I’m not sure if the timing has anything to do with Pope Benedict’s U.S. trip, but the schismatic traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X chose this weekend to announce its disappointment in the pontiff and its decision not to seek closer ties to Rome now. SSPX leader Bishop Bernard Fellay wrote in a “Letter to Friends and Benefactors” (here in French) that Benedict had not budged in his support for the Second Vatican Council despite his decision last year to allow wider use of the old Tridentine rite Mass in Latin.
“The time for an agreement has not yet come,” Fellay wrote. The decree on the old Latin Mass was “not accompanied by logically co-related measures in the other areas of the life of the Church … Nothing has changed in Rome’s determination to follow the council’s orientation, despite 40 years of crisis, despite the deserted convents, abandoned rectories and empty churches.”
The letter is dated April 14 but was only published on Saturday by the SSPX information service DICI. Here’s our story and here’s a partial English translation of Fellay’s statement at Rorate Caeli (hat tip to Father Z for that).
Fellay signalled his continued estrangement from Rome in February when he accused the Vatican of caving in to “foreign pressures” when it issued a new wording of the Latin prayer on Good Friday. In a FaithWorld post on that statement, I wondered out loud whether any or many SSPX parishioners would drift away from their churches to attend Latin Masses in their local parishes. From scattered comments I’ve heard since then, it seems that few if any of the people attending the (admittedly also few) old Latin Masses now seem to have defected from the Lefebvrist ranks.
Fellay isn’t the only one who might feel let down by Benedict. Michael Sean Winter had an interesting piece on Slate about “How Pope Benedict has disappointed the Right.” He recalls how conservative Catholics welcomed his election in 2005, only to find he didn’t crack down the way they hoped he would.
What do you think? Has Benedict been as conservative as you expected him to be?
Trackback
99 comments so far
Previous | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
I would just like to point out to those of you who are now attending the Indult, FSSP, IOCC, etc. You have Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX to thank for all of it. It seems a bit wrong to me to be criticizing and labeling Traditional Catholics for upholding the Traditional Faith and at the same time enjoying the fruits of many years of sacrifice, hardship, and calumny. Don’t worry, we will continue to hold to Tradition so you can enjoy it’s fruits and at the same time not have to suffer for the faith!
- Posted by RubenWow, Kevin D. If that isn’t Modernism at it’s finest I don’t know what is. Wow!!!
- Posted by RubenOnly through the direct intervention of God will the Roman Catholic Church, the True Church of Christ, be fully restored to its traditional glory in liturgy and faith.
- Posted by RomanThis will occur in the near future as the third part of the Secret of Fatima continues to unfold, and as the Medjugorje secrets begin.
Although this Society claims to be the true Church, it is schismatic. Martin Luther did not intend to create a separate church in the beginning, but ultimately, that is where his grievances against the Church led him and millions of others. Vatican II is not the problem. Vatican II is a good thing,not a bad thing. Respect for the Mass is not lost because of Vatican II, but because, as Pope Paul VI has said, the smoke from the enemy has even entered into the Church itself;smoke that appears as secular materialism, birth control,abortion,gay platforms,pornography. Pope Benedict XVI is the true and rightful successor to Saint Peter. There has never been a “vacant seat” in the Vatican. We have Christ’s promise on that. The Society of St.Pius X is in error and indirectly acknowledges this by seeking reconciliation with the Catholic Church,and then issuing statements of disappointment when its hopes are dashed. If the SSPX were the true Catholic Church, it could stand on its own with the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by our Lord. Only the Church led by the Successor of St.Peter can do this, and that Church is the one under the guidance of Pope Benedict XVI. The SSPX is in itself a new “church” whose agenda is very similar to the early Reformers’: to “purify” the Church according to its own human designs. If the Society does not bend and reconcile with the Church, then it will go down in history as another sect that left the Church.
- Posted by Mary TheresaDerek,
- Posted by JasonThose who concocted Vatican II and the new “mass” in many languages (Babel) started the rebellion against true Catholicism. Vatican II and the new “mass” are the dressing up of the new religion.
