« Blog Day Off | Main | We Are Taking Back Our FutureChurch! »
August 24, 2006
Suited Up
(Michelle Arnold)
The outrage potential of some radical Traditionalists can, at times, be bewildering. Rather than look at a picture that surprises them and try to think of the most charitable explanation for that picture, apparently, their reactions are set on default to "See! More evidence that Neo-Church is out to get us all!"
Take this picture of two elderly brothers spending some downtime together, a snapshot that I find simply adorable, and test your default reaction to it:
Evidently the photograph was published in the European magazine Point de Vue on February 15, 2006 (at least according to the attribution given the picture by the radical Traditionalist site Tradition In Action). In any event, the picture is likely to be a post-election photo of Pope Benedict XVI, perhaps taken when he visited Germany last year.
(UPDATE: Comboxers have dated the photo to a 2004 retreat the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and his brother took together. See the combox for more information.)
The RadTrad site's reaction:
"Either during his trip to Germany last year or in Italy -- the magazine Point de Vue did not specify a place for this recent photo -- Benedict XVI meets his brother Fr. [sic; it's Msgr.] Georg Ratzinger at a piano to dicuss some scores of Mozart.
"Both the Pope and the priest are wearing suits. One can see that
Fr.[Msgr.] Georg chooses a more relaxed open shirt, while his 'conservative' papal brother Joseph keeps his closed. Although the photo is not very clear on this detail, it seems that Benedict is wearing a tie."At any rate, Pope Ratzinger [sic] wears a well tailored double-breasted blue-grey suit.
[...]
"At least Joseph Ratzinger maintains the 'tradition' of wearing suits. It should confirm some conservatives in the fact that Benedict maintains old customs...."
Horrors! Shouldn't a pope know better than to wear anything but a white cassock during his personal time? After all, hasn't every pope since St. Peter done so?
Oh, wait. White papal clothing was introduced by Pope St. Pius V, who decided not to wear "traditional" papal finery during his downtime but to continue to ordinarily wear his white Dominican habit. Future popes continued wearing a white cassock until it became "traditional." And, speaking of St. Peter.... Didn't he once strip down to his skivvies while fishing on the Sea of Tiberias and have to dress quickly and swim to shore so he could meet the Lord (John 21:7)?
But don't tell TIA any of this. Their default setting might overload.
(POST-PUBLICATION NOTE: It is likely that the photo is pre-election, rather than post-election, but the general point remains the same: There is nothing wrong with a pope, cardinal, or priest not wearing Traditional Clerical Garb during his personal time. Granted, doing so can be prudentially advantageous, especially if a priest is "on call." But doing so purely for the sake of Image can actually be prideful [Matt. 23:2-7].)
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Benedict XVI | Permalink
Comments
Some of the stuff on the website is reactionary, i'll give you that. But many of the points made are valid.
Posted by: TJ | Aug 24, 2006 9:49:25 AM
Oh please. Criticizing the Pope for wearing a suit in his personal time? What's next, criticizing him for playing the piano?
Posted by: Veronica | Aug 24, 2006 10:15:49 AM
Yeah, what's wrong with Pope Benedict wearing a SUIT? He's on his own time. And talk about properly dressed. It's not like he wearing a jogging suit or something. Actually, though, I think this picture is possibly from 2004 when both of them were on retreat at a Northern Italian monastery.
Posted by: Janice | Aug 24, 2006 10:19:38 AM
By the way, Benedict even has the suit jacket BUTTONED.
Posted by: Janice | Aug 24, 2006 10:20:41 AM
I think the point is missed here, at least the way I read this post. The Pope is the image of the church, and when he wears anything but clerical garb, it gives off a relaxed appearance, something I dont think the Vicar of Christ should show in public. I and many have no issues with him wearing whatever he wants on his own time, but he should not allow pictures to be taken of him wearing these outfits.
If I am not mistaken, there a pictures of then then Fr Ratzinger with the liberal theologian Karl Rahner at Vatican II wearing a suit and tie which has made its rounds along the different blogs
If the Rock group KISS can go for over a decade without anyone ever taking a photo of them without makeup to keep an "image", then the man responsible for over 1B souls can do likewise in my opinion
God bless
Posted by: John | Aug 24, 2006 10:21:38 AM
John, why don't you cool your jets until someone gets the correct date of the picture. I don't think it's post election at all.
Posted by: Janice | Aug 24, 2006 10:24:51 AM
It could be that a suit is less conspicuous and he had good reason to desire that.
Charity demands that we give the benefit of the doubt unless we have sufficient reason to think otherwise. Thats an old catholic tradition too ya know.
Posted by: Jason | Aug 24, 2006 10:31:55 AM
Didn't JPII wear jeans while skiing?
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 24, 2006 10:32:43 AM
"John, why don't you cool your jets until someone gets the correct date of the picture. I don't think it's post election at all."
And, post-election or not, the same answer still stands: There is nothing wrong with a pope, cardinal, or priest not wearing Traditional Clerical Garb during his personal time. Granted, doing so can be prudentially advantageous, especially if a priest is "on call." But doing so purely for the sake of Image can actually be prideful (Matt. 23:2-7).
