Edit: another example of self-serving Bergoglian exegesis?
[Dailypedia] In a homily delievered at the chapel of Saint Martha residence in the Vatican, Pope Francis shared the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which is found in the Gospel of Luke.
"The rich man boasted of fine clothing and ate lavish meals [Cardinal Marx certainly looks like he enjoys lavish meals], while Lazarus was a beggar who lived near his house, struggling with hunger and diseases. [The Church is starving for orthodox preaching while Bergoglio luxuriates in media adulation.]
Pope Francis explained that the rich man was not really evil, but "the eyes of his soul were certainly tinted so as not to see."
“Maybe he prayed and a couple times a year [Or offers the Sacrifice of the Mass in the guesthouse chapel of a luxurious four star hotel where he takes up a pretty large carbon footprint?] he surely went up to the temple to offer sacrifices and he gave big donations to the priests, [Takes big donations from globalist, pro-abortion, NGOs?] who in their clerical cowardice would thank him and give him a seat of honor,” [Pro-Abort Bernie Sanders comes to mind.] Pope Francis said.
http://www.thedailypedia.com/2016/03/pope-francis-not-churchgoers-good-people/#sthash.M7GoaSkE.dpuf
Friday, April 15, 2016
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Professional Media Catholic has to Find New Job
WASHINGTON
Tony Spence, director and editor-in-chief of Catholic News Service, a sinecure he's held since 2004, resigned after he was asked to step down by USCCB's general secretary.
In recent days Spence's leadership had been called into question by the Lepanto Institute, Catholic Family News and Lifesite News, according to the other fake Catholic news service, NCR. The business drone was clearly unhinged by the recent media agitprop campaign against states refusing to bow to pressure, by allowing male sexual deviants to use women's restroom. It's quite a hill to die on. He demonstrated his own deviance from Catholic teaching and had posted about the "controversial" religious freedom bills in North Carolina and Georgia. Some sane Catholics abovmwntiond accused Spence of "promoting the LGBT agenda." Doh!
Evil, fans of sodomy using the name Catholoc wailed ineffectually: "The far right blogsphere and their troops started coming after me again and it was too much for the USCCB," Spence told NCR in an interview Thursday.
There was no outcry from Patheos bloggers. Of course, the Patheos bloggers completely missed this one, Mark Shea and Father Longenecker were too busy trying to blame faithful Catholics for the Church's problems, and attacking Lepanto Institute as judgmental, divisive, mean and contentious.
Pope Francis: "I Started the Fire, I Will Put it Out Again"?
"That should at least be what should happen in our opinion, but it is not yet done. That is the thought which has come to us at the sight of the above photo disseminated by Vatican," says SMM.
At the end of yesterday, the Wednesday audience, Pope Francis addressed firefighters. The group of a fire brigade came from Fort de Demont in France and participated in the general audience in St. Peter's Square.
The photographer of the Vatican Press Office, who accompanied the Pope on his tour could caught for a few moments in which Pope Francis donned a fireman's helmet, wearing it as firefighters do on duty. The French Firefighters made the Pope a gift of it. The special feature: The helmet is decorated in the colors of the Papal States, Yellow and white.
At the same time, the firefighters presented the pope a pope mascot.
Text: Andreas Becker
Image: Vatican.va/OR (screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG
Image: Vatican.va/OR (screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG
New Anti-Catholic Film Critical of Blessed Pius IX
Edit: it's based on a true story, just like Spotlight. Spielberg, who is directing this upcoming film, has a penchant for anti-Catholic films. Why wouldn't he be anti-Catholic? But he really doesn't meet with much of an adverse reaction when he does these things. Imagine if the show were on the other foot? If someone were to make a film about a forced famine in the Ukraine during the 30s, and it certainly deserves a major film treatment, it is very unlikely it would be made owing to the religious sensibility and the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic proclivity of the overseers who caused it to happen.
Edgardo Montara became a Catholic priest. Sounds like a happy ending to us.
Will there be a papal reaction to this film? We can only hope not.
Will there be a papal reaction to this film? We can only hope not.
[Catholic Herald] Oscar-winning actor Mark Rylance is to play the part of Pope Pius IX in a new film produced by Steven Spielberg.
The film tells the story of a Jewish boy in Italy in 1858 who is taken from his parents, raised Catholic and then becomes a priest.
The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara is expected to go into production at the start of 2017 and the filming will begin this summer.
"Amoris Laetitia" and the Practical Consequences -- the Pastors of Biella Will Now Give Communion to Divorced and Remarried
 |
| The Pastors of Biella |
(Rome) The Post-Synodal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis, with its conclusions from the two Synods of Bishops 2014 and 2015 about marriage and the family, has plunged the Catholic Church plunged into a big mess and is presenting its first real impact.
The papal document led to a major disagreement in interpretation. The Pope's closest confidants celebrate the letter as "most important document of the last 1000 years" (Cardinal Walter Kasper). The "revolutionary" implications have dawned on progressive church circles after an initial disappointment (Alberto Melloni, School of Bologna). "Conservatives" also try desperately to explain away Amoris Laetitia, and to reinterpret the official Magisterium of the Pope as a "personal" and therefore non-binding statement (Cardinal Raymond Burke). Traditional Catholics who do not withdraw from the substantive debate, speak of a "catastrophic document" (Roberto de Mattei). For external observers, there reigns the perfect mess.
Rarely has the Catholic Church shown itself so fractiousness and disunited on how conceive and implement a papal document. The confusion concerns the whole Church. They range from the very top to the very bottom. How is it now dealing with the divorced and remarried? And how with the other people who live in an irregular relationship?
The priest Don Luca Mele wrote the Pope on Twitter: "Be a little more clear: do I have to absolve them or not? Do I have to give them Communion or not? Thank you!"
The example of the Piedmontese town of Biella
The pastor of the town Biella (45,000 inhabitants) in Piedmont, which is the from which the ancestors of Pope Francis came, made it known yesterday in the local news that they are "for the admission of remarried divorcees to communion". The explosiveness lies in the subtitle of the newspaper report: "Following the publication of Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis". In other words, the pastor of the town had previously disagreed.
The German-speaking bishops had let the world know in advance: If Rome does not guarantee thaqt public adulterers receive Communion that they would act alone. Given the "play room" (ZDF), which the papal document leaves means that the need for "going alone" is no longer needed. The "revolution" is that there is no general rule any more. The categorical no by the Catholic Church to communion for public adulterers has been replaced by the large numbers of "case by case" solutions. One method applied by Amoris Laetitia to the so-called "divorced and remarried", could be applied equally well in a further step, including also homosexuals and other groups of people and situations.