Why are the True Catholics called schismatics? Traditional Catholics are not schismatics. They stuck with Tradition and Catholicism, while Rome and most of the priests and bishops broke with Tradition and started a new religion with Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae but kept falsely calling themselves “Catholic.” God doesn’t change and neither can the Church.
- Posted by JasonHave the “gates of hell” prevailed? Certainly not. Catholics know that Christ cannot lie. The promise our Lord made was that the truth will win and that the church can not be destroyed but this Church resides, not in numbers, not in buildings, and not even of necessity in the hierarchy. The truth functions ex opere operatio. It resides in the faithful (the hierarchy must be “of the faithful,” before they can be “of the hierarchy.” Or as the theologians put it, members of the “teaching Church” (the Magisterium) must be first of all members of the “learning Church.”) Every baptized infant, according to the traditional rite, becomes a “member of the body of Christ.”
The Council declared the Church would henceforth not only be “open to the world,” but that it would “embrace” it! Its avowed aim and promise was aggiornamento to bring the Church “into the twentieth century” and make it part of, and acceptable to that world.
Many continue to accuse traditional Catholics - those that insist on retaining the fullness of the Catholic faith intact and who therefore refuse the new religion of the post-Conciliar Church, of being in “schism.” The accusation is a lie. In reality, the schismatic is one who removes himself from the truth, and not one who insists upon it. And if it is necessary to separate oneself from something in order to save the truth, long live Schism! But in reality, it is not the traditional Catholic who is in Schism, but those who are responsible for changing the Catholic faith.
- Posted by Johnhttp://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/088 bev07-18-2007.htm
Bird’s Eye View of the News
Atila Sinke Guimarães
THE MOTU PROPRIO, AFTER THE EMOTIONS - Significant segments of the conservative and traditionalist movements received Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum released last July 7 with a strong emotional reaction. Such emotion, which now seems to be subsiding to a more reasonable level, can be explained.
Indeed, the expectations of so many who shed tears of joy when Card. Ratzinger was elected Pope desperately needed some pretext to expand.
Until now, Benedict had seemed to forget that those people who considered him a conservative were expecting him to say something they could applaud. They had been successively discouraged by a continuous chain of events. The following were Benedict’s landmark initiatives favoring Progressivism:
A democratic way of exerting his power as Pope;
His choice of Card. Levada, to lead the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith;
His support of Card. Law, maintaining him in several important situations at the Vatican;
His insistent attempts to unite with the Greek Schismatics no matter what offenses they make and doctrinal errors they sustain;
His constant praise of the Augsburg accord with the Protestants (drafted by Card. Ratzinger), in which the doctrine of Trent on justification was given away;
His visit to the synagogue in Germany, and obsessive support of Judaism on many occasions;
His presence at World Youth Day, “blessing” its many liberal procedures;
His four-hour visit with Fr. Hans Kung at the Vatican;
His abolition of the papal title Patriarch of the West;
A document permitting homosexuals in the seminaries;
His visit to the mosque in Constantinople;
His Encyclical Deus caritas est, which avoids dealing with the major problems of modern morality;
His initiative to fast-track John Paul II’s canonization;
His virtual abolition of Limbo; and so on.
Toward those naïve conservatives, Pope Ratzinger had showed himself heartless, doing very little to justify their hopes. Practically the only carrot hanging from the tip of the stick to sustain his myth of being conservative was the 2-year-postponed motu proprio.
So, when it came, and in fact allowed the Tridentine Mass to be said broadly, all those disappointed expectations experienced a sudden moment of decompression. Understandably, tears appeared in the eyes of many ladies, hurrahs spontaneously spurted from the mouths of many men. I fully understand this psychological need. Any civilized person respects the tears and sufferings of forgotten or mistreated children.
However, I cannot have the same complacence with some opportunists who are trying to manipulate this honest reaction in order to accomplish their own agenda of compromise. I cannot condone them. I will deal with them later, at another opportunity.
Given that some of those first emotions have settled down, I surmise it possible to offer a coherent analysis of the motu proprio (m.p.) and its introductory letter (i.l.).