Posted by: Michelle Arnold | Aug 24, 2006 10:34:58 AM
What the heck, do people actually think they have to live and work like Monks or Nuns....always in religous Garb?
Some people just need a life.
Posted by: joey | Aug 24, 2006 10:34:58 AM
Back in the '60's and '70's, Pope Benedict taught his university classes while wearing a suit and tie. He actually looked pretty sharp! But this was conventional for German priests and professors.
I really am at a loss here...how does one come to believe that papal attire is a staple of our understanding of the papal office and the measure of its faith and reverence for tradition? I never realized that out at Caesarea Philippi, the Apostle Peter had to make an immediate custume change, Clark Kent-style, when Jesus passed over the keys.
I'd hate to see the traditionalist response to the papal pajamas!
Posted by: Michael | Aug 24, 2006 10:47:57 AM
I agree, whether he was Pope or Cardinal at the time he does not need to dress up in clerical garb when not in public or performing a clerical duity. Further, I think it is unreasonable to demand he prevent his picture from being taken when he is in a more casual situation.
By the way, Michelle, why did you close the Meme of Noble Descent post?
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | Aug 24, 2006 10:57:22 AM
Who could possibly have a problem with this picture, even if it was taken sometime after April of 2004? I can only imagine that being the Vicar of Christ on earth is pretty demanding, and might even tend to take its toll on a man from time to time. I'm only surprised that we haven't yet seen a picture of a pope in sweat pants and Yankees t-shirt, while drinking a beer or two with a few of his friends.
Having said that, I do, however, draw the line with respect to any pontiff wearing anything associated with The Boston Redsox. That, quite frankly, is just something we can't tolerate. I mean kids could see that, after all. :-)
Posted by: Yankee Slacker | Aug 24, 2006 11:01:29 AM
John, once in college our chaplain came swimming with a bunch of us, and, can you believe it, he wore SWIM TRUNKS! NO COLLAR! It is a bit odd seeing them out of their regular garb, but it was my job to adjust to the swim trunks, not his job to wear a collar swimming.
Posted by: Monica | Aug 24, 2006 11:09:07 AM
I think they're right and that is a tie he's wearing (not shadow.) But I can't be sure with the software I have. Dang JPG compression.
Posted by: DJ | Aug 24, 2006 11:33:19 AM
"No, Georg, you're playing that note all wrong. HERE'S how it's done." :-)
Posted by: David B. | Aug 24, 2006 1:09:43 PM
The captions for that photo sound like the snippy sartorial critiques from old-fashioned gossip columns. Pity it's not a parody a la Curt Jester. Personally, I like the Pope's attire and think he's showing a good example of how religious should conduct themselves in "off hours".
Posted by: MissJean | Aug 24, 2006 1:46:21 PM
"Personal time"? "Down time"?
I love Pope Benedict, and yes, I'm a traditionalist, but the real issue here isn't that he's wearing this or that, but that a pope (or any priest, for that matter) has any time at all which is perceived as "off duty". When is a pope not a pope? When is a priest not a priest, for that matter? To see a pope or priest without clerical attire is akin to seeing a married man without his wedding ring. When is a married man not married? There may be legitimate reasons for removing one's wedding ring, but it does raise a question, as does a priest who wears laymen's attire in public. In the past forty years we have seen both the clericalization of the laity and the laicization of the priesthood. How refreshing it would be for the Holy Father to set the example by showing forth the dignity of his office, which cannot be erased or forgotten at any time, by wearing only his "on duty" attire in public.
That said, I wouldn't be so hard on the pope in this photo. Perhaps he did not consider this to be a public appearance, even if he turned out to be mistaken.
Posted by: Jeff Culbreath | Aug 24, 2006 1:51:52 PM
Well and charitably said Jeff.
Posted by: Matt McDonald | Aug 24, 2006 2:13:29 PM
"Perhaps he did not consider this to be a public appearance, even if he turned out to be mistaken."
Perhaps it was a family gathering and someone just happened to have a cell phone handy.
Posted by: | Aug 24, 2006 3:19:14 PM
Personally, I think the Holy Father looks rather sharp.
Posted by: Neil | Aug 24, 2006 3:24:42 PM
This is an example of Chesterton's point about the contradictory charges being thrown at the Church. When the Pope wears his white cassock, certain Protestants accuse him of pomp. When he doesn't wear it, the radical traditionalists accuse him of... well, whatever the opposite of pomp is.
Posted by: Neil | Aug 24, 2006 3:31:07 PM
wow. is there no opportunity to ridicule the straw "radtrad" man that Michelle Arnold is willing to pass on?
gotta go gather me in around the table of plenty.
Posted by: tim | Aug 24, 2006 4:03:18 PM
When is a pope not a pope? When is a priest not a priest, for that matter? To see a pope or priest without clerical attire is akin to seeing a married man without his wedding ring.
I couldn't care less if a married man was wearing his wedding ring. Maybe it's uncomfortable. Who cares?