The part of the Church which was "loyal to Rome" under John Paul II., which had arisen in response to the post-conciliar upheaval, is proving itself spellbound. Some have, since 2013, left off progressive solutions under the pretext of being "loyal to Rome." The rest are staring at the pope like the rabbit at the snake. He is supposed to increase the brothers in faith and feed the flock and protect them from the wolves. The eventuality that he could lead the Church astray himself, was categorically excluded as a possibility of thought.
Now that it is in the opinion an of attentive observer, that this part of the Church acts as if paralyzed and on many it is beginning to dawn that their conception of the papacy may need to corrected.
The Catholic Church seems thus to be facing complex new upheavals as late effects of the undigested Vatican II are to be considered and with that, unleashed forces.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Biellanews (Screenshot)
Image: Biellanews (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekon99@hotmail.com
AMDG
Ban on Criticizing the Pope is a Structural (Conservative) Problem
 |
| Cardinal Kasper: Amoris Laetitia is "the most important document in Church history of the last 1,000 years" |
(Rome) While Cardinal Walter Kasper called Amoris laetitia "the most important document of the Church's history in the past 1000 years," his great adversary in the Synod of Bishops in 2014, "Cardinal Raymond Burke" (Sandro Magister), clings to formal restrictions.
There is no shortage of parts of the Church that match vociferously with Kasper's assessment. This includes the daily newspaper Avvenire of the Italian Episcopal Conference . It is headed by another papal confidant, Bishop Nunzio Galatino. The daily sees Amoris Laetitia not just "according to the thinking of a wise father," but exactly how Cardinal Burke does not want to see it. Namely, a regular document of the Magisterium Amoris Laetitia which was a "revolutionary" document that sealed "by archiving pastoral prohibitions and constraints," and "that had turned more into a reading of the code of canon law, instead of the Gospel."
"Poor Cardinal Burke, who clings to codes and commas"
"Poor Cardinal Burke, a great canonist, who clings to nothing but codes and commas ...", said the Vatican expert Sandro Magister. "Undoubtedly," said Magister, Pope Francis has also thought of Burke, when he speaks of the Article 305 in Amoris Laetitia, writing of those who know "only how close their heart only with moral laws...", "as if they were boulders that were thrown on the lives of people. "
In comparison, the proponents of the "pastoral reorientation" (Cardinal Schönborn) appear to have an easy time. They offer to people supposedly what they want to hear.
Conservative prohibition of criticism forces it to a sideshow
Even Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, another Cardinal who had rendered outstanding services in the past two years to defend the sacrament of marriage, has so far limited his formalistic criticism of Amoris Laetitia. The content of the post-synodal letter was not the problem, but the false interpretations. In other words, what the Pope says, that it is all right, it is just misunderstood. A reading of this pontificate, which was bumpy from the start and easily turns into a stumbling block, just as now.
Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller in not criticizing the pope, are forced to resort to a sideshow and to steer clear of the actual battlefield. Criticism of Amoris Laetitia turns out to be weak when it renounces the direct, substantive confrontation. While some are going onto the sidelines, Cardinals like Kasper and Schönborn roll ahead at full speed on the main line and announce the exact opposite. They talk about content and refer explicitly to Pope Francis. The do not address formal questions.
The weakness of the cardinatial resistance is homemade in this case because the cardinals themselves are possessed of their strongest means, when they bring forth a substantive confrontation. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the consequences? What consequences? Is it not perhaps a lack of the insight on the part of the papacy, which proves to be the inhibition?
Approaches a substantive criticism
Both cardinals seem to be aware of the weakness of their own reasoning. Sandro Magister points out that both Burke and Brandmüller, for example, don't dispense quite completely with a substantive review.
Cardinal Brandmüller explained to the Bild newspaper that it was unacceptable to grant exemptions to the Communion ban for people living in the state of the public and persistent adultery. This is categorically impossible for religious reasons and also in individual cases.
Cardinal Burke sees the danger in a dangerous misconception that in Amoris Laetitia the formulation of marriage as an "ideal" may arise. "In the document, there are numerous references to the "ideal marriage." Such a description of marriage can be misleading. You can lead the reader to think that marriage is an eternal idea of what men and women approach more or less under varying circumstances. But Christian marriage is not an ideal. It is a sacrament that gives the grace of a man and a woman to live in a true, lasting and fruitful, mutual love," said Cardinal Burke.
Rethink self-imposed ban on the Pope's criticism
The self-imposed ban against criticizing the Pope proves to the defenders of religious marriage and morality as a major weakness because it is structural. With consistent compliance, it gives the other side an almost insurmountable advantage and can be repeated as well as on other matters.
The self-limitation is anachronistic anyway because Pope Francis had given his critic Antonio Socci a free pass in which he explained that the criticism is legitimate and is thought to be, according to Socci, that the criticism was "good for" the Pope. Socci had nevertheless doubted the legality of the Pope's election for half a year.
In a time in which the Pope is himself the engine of controversial breaks, faithful Catholics, particularly the so-called "conservatives" have to rethink their attitude towards the Pope. They will not fail to be bound and soon will not be able to check if and how they have been weighed down by the erroneous ballast of the papacy. And they will have to get rid of it if they want to fulfill their duty to defend the immutable doctrine.
Then to hoped that the pontificate of Francis might not be long, could yet prove to be as double-edged as the prohibition of criticism.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: MiL (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG
Image: MiL (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
But What if the Pope Does What Protestants Have Been Accusing Him of Doing For Five Hundred Years and He Contradicts the Gospels?
Edit: does this mean we have to give Babette's Feast a five star rating on Rotten Tomatoes? If the Bergoglian Magisterium contradicts perennial Catholic teaching and even Christ Himself, then what?
Amoris Laetitia is "non-magisterial"? Not so fast ...
The following piece was written exclusively for Rorate by a wise -- and very informed -- holy priest who felt compelled to speak out:
By Father Ignatius
The contents of Amoris Laetitia -- and its approval -- through omissions and coded language, of sacraments for the divorced and remarried, I suppose, came as no surprise to any of us. Over the past three years, Francis repeatedly announced his determination to find a way for this radical change, so we were all conditioned to expect the sound of the explosion when it finally came.
Nor did most of the critical reactions come as a surprise. Writers like those whose posts immediately appeared onRorate (de Mattei, Socci, Confitebor) denounced the phony, modernist doctrinal/pastoral distinction in the document for the shell game it is.
What did cause surprise, however, was Raymond Cardinal Burke’s commentary on Amoris Laetitia that appeared in theNational Catholic Register. Given the strong language that the good and esteemed cardinal had previously used to warn against a change in church teaching and practice on sacraments for the divorced and remarried, we all expected him to come out against the document like a Leo rugiens.
Pope Bergoglio Praises Feminist Marxism in "Amoris Laetitia"
Vatican (kath.net) Pope Francis writes in "Amoris laetitia:" In this brief look at the reality, I would like to emphasize that while there have been notable improvements in the recognition of women and their participation in the public area of rights, there is still much that needs work in some countries. The eradication of unacceptable practices are not yet managed.