THE BIG PICTURE
To be fair in one’s appraisal of the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI, the first element to take into consideration is that one should evaluate his motu proprio along with its monstrous twin sister. I am referring to the letter he released almost simultaneously delivering the ensemble of the underground Chinese Catholics to the Communist regime. The same Benedict who wrote one letter, also wrote the other within the period of just a few days.
Thus, in the West, Benedict opened the Tridentine Mass to a larger number of conservatives; in the East he delivered our heroic brothers in the Faith to the hyenas. With one hand he gave life, with the other he spread death. Conservative in the West, he could not have been more progressivist in the East. In my opinion, any appraisal of the motu proprio that skips the letter to the Chinese Catholics is incomplete. It shows only one side of Benedict’s face.
The fact that he wrote the motu proprio and the letter to the Chinese Catholics concurrently sets aside the naïve rumor that he is converting. No one who is converting delivers around 10 million of the Catholic faithful to Communism.
WHAT WAS GRANTED
Almost everyone has been talking about what will be granted to Catholics after September 14, 2007, but let me summarize the gains.
What was granted is that:
Without people present, a priest can say a Tridentine Mass according to the 1962 Missal without the permission of anyone (m.p., art. 2);
A particular religious institute may regularly adopt the Tridentine Mass at its own discretion (ibid, art 3);
With people present, a priest can celebrate the Tridentine Mass if permitted by the pastor of the church (ibid, art 4 § 1).
Item 1 opens the door for the Tridentine Mass to be said in private by any priest. Even though it had never been abrogated (ibid, art 1), it was practically forbidden after the Liturgical Reform of Paul VI entered into effect. Item 1 is turned toward easing the problems of conscience of those with scruples about saying the New Mass. Benedict wants to prevent them from taking a position of resistance.
It seems to me that item 2 is principally turned toward the SSPX after its possible agreement with the Vatican. It also applies to other compromised traditionalist institutes such as the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, the Apostolic Administration of St. John Mary Vianney, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, etc. They can say the Tridentine Mass inside their institutions. It is not so probable that Jesuits or Benedictine will be saying Tridentine Masses in their Orders.
Item 3 refers to the normal life of parishes and establishes when a priest can say the Tridentine Mass for an ensemble of people. It depends on some conditions.
THE MISSAL OF 1962
Regarding the 1962 Missal, it is important to note that, as far as I know, it was one of the achievements of Fr. Annibale Bugnini. Indeed, to my knowledge Bugnini had five principal accomplishments during his career:
The 1955 reform of Holy Week services, under Pius XII;
The 1962 reform of the Missal and Roman Breviary, under John XXIII;
Also in 1962, the draft of Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II’s document on liturgy, which was approved by the assembly with minor modifications;
The 1970 Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI;
The entire Liturgical Reform of Paul VI.
It is very beautiful to say, as Benedict did, that the 1962 Missal was made by Pope John XXIII, in contrast with the Novus Ordo Mass made by Pope Paul VI. It is a pleasant ruse, but it does not reflect reality, for both were produced by the same Fr. Annibale Bugnini. In the 1962 Missal, Bugnini was already preparing the New Mass to come. In it he introduced as many modifications as he could at the time.
This is not the place, however, to delve into details on the 1962 Missal.
DOCTRINAL CONDITIONS
The apparently conservative motu proprio has, nevertheless, some progressivist doctrinal demands:
The first demand is for the celebrant to accept the New Mass: “Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness” (i.l., at the end - the bold is mine).
This condition has already been in place for the priests in the mentioned compromised institutes that received permission from the Ecclesia Dei Commission to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. They must not only recognize the “value and holiness” of the New Mass, but have to say at least one New Mass a year to keep their celebret.
This first demand sets aside all priests who have doctrinal objections to the Novus Ordo Mass. If anyone imagines that a priest with such objections can appear in a church and ask permission to say the Tridentine Mass, such person is roundly mistaken. It will not happen. He “cannot, as matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to new books,” affirms Benedict.
The second demand is indirect. It refers to the acceptation of Vatican II. In the exposition of reasons for his motu proprio Pope Ratzinger invokes Vatican II. In his introductory letter he clearly states: “There is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. This fear is unfounded.”
