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.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
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.”
This is good investigation into the passage in Introduction to Christianity to which Bishop de Mallerais objected. It doesn’t look like there is anything to it, I mean, the charge of heresy, let alone clear heresy.
Bishop de Mallerais was extremely foolish to say what he did about the Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity. As well as having given succour to sedevacantists the world over, the simple fact is that the passage he quoted is not heretical. Let de Mallerais and those others who claim it is point to the Church teaching it contradicts.
It is bad enough when Angelqueen posters write idiocies about a pope whom they seem determined to brand a heretic notwithstanding their lack of theological formation or acquaintance with his writings. To see a bishop go down the same path is truly depressing.
I’ve got a book in front of me called the “Precis of Official Catholic Teaching of The Social Teaching of The Church” but I have not the knowledge to introduce you to it all, having really only read the first Encyclical “Rerum Novarum” and some of “Quadragesimo Anno” and The Second Vatican Council’s teachings.
But as I open to the Declaration on Religious Liberty by the Second Vatican Council it gives an interesting brief background:
“The Declaration on Religious Liberty later became one of the most widely discussed documents of the Council. A major purpose behind Dignitatis Humanae was to affirm the right to religious freedom for Christians and members of other religions who were suffering persecution in Communist countries. However, people of widely differing opinions saw it as a complete break with the past model of a Catholic State. Nevertheless, this important Declaration has also been prudently interpreted as a development which would maintain the right of a nation to establish and promote a Catholic social order while respecting religious freedom of all citizens.”
The SSPX bishops are called schismatic sometimes because they were formally excommunicated and their excommunication has been talked about ever since.
However, most SSPX bishops have less doctrinal conflicts with the Pope than many of the Novus Ordo bishops. The latter and are de facto opposed to the Pope and disobey him on many doctrinal teachings. Just what does this do to their status vis a vis the Church and the Pope?. Their behavior at the very least has done more damage to the faith/faithful than the entire SSPX movement has ever been able to do.
The lack of action againts these crypto-sedevacantist bishops is what seems to drive Traditionalists of all stripes batty. Once the Pope and the bishops in communion with him addresses these hidden sedevacantists the Traditionalists will fall in line, mostly.
I think Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’ objection to the word “communion” is in the sense of the document Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion from 1992, and the Vatican II idea that “the Church in Christ, is in the nature of sacrament–a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men” (Lumen Gentium 1). It’s also the foggy ecumenical notion that there is “full” and “partial” or “imperfect” communion in varying degrees so that almost any religious group is already “partially” in communion with the Catholic Church and they simply need to move into “full” communion.