I point to the shameful violence that is sometimes perpetrated against women, the abuse in the family and various forms of slavery, which are not a proof of male power, but a cowardly loss of dignity. The verbal, physical and sexual violence, which is perpetrated in some marriages against women, contradicts the nature of the conjugal union. I think of the terrible genital mutilation of women in some cultures, but also of the inequality in access to decent jobs and decision-making positions. The history bears the marks of the excesses of patriarchal cultures where the woman was considered of secondary importance, but we mus also recall surrogacy or "the exploitation and commercialization of the female body in contemporary media culture."
Some think many current problems have occurred since the emancipation of women. "But even that is not a valid argument. It is wrong, it is not true! It is a form of chauvinism. "The identical dignity of man and woman is a cause of joy to us that old forms of discrimination have been overcome and developed in the families as a practice of reciprocity.
If forms of feminism have arisen that we may not consider appropriate, we admire nevertheless in the clearer recognition of the dignity of women and their rights, a work of the Spirit. [See Femen, No Fault Divorce and the influence of the Nanny State on the family.] The man "plays a particularly important role in the life of the family, particularly with regard to the protection and support of his wife and the children [...] Many men are aware of the importance of their role in the family and fill it with their male spirit. [Only when he's allowed to.]
The absence of the father from the life of the family, deprives the education of children and severely affects their integration in the society. It may be a physical, emotional, mental and spiritual absence. This lack brings the children to an adequate model paternal behavior "(Amoris laetitia 54-55). Amoris Laetita - TEXT PDF - Several times Click on the picture to start the download
The Condemnation of Action Française and the Birth of Vatican II
Edit: We received this interesting piece which addresses the life of Father Roger Thomas Calmel, O.P., about some of the preliminaries that led to Vatican II and the defeat of scholasticism in France, which took place well in advance of the fateful year of 1963. We've also attached the postscript by Roberto de Mattei. This was originally posted on Rorate Caeli, but taken down for some reason:
Posted by Sacerdos Romanus at 2/27/2016 @ Rorate-Caeli
Pope Pius XI’s condemnation of a political party supported by many French Catholic royalists was a revival of the ralliement of Pope Leo XIII, a dangerous ecclesiastical policy that was reversed by St. Pius X [see comment below]. The condemnation paved the way for the rise of a new theology that would be of great influence at Vatican II.
***
The Condemnation of Action Française and the Birth of the Nouvelle Theologie
Anthony Sistrom
The Condemnation of Action Française signaled the end of Thomist dominance in French seminary studies and the arrival of the nouvelle theologie. As a result three leading Thomists were fired from their jobs: Fr. Henri LeFloch, cssp, rector of the French seminary in Rome, Cardinal Louis Billot, SJ who taught at the Greg and Fr. Thomas Pegues, OP regent of studies at St. Maximin in Provence.
On the eve of the Condemnation, Fr. Marie Vincent Bernadot, OP and Fr. Etienne Lajeunie, OP met with Pius XI. They found common goals. Pius XI wanted to normalize relations with the French government and an opening for his beloved Catholic Action. Frs. Bernadot and Lajeunie wanted the removal of Fr. Pegues from his post at St. Maximin and a ban on Action Française as the bastion of Thomism.
In the wake of the condemnation Fr. Bernadot would launch his journal, La Vie Intellectuelle and a publishing house, Editions du Cerf that would publish Catholicism by Fr. Henri de Lubac, SJ. The conventional account of this affair is newly told by Fr. Peter Bernardi, SJ “Action Française Catholicism and Opposition to Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae” in the festschrift A Realist Church: Essays in honor of Fr. Joseph Komonchak. Fr. Bernardi tries to convict Cardinal Billot of antiliberalism, failing to convict Pius XI for a monumental error which Pius XII would reverse in his first act as pope. Vide Philippe Prevost, “Condamnation de l’Action française : preferer la verite historique a route papolatrie.” But the last word belongs to a saint. Fr. Roger Thomas Calmel, OP writes at the end of his life (1974):
Between the two modernisms there was the savage condemnation of Action Francaise; in that lamentable affair a pope very authoritarian unable to understand that his repressive operations carried out according to his desire, had no. other outcome than disaster; first the crushing of Catholics attached to the Syllabus, then the rise of an episcopacy not opposed to modern errors; regarding the famous Catholic Action, it would not find any advantage other than politicizing itself and bending in the direction of socialism.
“The ralliement of Leo XIII: a pastoral experience that moved away from doctrine” – by Roberto de Mattei
Posted by New Catholic at 3/19/2015 @ Rorate-Caeli.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-ralliement-of-leo-xiii-pastoral.html
Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
March 18, 2015
The 1905 Separation, the complete failure of Leo XIII’s policy of ralliement: “The Separation: ‘Let us separate – I will keep your assets.'”
Leo XIII (1878-1903) was certainly one of the most important Popes in modern times, not only for the length of his pontificate, second only to Blessed Pius IX’s, but above all for the extent and richness of his Magisterium. His teaching includes encyclicals of fundamental importance, such as Aeterni Patris (1879) on the restoration of Thomist philosophy, Arcanum (1880) on the indissolubility of marriage, Humanum genus (1884) against Masonry, L’Immortale Dei (1885) on the Christian constitution of the States and Rerum Novarum (1891) on the question of work and social life.
The Magisterium of Pope Gioacchino Pecci appears as an organic corpus, in continuation with the teachings of his predecessor Pius IX as well as his successor Pius X. The real turning point and novelty of the Leonine pontificate, by contrast, is in regard to his ecclesiastical politics and pastoral approach to modernity. Leo XIII’s government was characterized in fact, by the ambitious project of reaffirming the Primate of the Apostolic See through a redefinition of its relationship with the European States and the reconciliation of the Church with the modern world. The politics of ralliement, that is, of reconciliation with the French, secular, Masonic Third Republic, formed its basis.
The Third Republic was conducting a violent campaign of de-Christianization, particularly in the scholastic field. For Leo XIII, the responsibility of this anticlericalism lay with the monarchists who were fighting the Republic in the name of their Catholic faith. In this way they were provoking the hate of the republicans against Catholicism. In order to disarm the republicans, it was necessary to convince them that the Church was not adverse to the Republic, but only to secularism. And to convince them, he retained that there was no other way than to support the republican institutions.
In reality, the Third Republic was not an abstract republic, but the centralized Jacobin daughter of the French Revolution. Its program of secularization in France was not an accessory element, but the reason itself for the existence of the republican regime. The republicans were what they were because they were anti-Catholic. They hated the Church in the Monarchy, in the same way that the monarchists were anti-republican because they were Catholics who loved the Church in the Monarchy. The encyclical Au milieu des solicitudes of 1891, through which Leo XIII launched the ralliement did not ask Catholics to become republicans, but the instructions from the Holy See to nuncios and bishops, coming from the Pontiff himself, interpreted his encyclical in this sense. Unprecedented pressure was exercised on the faithful, even going as far as making them believe that whoever continued to support the monarchy publically was committing a grave sin. Catholics were split into two currents of the “ralliés” and the “réfractaires”, as had happened in 1791, at the time of the civil Constitution for clergy. The ralliés accepted the Pope’s pastoral indications as they attached infallibility to his words in all fields, including those political and pastoral.