Benedict foresees no risk that the moto proprio will cause anyone to call into question Vatican II, which necessarily means that one of the conditions for a priest to receive permission to say the Tridentine Mass is to agree with Vatican II.
He knows, as everyone does, that various institutes – the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, the Apostolic Administration of St. John Mary Vianney, and the Institute of the Good Shepherd – have already agreed with Vatican II. So, this message is not directed to them, but rather to another association that is approaching an agreement. Regarding the latter, Benedict’s discrete reference to an “unfounded fear” is a message to the Bishops saying, “I will not allow anyone to receive such permission unless he agrees with Vatican II. You can be sure of that.”
So, if he fulfils these two conditions, any priest who has the juridical approval of the Diocese and knows his Latin and the rubrics of the 1962 Missal, can appear in any parish and ask permission to say the Tridentine Mass for a certain group of people. The pastor will assent if he is sure “that the welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, avoiding discord and favoring the unity of the whole Church” (m.p., art. 5 § 1). That is, this is the moment for the pastor to check if the priest has objections against the New Mass or Vatican II. If he does, or the pastor thinks that such permission could displease the Bishop and jeopardize his career, he can simply refuse permission. If this occurs, priest and faithful can go to the Bishop, and if he does not allow it, then they can appeal to the Vatican.
Up until now – I write on July 17 – several priests have already publicly denied any Tridentine Mass for their parishes. Some Prelates, such as Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, have also refused permission. Card. Roger Mahony, through his spokesman, put out some statements that are very close to a general refusal for more Tridentine Masses.
If such cases become more general, the whole picture, apparently so favorable to conservatives, ends by being not so different from what has been permitted to this date, where the rare celebrations of the Tridentine Mass are relegated to inconvenient hours and places in order not to disturb attendance at the Novus Ordo.
DOCTRINAL OMISSIONS
Interesting enough, in neither the motu proprio nor his introductory letter does Benedict XVI say a word about the main doctrinal objections against the Novus Ordo Mass as favoring Protestantism, or against Vatican II and its fruits as being contrary to the previous Catholic Magisterium.
Instead, the increasing number of Catholics who are turning their backs to the Novus Ordo Mass and attending the Tridentine Mass were presented as a phenomenon of nostalgia for the rite “familiar to them from childhood.” Or, they would just be attracted by “the sacrality” of the Tridentine Mass. At most, their rejection of the New Mass is presented as a reaction against some ill-advised “arbitrary deformations.”
This picture is palpably incomplete. Benedict XVI purposely omitted mentioning a whole spectrum of doctrinal objections against the Novus Ordo Missae: it has a pronounced flavor of Protestantism, which is the same as saying it has the strong savor of heresy; it does away with the sacrificial essence of the Mass; it dethrones God and enthrones the people; it lacks respect for the Divine Majesty; it is deficient with regard to the Blessed Sacrament and the formulas of the Canon, etc.
It is my understanding that a well-intentioned Pope should first and above all try to resolve the serious doctrinal objections innumerable Catholics have against the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II. However, Benedict XVI did not do this. He flagrantly skipped over addressing any doctrinal objection.
STRATEGIC APPROACH
Since serious doctrinal objections were not addressed, the whole initiative is reduced to boosting good feeling, not to reinforcing good principles. More solemn ceremonies, more silence and recollection, more beautiful music, more incense, all these are good things, but they all can be found either in the 1962 celebrations or in the already approved New Mass said in Latin.
So, the motu proprio and its introductory letter can properly be understood as an effort to silence the true traditionalists: “Shut up with your doctrinal questions.” Also, as an effort to encourage all conservative Catholics who do not care about principles to accept one of the options now proffered: the Tridentine Mass according to the 1962 Missal, the New Mass in Latin, a solemn New Mass in the vernacular, or a modern New Mass.
These two documents, followed by another short document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that is surprisingly similar to Dominus Jesus - which I hope to analyze soon – constitute an enormous effort trying to stop the growing hemorrhage of Catholics from the Novus Ordo toward conservatism, and from conservatism toward traditionalism.
