetual rock because there are perpetual successors in the primacy. With the foundation removed by these sad theologians, did Christ build his Church upon the shifting sands of time, or the shifting vagaries of men whose minds shift from rigorous sedevacantism to the philosophical oxymoron of a “material Pope” where prime matter has no real existence but material popes do ? Their approach: “Even though I’ve changed my mind, (again) I was not then wrong but now I am more right than I was previously” ! (That at least is the theological approach of those who recognize that the Church cannot continue without a shepherd indefinitely and that logistically their theories have reached the proverbial dead-end.)

We, on the other hand, prefer to listen to the sweet Mother of God herself, who told little Jacinta to “Pray for the Holy Father” even though the little seer initially had no idea what the phrase meant. As I said a few weeks ago in the Sunday sermon, like Presidents, you get the Pope you pray for.

A magazine article was circulated on an e-mail list I subscribe to that shows already our good Pope is at work....

"The Reform of the Reform"