The réfractaires who were Catholics with better theological and spiritual formation, on the other hand, resisted the politics of ralliement, retaining that, inasmuch as it was a pastoral act, it could not be considered infallible and thus could be erroneous. Jean Madiran, who did a lucid critique of ralliement (in Les deux démocraties, NEL, Paris 1977), noted that Leo XIII had asked the monarchists to abandon the monarchy in the name of religion in order to conduct a more efficacious battle in defense of the faith. Except that, far from fighting this battle, with the ralliement, he effected a ruinous policy of détente with the enemies of the Church.
Despite Leo XIII and his Secretary of State Mariano Rampolla’s endeavor, this policy of dialogue was a sensational failure and unable to obtain the objectives it proposed. The Anti-Christian behavior of the Third Republic increased in violence, until culminating in Loi concernant la Séparation des Eglises et de l’Etat on December 9th 1905, known as “the Combes law” which suppressed all financing and public recognition of the Church; it considered religion merely in the private dimension and not in the social one; it established that ecclesiastical goods be confiscated by the State, while buildings of worship were given over gratuitously to “associations cultuelles” elected by the faithful, without Church approval. The Concordat of 1801, that had for a century regulated the relations between France and the Holy See, and that Leo XIII had desired to preserve at all costs, fell wretchedly to pieces.
The republican battle against the Church, however, encountered the new Pope along its way, – Pius X, elected to the Papal throne on August 4th 1903. With his encyclicals Vehementer nos of February 11th 1906, Gravissimo officii of August 10th of the same year, Une fois encore of January 6th 1907, Pius X, assisted by his Secretary of State Raffaele Merry del Val, he protested solemnly against the secular laws, urging Catholics to oppose them through all legal means, with the aim of conserving the traditions and values of Catholic France. Faced with this determination, the Third Republic did not dare activate the persecution fully, so as to avoid the creation of martyrs, and thus renounced the closing of the churches and the imprisonment of priests. Pius X’s politics without concessions, proved to be far-sighted. The law of separation was never applied with rigor and the Pope’s appeal contributed to a great rebirth of Catholicism in France on the eve of the First World War. Pius X’s ecclesiastical politics, the opposite of his predecessor’s, represents, in the final analysis, an unappealable historical condemnation of the ralliement.
Leo XIII never professed liberal errors, on the contrary, he explicitly condemned them. The historian, nevertheless, cannot ignore the contradiction between Pope Pecci’s Magisterium and his political and pastoral stance. In the encyclicals Diuturnum illud, Immortale Dei e Libertas, he reiterated and developed the political doctrine of Gregory XVI and Pius IX, but the policy of ralliement contradicted his doctrinal premises. Leo XIII, far from his intentions, encouraged, at the level of praxis, those ideas and tendencies that he condemned on the doctrinal level. If we attribute the significance of a spiritual attitude to the word liberal, of a political tendency to concessions and compromise, we have to conclude that Leo XIII had a liberal spirit. This liberal spirit was manifested principally as an attempt to resolve the problems posed by modernity, through the arms of diplomatic negotiation and compromises, rather than with the intransigence of principles and a political and cultural battle. In this sense, as I have shown in my recent volume Il ralliement di Leone XIII. Il fallimento di un progetto pastorale (Le Lettere, Florence 2014), the principal consequences of ralliement, were of a psychological and cultural order more than a political one. To this strategy the ecclesiastic “Third Party” was called upon, which throughout the 20th century tried to find an intermediate position between modernists and anti-modernists who were contending the issue.
The spirit of ralliement with the modern world has been around for more than a century, and the great temptation to which the Church is exposed to, is still [with us]. In this regard, a Pope of great doctrine such as Leo XIII made a grave error in pastoral strategy. The prophetic strength of St. Pius X is the opposite, in the intimate coherence of his pontificate between evangelical Truth and the life of the Church in the modern world, between theory and praxis, between doctrine and pastoral care, with no yielding to the lures of modernity.
Posted by Sacerdos Romanus at 2/27/2016 @ Rorate-Caeli
Pope Pius XI’s condemnation of a political party supported by many French Catholic royalists was a revival of the ralliement of Pope Leo XIII, a dangerous ecclesiastical policy that was reversed by St. Pius X [see comment below]. The condemnation paved the way for the rise of a new theology that would be of great influence at Vatican II.
***
The Condemnation of Action Française and the Birth of the Nouvelle Theologie
Anthony Sistrom
The Condemnation of Action Française signaled the end of Thomist dominance in French seminary studies and the arrival of the nouvelle theologie. As a result three leading Thomists were fired from their jobs: Fr. Henri LeFloch, cssp, rector of the French seminary in Rome, Cardinal Louis Billot, SJ who taught at the Greg and Fr. Thomas Pegues, OP regent of studies at St. Maximin in Provence.
On the eve of the Condemnation, Fr. Marie Vincent Bernadot, OP and Fr. Etienne Lajeunie, OP met with Pius XI. They found common goals. Pius XI wanted to normalize relations with the French government and an opening for his beloved Catholic Action. Frs. Bernadot and Lajeunie wanted the removal of Fr. Pegues from his post at St. Maximin and a ban on Action Française as the bastion of Thomism.
In the wake of the condemnation Fr. Bernadot would launch his journal, La Vie Intellectuelle and a publishing house, Editions du Cerf that would publish Catholicism by Fr. Henri de Lubac, SJ. The conventional account of this affair is newly told by Fr. Peter Bernardi, SJ “Action Française Catholicism and Opposition to Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae” in the festschrift A Realist Church: Essays in honor of Fr. Joseph Komonchak. Fr. Bernardi tries to convict Cardinal Billot of antiliberalism, failing to convict Pius XI for a monumental error which Pius XII would reverse in his first act as pope. Vide Philippe Prevost, “Condamnation de l’Action française : preferer la verite historique a route papolatrie.” But the last word belongs to a saint. Fr. Roger Thomas Calmel, OP writes at the end of his life (1974):
Between the two modernisms there was the savage condemnation of Action Francaise; in that lamentable affair a pope very authoritarian unable to understand that his repressive operations carried out according to his desire, had no. other outcome than disaster; first the crushing of Catholics attached to the Syllabus, then the rise of an episcopacy not opposed to modern errors; regarding the famous Catholic Action, it would not find any advantage other than politicizing itself and bending in the direction of socialism.