It is good for us to realize how much stronger and more important traditionalism has become, with the help of Our Lady. Also, it is indispensable to consider that now is not the moment to cede on the doctrinal principles to be satisfied with good feelings.
- Posted by Zorayda Nevada“I agree that some in the Pius XXPX movement or whatever they call themselves are cultish and have not kept the tradition for the most noble of all reasons and that is to preserve the foundation and purpose, and the only genuine reason for religion in the first place, that of love - the love of God for us and our transmission of that love to and for others.” -posted by Charles
Charlie,
You’re full of horse manure! First of all, get your names right. The name of the priestly order we are talking about is the SSPX you idiot! That’s how you know, folks, that a lot of these anti-traditional morons are full of rubbish - when they can’t even properly identify who they’re bashing!
And if religion is all about love, you might as well be a pot-smoking, polyamorous hippie who doesn’t believe in SIN and promotes tree-hugging as a form of penance. May be you are exactly that, Charlie. Somehow, you’re still stuck in the Sixties!
- Posted by Zorayda NevadaSSPX is not schismatic or heretics… there is nothing wrong with their doctrine. Only 4 were excommunicated for not seeking papal approval for ordaining Bishops. This is a non story and non issue
- Posted by Edhttp://www.traditioninaction.org/religio us/m014rpBetrayal_of_China.html
Benedict Delivers
Chinese Underground Catholics to Communism
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Many people are commenting on the Motu Proprio released July 7. Hardly anyone seems to have noticed its ugly sister, a much longer document – 18 pages in its English version – discretely released by the Vatican at noon June 30. I am referring to the Letter of Benedict XVI to the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China. It is an extraordinary open letter that signifies a delivering of the underground Chinese Catholic Church to Communism.
Religious perspective
On the religious level, Benedict quite calmly and eloquently tells the heroic Chinese Catholic resistance against Communism that the way of the future is to unite with the government-sponsored Patriotic Church.
As most readers are surely aware, there are two religious realities in China, the faithful underground Roman Catholic Church that has been fiercely persecuted by the Communist government for more than a half-century, and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA), established in 1957 and directed by the Communist government. It appoints its own bishops and priest, and officially declares its autonomy from the Pope.
To be faithful to her mission, the Church has always maintained the impossibility of reconciling with Communism. How could it be otherwise? The Communist doctrine clashes head on with Catholic doctrine in many dogmatic and moral points. It also denies basic tenets the Church holds on private property and family, contradicting several Commandments. Therefore, since the 1950s, the Vatican always supported those underground Catholics who opposed Communism and were faithful to Rome, granting them special concessions to ordain their Bishops and priests. Simultaneously, to stress its support for the underground Catholics, Rome denied the CCPA’s authority to ordain bishops and priests, did not recognize any of them, and excommunicated them. That is, the CCPA and its members were condemned for its bad doctrine and incurred schism.
It is necessary to say that to this date neither the CCPA nor its boss, the Communist regime, have made any change in its policy toward the Catholic religion.
Notwithstanding, the recent letter of Benedict XVI turned the thus-far coherent position of the Holy See in China upside-down. Yes, he acknowledges those Catholics who have suffered for fidelity and loyalty to the Pope. But he also recommends that they submit to the Communist-oriented CCPA, saying that “authentic communion” demands “arduous efforts of reconciliation.” Indeed, forgetting that he was dealing with a Communist association, he states:
“The purification of memory, the pardoning of wrong-doers, the forgetting of injustices suffered and the loving restoration to serenity of troubled hearts … can require moving beyond personal positions or viewpoints, born of painful or difficult experiences. These are urgent steps that must be taken if the bonds of communion between the faithful and the Pastors of the Church in China are to grow and be made visible.”
Thus his letter to China goes on saying that it is time for the underground Church to forgive all past “wrongdoings,” and for the two sides to dissolve “tensions, divisions and recriminations” to reconcile in “authentic communion.”
Finally, Benedict revokes “all previously granted faculties and directives designed to address particular necessities in truly difficult times.”
