Loading ...
I don’t know if our good readers frequent The Remnant and Christ or Chaos (I’m not particularly attached to either of them myself) so I thought I’d relate the recent developments there. In the last few days, Drolesky has apparently been sick to his stomach over the early heresies of Josef Ratzinger, and Society Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais speaks harsher words than near any ever heard from a Society Bishop in the past. A little bit overwrought, but still interesting stuff.
By the way, His Lordship’s insistence that Communion is not a Catholic concept seems not a little strange. Perhaps its just one of those strange Frenchisms (and Fatimisms…), like saying the Dogma of the Faith.
My goodness, that is quite an interview! And I had thought that Bishop Williamson was the firebrand. Archbishop Lefebvre, whatever else you want to say about him, picked men to be bishops who do not mince words.
if you are interested in some thoughts regarding his comments, here is a link to a series of articles prepared for the release of the interview:
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2006/04/responses-to-interview-with-his.html
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2006/04/
responses-to-interview-with-his.html
Let’s try again…
Looks like that got cut off…
Of late I have had a difficult time reading Dr. Droleskey’s articles — they seem too overwrought. The links below are to the Christian Order critiques of the former Card. Ratzinger by James Larson; Droleskey refers to one of these, if I recall. In general, they are easier to follow than Droleskey’s writing style.
“Rosmini’s Rehabilitation and the Ratzinger Agenda”
http://www.christianorder.com/featu
res/features_2004/features_feb04_bo
nus.html
“To Belie the Obvious Truth”
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_junejuly04_bonus_1.html
Michael Davies’ response:
http://www.christianorder.com/feat
ures/features_2004/features_junejul
y04_bonus.html
James Larson on the Pope’s election (scroll down for his section)
http://www.christianorder.com/featu
res/features_2005/features_apr05_bo
nus_2.html
Larson also had a three-parter in 2003, “The War on Being,” but you can look it up on your own.
To forestall the almost inevitable: I am merely providing the background of certain traditionalists’ critiques of Card. Ratzinger, which may be useful to understaning Jacobus’ links. That is all; I am not making any claim about the critiques themselves.
You were not kidding, Iacobe, when you said the other night that it looks like Droleskey is on the verge of sedevacantism. I think that Bernard Tissier de Mallerais got him fired up.
(This is the article by Droleskey of which I’m speaking.)
I think that Droleskey is jumping too quickly to his conclusion. First of all, there is nothing new in his article, nothing which we didn’t already know before. Yes, we already knew that Cardinal Ratzinger was neither Cardinal Pecci nor Cardinal Pacelli nor Cardinal Sarto. We know that he is a man of the Council and that he is committed to the Council. We know that he appointed Levada to head the CDF and a gay-friendly bishop to replace Levada in San Fran. I defy John Boy to give me any excuse for such behavior.
This is all bad stuff, and in another day and age, we would be horrified. But there have been slight improvements. We don’t understand why things are moving so slowly, but oh well.
A long time ago, I bought into the Malachi Martin story (Windswept House). Satanism is the one force powerful enough to have destroyed the human elements of the Church so quickly. Once it has been destroyed, it will take some time to put those human elements back together.
But even if the pope is an evil man, he is still the pope. We’ve had some evil popes before, to be sure, but the Church kept on rolling. Granted, now we face an attack on doctrine, rather than a scandal of morals - though in some ways, we’re facing the latter as well. But this is what the pontiffs of the early 20th century/late 19th predicted. Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. In other words, if you thought Arianism was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet, baby!
If Joseph Ratzinger was with the bad guys conspiring before the Council - who cares? So he has heretical views? Who cares? He can still be the pope as long as he doesn’t claim those views to be de fide binding upon the Church.
I’m sorry, I didn’t actually give the link to that article.
You can find it here along with the others at True Restoration.
Other popes have held heretical views before.
When this pope or some future pope really does something crazy in the matters of Faith and Morals, the real emotional crisis is going to be not with traditionalist but from the extreme novus ordo, papal idolatry, ultra-montanist crowd (like Johnboy), many of them will go sede-vacante.
JSP, are you so sure? There are sedevacantists of a “traditionalist” stripe, but are there any Novus Ordo sedevacantists who desperately cling to some earlier stage of Vatican II constant interpretation? The type of people you describe seem to be more of the brainwashed, don’t-look-behind-the-curtain sort. I bet they’d turn in their Ut Unum Sint for recycling just like they did their (well, their parents’ or grandparents’) Mortalium Animos. Witness the about-face on altar girls and Communion in the hand, when black became white through Vatican fiat.
Then again, maybe you’re right. In any case, I bet that such an event might scandalize the younger ones simply into giving up on the Catholicism altogether and joining some prot. sect. As the prot. church on the “Simpsons” has on its marquee, “Welcome pissed-off Catholics.”