“The ralliement of Leo XIII: a pastoral experience that moved away from doctrine” – by Roberto de Mattei
Posted by New Catholic at 3/19/2015 @ Rorate-Caeli.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-ralliement-of-leo-xiii-pastoral.html
Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
March 18, 2015
The 1905 Separation, the complete failure of Leo XIII’s policy of ralliement: “The Separation: ‘Let us separate – I will keep your assets.'”
Leo XIII (1878-1903) was certainly one of the most important Popes in modern times, not only for the length of his pontificate, second only to Blessed Pius IX’s, but above all for the extent and richness of his Magisterium. His teaching includes encyclicals of fundamental importance, such as Aeterni Patris (1879) on the restoration of Thomist philosophy, Arcanum (1880) on the indissolubility of marriage, Humanum genus (1884) against Masonry, L’Immortale Dei (1885) on the Christian constitution of the States and Rerum Novarum (1891) on the question of work and social life.
The Magisterium of Pope Gioacchino Pecci appears as an organic corpus, in continuation with the teachings of his predecessor Pius IX as well as his successor Pius X. The real turning point and novelty of the Leonine pontificate, by contrast, is in regard to his ecclesiastical politics and pastoral approach to modernity. Leo XIII’s government was characterized in fact, by the ambitious project of reaffirming the Primate of the Apostolic See through a redefinition of its relationship with the European States and the reconciliation of the Church with the modern world. The politics of ralliement, that is, of reconciliation with the French, secular, Masonic Third Republic, formed its basis.
The Third Republic was conducting a violent campaign of de-Christianization, particularly in the scholastic field. For Leo XIII, the responsibility of this anticlericalism lay with the monarchists who were fighting the Republic in the name of their Catholic faith. In this way they were provoking the hate of the republicans against Catholicism. In order to disarm the republicans, it was necessary to convince them that the Church was not adverse to the Republic, but only to secularism. And to convince them, he retained that there was no other way than to support the republican institutions.
In reality, the Third Republic was not an abstract republic, but the centralized Jacobin daughter of the French Revolution. Its program of secularization in France was not an accessory element, but the reason itself for the existence of the republican regime. The republicans were what they were because they were anti-Catholic. They hated the Church in the Monarchy, in the same way that the monarchists were anti-republican because they were Catholics who loved the Church in the Monarchy. The encyclical Au milieu des solicitudes of 1891, through which Leo XIII launched the ralliement did not ask Catholics to become republicans, but the instructions from the Holy See to nuncios and bishops, coming from the Pontiff himself, interpreted his encyclical in this sense. Unprecedented pressure was exercised on the faithful, even going as far as making them believe that whoever continued to support the monarchy publically was committing a grave sin. Catholics were split into two currents of the “ralliés” and the “réfractaires”, as had happened in 1791, at the time of the civil Constitution for clergy. The ralliés accepted the Pope’s pastoral indications as they attached infallibility to his words in all fields, including those political and pastoral.
The réfractaires who were Catholics with better theological and spiritual formation, on the other hand, resisted the politics of ralliement, retaining that, inasmuch as it was a pastoral act, it could not be considered infallible and thus could be erroneous. Jean Madiran, who did a lucid critique of ralliement (in Les deux démocraties, NEL, Paris 1977), noted that Leo XIII had asked the monarchists to abandon the monarchy in the name of religion in order to conduct a more efficacious battle in defense of the faith. Except that, far from fighting this battle, with the ralliement, he effected a ruinous policy of détente with the enemies of the Church.
Despite Leo XIII and his Secretary of State Mariano Rampolla’s endeavor, this policy of dialogue was a sensational failure and unable to obtain the objectives it proposed. The Anti-Christian behavior of the Third Republic increased in violence, until culminating in Loi concernant la Séparation des Eglises et de l’Etat on December 9th 1905, known as “the Combes law” which suppressed all financing and public recognition of the Church; it considered religion merely in the private dimension and not in the social one; it established that ecclesiastical goods be confiscated by the State, while buildings of worship were given over gratuitously to “associations cultuelles” elected by the faithful, without Church approval. The Concordat of 1801, that had for a century regulated the relations between France and the Holy See, and that Leo XIII had desired to preserve at all costs, fell wretchedly to pieces.
The republican battle against the Church, however, encountered the new Pope along its way, – Pius X, elected to the Papal throne on August 4th 1903. With his encyclicals Vehementer nos of February 11th 1906, Gravissimo officii of August 10th of the same year, Une fois encore of January 6th 1907, Pius X, assisted by his Secretary of State Raffaele Merry del Val, he protested solemnly against the secular laws, urging Catholics to oppose them through all legal means, with the aim of conserving the traditions and values of Catholic France. Faced with this determination, the Third Republic did not dare activate the persecution fully, so as to avoid the creation of martyrs, and thus renounced the closing of the churches and the imprisonment of priests. Pius X’s politics without concessions, proved to be far-sighted. The law of separation was never applied with rigor and the Pope’s appeal contributed to a great rebirth of Catholicism in France on the eve of the First World War. Pius X’s ecclesiastical politics, the opposite of his predecessor’s, represents, in the final analysis, an unappealable historical condemnation of the ralliement.
Leo XIII never professed liberal errors, on the contrary, he explicitly condemned them. The historian, nevertheless, cannot ignore the contradiction between Pope Pecci’s Magisterium and his political and pastoral stance. In the encyclicals Diuturnum illud, Immortale Dei e Libertas, he reiterated and developed the political doctrine of Gregory XVI and Pius IX, but the policy of ralliement contradicted his doctrinal premises. Leo XIII, far from his intentions, encouraged, at the level of praxis, those ideas and tendencies that he condemned on the doctrinal level. If we attribute the significance of a spiritual attitude to the word liberal, of a political tendency to concessions and compromise, we have to conclude that Leo XIII had a liberal spirit. This liberal spirit was manifested principally as an attempt to resolve the problems posed by modernity, through the arms of diplomatic negotiation and compromises, rather than with the intransigence of principles and a political and cultural battle. In this sense, as I have shown in my recent volume Il ralliement di Leone XIII. Il fallimento di un progetto pastorale (Le Lettere, Florence 2014), the principal consequences of ralliement, were of a psychological and cultural order more than a political one. To this strategy the ecclesiastic “Third Party” was called upon, which throughout the 20th century tried to find an intermediate position between modernists and anti-modernists who were contending the issue.
The spirit of ralliement with the modern world has been around for more than a century, and the great temptation to which the Church is exposed to, is still [with us]. In this regard, a Pope of great doctrine such as Leo XIII made a grave error in pastoral strategy. The prophetic strength of St. Pius X is the opposite, in the intimate coherence of his pontificate between evangelical Truth and the life of the Church in the modern world, between theory and praxis, between doctrine and pastoral care, with no yielding to the lures of modernity.