What does this mean? Nothing less that wiping away those directives by his predecessors granting special privileges to the underground Church, e.g.:
The faculties that allowed underground Catholic Bishops to ordain other Bishops and priests;
Directives advising the underground Catholics to avoid receiving sacraments from bishops or priests who belonged to the CCPA;
The 1988 guideline that said any bishop ordained by CCPA would incur an automatic excommunication.
All this was wiped out, in the name of unity and communion, and to facilitate the establishment of Vatican relations with red Beijing.
It is a scandal, a betrayal of those Catholics who, shedding their blood, have maintained their fidelity to the See of Peter without compromises.
Coexistence of persecutors and victims
In his letter, Benedict lays out the three groups of bishops in Communist China, and offers solutions for all - since they are all “sons of the Chinese people” so that a “respectful and constructive dialogue” might begin.
First, there are the “clandestine Bishops” faithful to Catholic tradition and in communion with the Successor of Peter. He encourages them, insomuch as it is possible, to apply for recognition by the civil authorities. In return he asks that the Communist government also recognize “these legitimate Pastors.”
Overlooking that the Primitive Church lived in the Catacombs for more than 200 years, he points out that an underground Church “is not a normal and lasting situation” for the Catholic Church. Implying that the immutable doctrine of the Church has now changed, he asks the underground Catholic Church to surface and swim in the tide of Communism.
Second, Benedict observes that we have those “other pastors” who were made bishops by the Communist government and subsequently asked to be recognized by the Pope. He wants to assure all the Chinese people that “the Pope has granted them the full and legitimate exercise of episcopal jurisdiction” because of his “profound pastoral concern to favor the establishment of full communion.”
Most of the true Catholic faithful, however, have refused to recognize those bishops who were created by and follow the orientation of the Communist government. Now, Benedict tells the underground Catholics that they should publicly recognize those CCPA bishops. They must accept and grant them the same respect they have for the Bishops of the underground Church. That is, the Pope accepts the state-appointed Bishops who have cooperated with the Communist regime and obliges their opponents to submit to them.
Third, Benedict encourages those state-appointed bishops who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for it to seek the necessary legitimization. In the meantime, the faithful can consider the sacraments received by them as “illegitimate, but valid.” The consequence:
“Therefore the faithful, taking this into account, where the eucharistic celebration and the other sacraments are concerned, must, within the limits of the possible, seek Bishops and priests who are in communion with the Pope: nevertheless, where this cannot be achieved without grave inconvenience, they may, for the sake of their spiritual good, turn also to those who are not in communion with the Pope.”
As far as I can see this is a call for the faithful to go to the Patriotic Church.
Then he invites the three groups to join together to form a single Episcopal Conference, to achieve the aim of governing together in communion. Persecutors and victims living together…
Let it be duly noted that the letter includes a reaffirmation of the Vatican’s right to appoint Bishops, calls on China’s Communist rulers to respect “authentic religious freedom,” and notes that the Chinese Patriotic Association is “incompatible with Catholic doctrine.”
All rhetoric and speechifying aside, what is being conceded is simple enough: “Well, we will not admit that you can name bishops, but we will accept the bishops you name …”
Political perspective: Communism is no longer a problem
n his letter addressed to an estimated 10 million Chinese Catholics loyal to the Holy See, Benedict never mentions Communism. Instead, he reassures the Chinese government that the Vatican offers no political challenge to its authority, that the Church “does not have a mission to change the structure or administration of the State.” He also asks Catholics in China to be good and respectful citizens and “active contributors to the common good in their country.”
The message to the Chinese Catholics? That the Church and the Communist regime can be allied in dialogue, and that Catholics can be good Chinese Communist citizens.
The first reaction of China’s CCPA was to praise Benedict’s letter. “This is different from earlier papal letters,” said Liu Bainian, deputy head of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. “Earlier papal letters were opposed to Communism and the Socialist system. They wanted to punish members of China’s patriotic church. Now the situation is different. The pope wants to better understand China’s church.”
Abandonment of Taiwan
For years the Communist government has insisted on two conditions for the normalization of relations: First, that the Vatican surrender the authority to appoint members of the clergy. Second, that the Vatican break off ties with Taiwan, which China claims as part of its territory, and establish its capital in Beijing.
In a note attached to the document, Benedict affirmed that the Vatican was ready to move its diplomatic representation from Taiwan to Beijing “at any time.” The Vatican officially committed itself to meet one of China’s conditions for dialogue.
It is a second betrayal, on the political level, of Taiwan as the representative of anti-Communist China.
Several hours after publication of the letter, the Foreign Affairs Ministry in Beijing released a terse communiqué reiterating China’s pre-conditions to restoration of diplomatic relations: The Vatican must sever its so-called diplomatic ties with Taiwan and “recognize the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government representing the whole of China,” and promise it will “never interfere in China’s internal affairs, including in the name of religion.” Strangely, the Vatican media reported this rude response as “a sign of modest progress” (“Subdued but predictable reactions in China to Pope’s Letter, Asia News, July 2, 2007).
Underground Chinese Bishops, priests and faithful, betrayed by the Pope they always supported, may understandably be plunged into an enormous spiritual trial. We must pray they will remain steadfast in resisting any coexistence with the Communist regime, be it promoted by CCPA or, something much harder, by the Vatican itself.
- Posted by Zorayda NevadaThe conciliar Popes adopted the principles of the UN on war
Salvo number two was fired by two of the post-Conciliar Popes. Paul VI and John Paul II have made it clear that they reject Catholic teaching on the subject of just war. They based themselves on the sophism: if a nuclear capacity exists, it nullifies the Catholic teaching about just war. Paul VI’s words have echoed around the world, “Never again war, never again war!”(4)
Paul VI visited the UN once, during the Council, and brought to it his papal support and those of the conciliar Bishops. John Paul II visited the UN twice. At each visit, he endorsed the Masonic principles of the UN. Let us see what Benedict XVI will do at the UN in April of this year when he is expected to deliver a message along the same lines. These Popes are supporting the Progressivist-Masonic agenda to end national sovereignty, to end all wars forever, and to impose peace – by law or force – on all peoples (5).
War will always exist, simply because evil and good cannot exist together. This is the reason for the first war in Heaven among the Angels. Also, we should consider that human nature fell into Original Sin, and human misery can be present in the launching or waging of war.
Our Lady knows well what war is. She gave mankind instructions about governing through Venerable Mary of Agreda. She was specific about warfare. In speaking about the art of governing, she listed four kinds of prudence. The first pertains to the supreme authority, the second to politics, the third to economics, and the fourth to the military. This military prudence “is adapted to prosecution of wars and management of armies”(6).
Hence these conciliar Popes not only reject Catholic teaching about war, but rebuff Our Lady.
The errors taught by Progressivism over the past half century are reaching their mathematical curve. Catholics have had enough of them. The errors of the French Revolution in the Church and the rejection of Catholic doctrine on war are just two examples where the people are over-saturated. Catholics are reaching their final saturation point, and the progressivist leadership knows it. It’s impossible not to hypothesize that one motive for loosening restrictions on the Mass of 1962 was tactical (or, if you will strategic): to stop the resistance of the faithful Catholics to the Vatican II revolution.
Until the final saturation comes, the Catholic remnant stands ready for the chastisements predicted in Fatima and the final triumph of the Mother of God, “that great age of the Church which is to be the Age of Mary,” according to St. Louis Grignion de Monfort (7).
- Posted by Z.N.http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopi cs/a061ht_MathematicalCurve_Arnold.htm
These seven points were also used by Progressivism to destroy the Catholic Church. Let me apply them:
- Posted by Z.N.Fully one quarter of the clergy apostatized, that is, they self-deported themselves from the Church following the Council, and that was only the beginning of an enormous crisis of vocation that remains to this date. They suffered spiritual death.
The Cult of Reason in the new church is its dependence on the Enlightenment.
The large scale destruction of religious monuments was made by the Liturgical Reform of Paul VI.
The de facto prohibition of the true Mass since 1969.
Catholic education was not explicitly forbidden, but was completely deconstructed with the application of the principles of Vatican II.