Cardinal Cordes: 'Amoris Laetitia' -- There is a Risk of Abusing the Statements
Roman Curial Cardinal Cordes on "Amoris Laetitia": There arises the risk of abuse of the statements, if they do not remain anchored in word and spirit of the whole letter, but are singled out and are quoted selectively
Rome (kath.net) "The Papal Letter (Amoris Laetitia) is in the continuity of a long standing conception and teaching. It recalls the Second Vatican Council ("Gaudium et Spes"), the encyclical of Pope Paul VI."Humanae Vitae", the "theology of the body" - presented by John Paul II -., referring to the encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI "God is love" The German Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes explains this in an interview with the "Daily Mail"... Cordes sees the writing as a compendium of the Marriage and Family Pastoral which can truly give a fresh impulse.
On the question of the newspaper, whether the Pope did not go too far in two footnotes (336 and 351) relating to sections 300 and 305 of "Amoris Laetitia," the cardinal explained that with the careful reading of the document it comes to light that the pope wants to address any and all of the needs of even the most complex cases. This leads, according to Cordes, then "occasionally to very subtle arguments," such as the "conscience" or a "special situation".
The Cardinal then stated: "So the risk of misuse of his statements arise when they do not remain anchored around the letter in word and spirit -- are just singled out and quoted selectively. This is also with the reallocation of the problem to the secrecy of the confessional, can not be found as 'a loophole of mercy' -- as it was called for at the Synod of the German Bishops in Würzburg 1975."
According to Cordes, should the consideration of a particular case, according to "Amoris Laetitia"(no. 300) "this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church". The Pope himself explicitly warned against this connection that the Church would represent a "double standard." The corresponding footnotes, says the Cardinal, must be seen "in light of theological basic orientation" such as the Council of Trent (Canon 7) or the first Post-synodal letter to the family.
"Divorced and remarried faithful 'stand in the way, in so far as allowance (i.e., the Eucharist reception), since their state of life and their living conditions are in objective contradiction to every covenant of love between Christ and the Church, which the Eucharist makes visible and present'(Familiaris consortio No. 84)." This sentence from Familiaris Consortio can not be archived. For it was John Paul II. who the Catholic Church owes for the systematic reflection on this subject. Last but not least, according to Cordes. this Pope as a saint, a witness to the truth of the highest authority.
Link to Kath.net...
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Edit: at least he's not like Father Longenecker who uses it as an opportunity to attack real Catholics who are legitimately scandalized. He actually comes to the table with a rational account.
AMDG
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
The Vatican and Orthodox Churches Work Together to Rebuild Damaged Churches in Syria
(Rome) The Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church and the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church will jointly rebuild the churches destroyed in Syrian war.A joint working group of the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church have travelled to Syria and Lebanon to gain an impression of the extent of the devastation. Consultations were also held on site. This was recently announced by the Moscow Patriarchate with a press release.
The reconstruction is primarily concerned with the sanctuaries and monasteries which were destroyed by Islamic jihadists and in the course of fighting. Soon will they will start generating an accurate list of Christian shrines. Using this list, we'll establish priorities together, so Moscow.
The Catholic-Orthodox delegation that traveled to the Middle East includes the Catholic Archbishop of Moscow, Msgr. Paolo Pezzi, and the Orthodox priest and theologian Stephan Igumnov, the Secretary for Interfaith Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. The two church officials were accompanied by representatives of the Pontifical relief organization Church in Need.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi Picture: Youtube (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com AMDG
New U.S. Nuncio: a Return to the Age of Jadot
Edit: another Olde Liberal appointment, as we reported earlier, Archbishop Christopher Pierre will surely bring more awful appointments to the American scene. NCR correctly recalls Jadot, who did so much to undermine the Catholic Church in the U.S. after the tragic Council.
Pope Francis has replaced the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States just days after he was lauded by the country's bishops at their seminary in Rome during a posh annual honors banquet.
Italian Archbishop Carlo Viganò -- who has represented the Vatican in Washington since 2011 but came under scrutiny when his name surfaced last year in questions over how Francis came to meet controversial Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis during his September U.S. trip -- will be succeeded by French Archbishop Christophe Pierre.
The replacement of what is formally known as the apostolic nuncio to the United States, which had been rumored for months, was announced by the Vatican Tuesday. Viganò had turned 75, the traditional retirement age for Catholic bishops, in January.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-replaces-vatican-ambassador-vigano-days-after-he-s-lauded-us-bishops
Amoris Laetitia Makes Bishop Fellay Want to Cry
Edit: on the blog chiesapostconcilio, they report Bishop Fellay's reaction to the Post-Synodal Exhortation during his sermon for Holy Mass on April 10th at Puy en Valay. It was first mentioned at the Italian site of the Italian district here.
"... An Apostolic Exhortation which bears the title "The joy of love," but that makes us cry. This exhortation is a summary of the two synods on marriage. It is very long and contains many things that are right, that they are beautiful, and after building a beautiful building, a beautiful boat, the Supreme Pontiff has made a hole in the keel of the boat, along the waterline. You all know what is happening. Needless to say, the hole was made by taking all possible precautions, thus it is needless to say that the hole is small: the boat sinks! Our Lord himself said that even an iota, not a single iota will be taken away by the law of God. When God speaks, his words do not admit exceptions, when God commands, he is of infinite wisdom that has provided for all possible cases. There is no exception to the law of God. And now, suddenly, it is claimed that this law of marriage, which keeps saying that "marriage is indissoluble" (the repeats this sentence, it must be said), then it says you can, despite everything, have exceptions in the sense that these so-called divorced and remarried in this state of mortal sin may be in a state of grace, and therefore could receive communion. It is very serious! Very serious! I think they do not sufficiently measure the seriousness of what has been said. Needless to say, are small exceptions put there in the corner; that's how it went to Communion in the hand and as I explained with the little hole in the vessel is appropriate, the boat sinks! "(1)
Santa Marta Surprises: Poor Judas Was Victim of the Judges of the "Letter of the Law"
It would have been better had he never been born.
Edit: according to Denziger-Bergoglio, there was some astonishment at Santa Marta over the suicide of Judas, that he his repentance led to the despair of suicide. It's an astonishing exegesis which even rises to challenge Jesus' own words. Denziger-Bergoglio sarcastically suggests:
Francis in Santa Marta: 'the teachers of the letter' and the closed heart - they use the word of God against the word of God. For them it is not for the people but for their prefabricated pattern.
By Armin Schwibach
Rome (kath.net/as) The first reading from Acts (Acts 6:8 to 15) was the focus of the sermon by Pope Francis at Mass in the chapel of the Vatican guest house "Domus Sanctae Marthae" on Monday for the third week of the Easter cycle. The teachers of the law charge Stephanus with slander, because "they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke" (v.10). They "incited men with the statement: We have heard how he railed against Moses and God. They stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, pressed upon him, grabbed him and dragged him to the council."(v 11-12).