The spirit of adaptation of the Church to the modern world produced an enormous quantity of priests and religious who left their state of celibacy to marry. For those who remained, Progressivism is strongly advocating the abolition of celibacy so that all can marry.
Any Bishop, priest or religious who did not agree with Vatican II was considered suspect and put under a psychological arrest. This was the equivalent of a moral torture to those who did want to obey the authority but did not want to deny the Catholic Faith.These are the consequences of the principles expressed by both Cardinals Suenens and Ratzinger: Vatican II was the French Revolution in the Church.
Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church
Cardinal Suenens approvingly declared that “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church” (1). Then-Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the text of Gaudium et spes represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789 by the French Revolution (2).
These two Prelates could not have been more honest about their desire to destroy the Church, the sine qua non for ushering in the new world church. A major part of the French Revolution was its policy of “de-Christianisation.” Here are the tenets of this policy:
- Posted by Z.N.The deportation of Catholic clergy and the condemnation of many of them to death.
The institution of revolutionary and civic cults, including the Cult of Reason and subse-quently the Cult of the Supreme Being.
The large-scale destruction of religious monuments.
The outlawing of public and private worship.
The prohibition of religious education.
Forced marriages of the clergy.
Forced apostasy from the priesthood,
The enactment of a law on October 21, 1793, the Law of the Suspects, which threatened with prison and death any person, including clergy, who did not agree with the principles of the French Revolution (3).
The Mathematical Curve of Progressivism
Lyle J. Arnold, Jr.
The founding fathers of Progressivism fully grasped a mathematical principle. By planting their virus at the Second Vatican Council, they knew there was a mathematical curve, a time variation, within which period they could operate in their plan to destroy the Church. Their diabolical clever-ness advised them that their virus would grow, slowly at first, and with time exponentially.
But the law of growth must face another law, that of saturation. With saturation comes a slowing of growth, until the growth finally ceases altogether. Two major salvos fired by progressivist fathers and Popes should be listed here to illustrate this point. Salvo number one was fired by Cardinals Suenens, a Council Father, and Ratzinger, the present Pontiff, Benedict XVI.
- Posted by Z.N.Just some points i wish to make
1. I was aghast at the jews singing of “Alleluia” for the pope at the NY synagogue just prior to his speech there.
It seemed like a deliberate mockery of the Catholic faith and its constant praise of the saviour of the world.
2. I agree that some in the Pius XXPX movement or whatever they call themselves are cultish and have not kept the tradition for the most noble of all reasons and that is to preserve the foundation and purpose, and the only genuine reason for religion in the first place, that of love - the love of God for us and our transmission of that love to and for others.
3.
- Posted by charlesThe pope is human and he is 81. Yet he has done more to restore the church than any predecessor in living memory It is important to keep that in mind when offering criticism.
Like John Paul II, Pope Benedict choses to ignore the world wide drift away from orthodoxy by Catholics all over the world. JPII did a lot of travelling and was very popular, but did nothing to stem the growing loss of large number of Catholics. He also took little interest in the terrible scandals which have stained the faith for over 4 years. The last 2 or 3 Popes wanted to be liked, more than to direct the flock along the path that leads to everlasting life. What else does the Church exist for if not this? The devil is alive and winning many victories everywhere.
- Posted by Joseph R VazzoSSPX wants to change the whole Catholic church to their liking,I don’t think this is about to happen.If they persist in choosing not to join us, it is their loss not ours. The Pope is trying to be accomodating and they are acting very arrogant about it.
- Posted by AnitaI think that the purpose of Vatican 11 was to create
- Posted by robertfor the Church a comfortable spot in the modern world.
It was propagated to weave the traditionality and the authentic teachings of the Church into the incoming
cultural revolutions of an emerging contemporary society.As such, it was a good thing of itself. The real
problem is the manipulations and the liberalities that
developed along the way and were tolerated as it is
reflected in the liturgical and other facets of the Church
Criticizing the Pope in public only encourages those who hate the Catholic Church already. Disagree if you will, but get on your knees and pray. Fast!! and do penance. That’s your job get to it and you’ll see real change for the better in the Church and in your life.
- Posted by silverthread