Their hearts, said the Pope, were closed to the truth of God. It clinging solely to the truth of the law, more than that in the truth of the letter. So these people could find no other way than the lie, false witnesses and death.
Jesus gave them just criticized this attitude, because "their fathers had killed the prophets", and now they erected monuments just for those prophets. The answer of "teacher of the letter" was more cynical than hypocritical: "If we had lived at the time of our fathers, we would not have acted this way." And so they would now wash your hands and keep themselves clean. But "your heart is closed to the Word of God, it is closed to the truth, it is closed to the messenger of God who delivers the prophecy to bring it to the people of God":
"It hurts me when I read that portion from the Gospel of Matthew (Mt 27:3 to 10), as the Judas repents of his act, he goes to the chief priests to return the coins, and says, 'I have sinned'. They reply, 'What is that to us? That is your thing!' A heart locked before this poor, repentant man who did not know what he should do. 'That's your thing,' and he went away and hanged himself. And what did they do, as Judas goes away to hang himself? Do they talk and say, 'Well, that's a poor man'? No! Immediately it comes down to money: 'You must not put the money in the treasury; because there is blood on it'.... This rule, and this, and this, and this ... - The teacher of the letter!"
"For them a person's life is indifferent," said Francis continuing, "for them the repentance of Judas is indifferent: the Gospel says that he repented his act and he was then rejected. For them, only the prefabricated pattern of laws are important, and many words and many things that they have built themselves. And that is the hardness of their hearts. And that is the hardness of the heart, the folly of the heart of this people who, seeking evidence in light of the fact that they can not resist the truth of Stephen, condemn him with false witnesses." Stephan's end, like all prophets, he ends like Jesus.
And this repeats itself in the history of the Church:
"The story tells of many people who killed who have been convicted, even though they were innocent: condemned with the word of God, against the word of God. Think. There are the witch hunts or to the trial of Saint Joan of Arc, so many others who were burned, who were sentenced because they did not not meet with the word of God according to their judges. [Schwabach here omits that Holy Father said, "Even Judas".] This is the example of Jesus, who died on the Cross - because of his loyalty and obedience to the Word of the Father. But with how much tenderness did Jesus say to the disciples of Emmaus: You foolish men! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken."(Lk 24,25) Today we want to pray to the Lord that he looks with the same tenderness in the small or large follies of our heart, that he caresses us that he says to us, you foolish men? How difficult is it for you yet!' and then begins to explain these things."
Edit: according to Denziger-Bergoglio, there was some astonishment at Santa Marta over the suicide of Judas, that he his repentance led to the despair of suicide. It's an astonishing exegesis which even rises to challenge Jesus' own words. Denziger-Bergoglio sarcastically suggests:
It is a just an act of reparation for the murder of "poor Judas". For Denzinger-Bergoglio, after reading the homily today at Casa Santa Marta, published by L'Osservatore Romano, we propose to the Congregation for Divine Worship to declare Judas patron and protector of the Post-Synodal Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (for whoever wants to: cultidiv@ccdds.va and vpr-sacramenti@ccdds.va), towards a new concept of repentance and purpose of amendment that overcomes the outdated ideas, clinging to the ossified letter that the Catholic Church has supported for two millennia. And also ... let yourself be surprised by God!
Francis in Santa Marta: 'the teachers of the letter' and the closed heart - they use the word of God against the word of God. For them it is not for the people but for their prefabricated pattern.
By Armin Schwibach
Rome (kath.net/as) The first reading from Acts (Acts 6:8 to 15) was the focus of the sermon by Pope Francis at Mass in the chapel of the Vatican guest house "Domus Sanctae Marthae" on Monday for the third week of the Easter cycle. The teachers of the law charge Stephanus with slander, because "they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke" (v.10). They "incited men with the statement: We have heard how he railed against Moses and God. They stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, pressed upon him, grabbed him and dragged him to the council."(v 11-12).
Their hearts, said the Pope, were closed to the truth of God. It clinging solely to the truth of the law, more than that in the truth of the letter. So these people could find no other way than the lie, false witnesses and death.
Jesus gave them just criticized this attitude, because "their fathers had killed the prophets", and now they erected monuments just for those prophets. The answer of "teacher of the letter" was more cynical than hypocritical: "If we had lived at the time of our fathers, we would not have acted this way." And so they would now wash your hands and keep themselves clean. But "your heart is closed to the Word of God, it is closed to the truth, it is closed to the messenger of God who delivers the prophecy to bring it to the people of God":
"It hurts me when I read that portion from the Gospel of Matthew (Mt 27:3 to 10), as the Judas repents of his act, he goes to the chief priests to return the coins, and says, 'I have sinned'. They reply, 'What is that to us? That is your thing!' A heart locked before this poor, repentant man who did not know what he should do. 'That's your thing,' and he went away and hanged himself. And what did they do, as Judas goes away to hang himself? Do they talk and say, 'Well, that's a poor man'? No! Immediately it comes down to money: 'You must not put the money in the treasury; because there is blood on it'.... This rule, and this, and this, and this ... - The teacher of the letter!"
"For them a person's life is indifferent," said Francis continuing, "for them the repentance of Judas is indifferent: the Gospel says that he repented his act and he was then rejected. For them, only the prefabricated pattern of laws are important, and many words and many things that they have built themselves. And that is the hardness of their hearts. And that is the hardness of the heart, the folly of the heart of this people who, seeking evidence in light of the fact that they can not resist the truth of Stephen, condemn him with false witnesses." Stephan's end, like all prophets, he ends like Jesus.
And this repeats itself in the history of the Church:
"The story tells of many people who killed who have been convicted, even though they were innocent: condemned with the word of God, against the word of God. Think. There are the witch hunts or to the trial of Saint Joan of Arc, so many others who were burned, who were sentenced because they did not not meet with the word of God according to their judges. [Schwabach here omits that Holy Father said, "Even Judas".] This is the example of Jesus, who died on the Cross - because of his loyalty and obedience to the Word of the Father. But with how much tenderness did Jesus say to the disciples of Emmaus: You foolish men! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken."(Lk 24,25) Today we want to pray to the Lord that he looks with the same tenderness in the small or large follies of our heart, that he caresses us that he says to us, you foolish men? How difficult is it for you yet!' and then begins to explain these things."
Monday, April 11, 2016
What Rome Expects of the Society of Pius X -- Interview of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
 |
| Archbishop Guido Pozzo (Ecclesia Dei) on the "Preconditions" for the canonical recognition of the Society with Rome |
(Rome) What Rome expects from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) said Curial Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei . The interview was held by Luca Marcolivio for the press Zenit .
About two weeks ago Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX was received by Pope Francis at the Vatican. The private audience caused quite a stir since it is known that Francis has no strong sympathies for tradition.
New "Doctrinal Preamble"?
Curial Archbishop Pozzo described the meeting as "useful" on the "path" of the SSPX, "towards a full reconciliation" that "will be made a canonical recognition of the institute." Currently it is "primarily" about creating a more trusting and respectful air, "to overcome hardening and distrust".
When asked which "basic requirements" Rome is urging of the SSPX for recognition, Pozzo said that the SSPX would submit a "doctrinal statement" which "at the appropriate moment," is one that will contain all the "essential and necessary points". Pozzo described such points as: "the approval of the creed, the sacramental bond and hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff, the head of the episcopal college united with him."
Specifically the Curial Archbishop explained, "that the SSPX is asked to recognize that only the Magisterium of the Church is entrusted with the preservation, defense and interpretation of the deposit of faith, and the Magisterium is not higher than the Word of God, but this serves only to hand down doctrine." The supreme Magisterium is the "authentic interpreter" even of the previous texts of the Magisterium "in the light of the everlasting tradition," including those of the Second Vatican Council. So there is no place for "opposing novelties", but only for a deeper understanding of the Depositum fidei, "always in the same doctrine, the same sense and in the same tradition."
Discussions have "led to a significant clarification" of Vatican II
As for the Second Vatican Council, the trodden path of the "recent years" have "led to a significant clarification," said Pozzo. "The 2nd Vatican Council can only be understood in the context of the entire tradition of the Church and her constant magisterium in an appropriate manner." In addition, a different weighting and thus binding of each document is observed. The person in charge of Ecclesia Dei emphasized that there even after "the canonical recognition" the conciliar documents can continue to be discussed. The aim of the "discussion, deepening" must be to "avoid any misunderstandings and contradictions" that "to our knowledge are currently spread throughout the Church".
Outstanding issues such as religious freedom, ecumenism are not "an obstacle to recognition"
The open questions about the relationship between church and state, freedom of religion, practice of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue as well as "some aspects of liturgical reform and their actual use" would "be discussed and remain points to be clarified." but however, "they are not an obstacle for the canonical and legal recognition" of the SSPX.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: La Croix (Screenshot)
Image: La Croix (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
Apostolic Exhortation is Disastrous
Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
April 10, 2016
[Rorate Caeli] With the post-synod Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris laetitia, published on April 8th, Pope Francis has officially given his opinion on marital moral issues which have been under discussion for two years now.
At the Consistory of 20th and 21st of February 2014, Francis had entrusted the task of introducing the debate on this theme to Cardinal Kasper. Cardinal Kasper’s theses, according to which the Church must change Her matrimonial praxis, formed the leit motiv of the two Synods on the Family in 2014 and 2015 and now forms the basis of Pope Francis’ Exhortation.
In the course of these two years, illustrious cardinals, bishops, theologians and philosophers have intervened in the debate to demonstrate that there must be an intimate coherence between the Church’s doctrine and praxis. Pastoral care in fact, is based on dogmatic and moral doctrine. “There cannot be pastoral care that is in dissonance with the Church’s truths and morality, in contrast with Her laws and not oriented to the ideal achievement of the Christian life!” revealed Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, in his opening address at the Umbrian Ecclesiastical Tribunal on March 27th 2014.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/de-mattei-post-synod-exhortation-amoris.html?m=1
Sunday, April 10, 2016
"Devout" Astronaut Takes Hosts Into Space
Edit: it shouldn't be hard, even for a space cadet, but the primacy of personal conscience has its way with objective. The article from Catholic Family News is worthwhile.
First of all, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that “out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated.” Thus, he said the sacred vessels of the altar are consecrated for this holy purpose, but also, the priest’s hands are consecrated for touching this Sacrament. And St. Thomas said that it is therefore not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except to save it from desecration. (Summa, III, Q. 82. Art. 3)
This reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, and even for the smallest particles, was incorporated into the traditional Mass — the Old Latin Mass — which contained strict rubrics on this point:
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page79/day_the_host_dropped.html
[Christian Daily] Astronaut Mike Hopkins, a devout [sic] Catholic, sometimes finds himself praying and also taking Communion inside the Cupola, a small module on the International Space Station (ISS) with seven large bay windows that give a panoramic view of the Earth.
"When you see the Earth from that vantage point and see all the natural beauty that exists, it's hard not to sit there and realize there has to be a higher power that has made this," Hopkins said after his 2013 space mission, as quoted by Catholic SNews Service.
Under a special arrangement with the Church, the astronaut takes six consecrated hosts with him aboard the space module. When broken into pieces, the hosts are enough for a once-a-week Communion for Hopkins on-board the ISS.
http://christiandaily.com/article/catholic-astronauts-still-keep-their-faith-strong-while-in-space/51153.htm
SSPX Disagreements With Vatican II Are No Obstacle
Edit: this is the deal breaker, which was denied to the Society lay time documents were brought to them for signing.
[Rorate Caeli] Abp. Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, spoke to the semi-official daily of the French episcopate, La Croix, on the relations between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, and among other relevant things said the following:
"The difficulties raised by the SSPX regarding Church-State relations and religious freedom,the practice of ecumenism, and the dialogue with non-Christian religions, of certain aspects of the liturgical reform, and of its concrete application, remain the object of discussion and clarification, Abp. Pozzo [of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei] added, but they are not an obstacle for the canonical and legal recognition of the SSPX."http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/main-vatican-ecclesia-dei-official.html?m=1
Statement of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy in response to the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia
The priests and deacons of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy in England and Wales affirm with the Holy Father, in his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the unchanging teaching of Christ and His Church regarding marriage, the family, and human sexuality. They renew their pledge to continue to follow the teaching and example of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, who acts with great clemency towards sinners, but also with pastoral clarity: ‘Go and sin no more’. (John 8:11)
Our members are heartened that the Exhortation calls for a return to the wisdom of Humanae Vitae (82), defence of the ‘inalienable rights’ of the unborn child (83), re-affirmation of the role of parents as the primary educators of their children (84), and warning of an encroaching ‘gender ideology’ (56). In response to the Holy Father’s call, the Confraternity's members particularly pledge themselves to work for better and more profound marriage preparation and accompaniment, and clearer, unashamed and more positive articulation of the good news of the joy of human love.
At a time when moral relativism has caused such confusion, the Confraternity recognises the need to work with pastoral sensitivity, guided by the consistent principles of Scripture and Tradition, and will help its members to discern wisely how to help individuals hurt by the crisis in marriage and family life of which the Holy Father speaks. Those in irregular unions are a particular focus of pastoral concern, and need to be brought closer to Christ and his Church. Confraternity clergy will continue to encourage those in problematic marital circumstances to move forward, by personal discernment in the light of the Gospel, and to deepen their involvement in the life of the Church, without losing sight of the fact that certain situations constitute objective and public states of sin. The Church's pastors must never neglect the call to repentance, and the need to avoid scandal which would cause the weak to fall, while accompanying their people with kindness and understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)