To see a Pope without clerical attire is to see reality. He never ceases to be Pope, but our lives are very complex. Doctors dont' cease to be doctors when they leave the hospital, but they're not wearing their doctor clothes when they go out to play golf. What does it mean that the Pope wears normal clothing sometime, and isn't worried about scandalizing people because of it? It means that he, like everyone else, has a diverse life.
If someone is scandalized because the Pope likes to dress normal sometimes, then they need to find a good spiritual director and address that problem.
Posted by: Jason | Aug 24, 2006 4:15:09 PM
Also, when do we cease to be baptized? Should we wear a white baptismal gown for the rest of our lives?
Posted by: Jason | Aug 24, 2006 4:16:21 PM
Well, I certainly am not "scandalized" that His Holiness chose to wear layman's clothing. He does look pretty sharp, like the CEO of some major corporation.
And that, is the problem. I am saddened that this represents another opportunity lost. Another opportunity gone forever to show that Holy Mother Church is in the world but not of the world.
Posted by: Michael | Aug 24, 2006 7:35:21 PM
Jeff C:
What a secular priest wears in his "off-hours" in private has always been his own business. A police officer needs time out of his uniform, a king needs time out of the crown and ermine, and a priest needs time out of his cassock. I will not begrudge His Holiness time out of the cassock and zucchetto, especially while taking some much-needed R & R in a familiar setting.
Posted by: Dave Pawlak | Aug 24, 2006 7:43:57 PM
Jason, mine doesn't fit anymore. :(
Tim, what straw man? Michelle Arnold hasn't misrepresented the website's position. Tradition In Action presents itself as a traditional Catholic organization and its commentary on Pope Benedict's sartorial sense are stated clearly, no?
Another example is this commentary on the Pope's sunglasses. I don't quite understand how sunglasses are some sign that our Pope is bad. Is is somehow more holy to squint and get sundamage to one's retinas?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A138rcRatzSunGlasses.htm
The TIA's sophomoric commentary is especially annoying because supposedly they would like the Pope to address their concerns. But in the meantime, they'll make insipid comments about him their website.
Posted by: MissJean | Aug 24, 2006 7:51:25 PM
No offense to trads here, but just going strictly on the text that Michelle quoted, to say that a man is more "conservative" than his brother, simply because he's wearing a tie and his brother has an open necked shirt, is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Posted by: CaeliDS | Aug 24, 2006 8:31:15 PM
So when the Pope takes a shower, he should wear his lace and white cassock and triple tiara? I mean c'mon now people. The picture probably should not have been taken, but is this really an issue?
Posted by: Andrew | Aug 24, 2006 8:50:07 PM
I would say that it could very well be an earlier picture as the Holy Father is not wearing his glasses. Lately, he has been wearing them more frequently than when he was a Cardinal.
To all those who complain about priests not wearing their clerical garb at every waking hour. We have priests here who mow the back 40 on lawn mowers, who load up dozens of boxes of apologetic materials onto flatbed trailers to evangelize and other back breaking tasks all in 90 to 100+ degree heat! Does anyone think it wise for an elderly man to be in a full BLACK cassock in the dog days of August humidity and heat??? Or, should they be allowed to wear jeans, tee shirts and ball caps while they labor in Our Lord's vineyard???
To second what someone else wrote, St. Peter didn't wear clerical garb, and the white papal uniform only came about because St. Pius V wanted to keep his white Dominican habit.
This isn't an issue, many priests can't wear clerical garb because of the laws of the states that they live in like Turkey.
Posted by: Dr. Eric | Aug 24, 2006 8:59:36 PM
My only question is this: If it was after his election as Vicar of Christ on Earth and Successor of Saint Peter, how come he is wearing his CARDINAL's ring? I think there may be some groups jumping to a pre-conceived "modernist" conclusion. Believe me, I love the tradition, and "traditionalist" aspect of the Church as much as the next Catholic, however give the Holy Father credit when credit is due. The ring he is wearing is not the one that has been seen on his finger every day since his installation. It is his "pre-election" cardinal's ring, as can be told by its simplicity and the fact that its only a band not a huge, breathtaking piece of gold.
Posted by: Greg | Aug 24, 2006 9:16:40 PM
Oh pleeese...
This photograph is in a series of several that circulated on the internet right after BXVI became Pope. There is one where he and his brother Georg are picking food at a buffet line at the monastery where they were staying on their vacation. Same suits, same open collar on Msgr. Georg. These were taken a couple of years before Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope.
And he ate in public! Shocking.
Posted by: Beth V. | Aug 24, 2006 9:33:31 PM
SUNGLASSES!!!
If he were really spiritual he wouldn't need no stinkin' sunglasses!!!
(cf. _The_Eye_of_Apollo_, by GK Chesterton)
or would he?
Posted by: JGC | Aug 24, 2006 9:57:12 PM
I think this is a horribly good BAD photoshop.
The Pope is never on his own time. That is why he can wear the stole all the time.
His exsistance is already a part of ministering.
That is bad stuff. The Pope would never do that.
Please with the Popes that we have had before, with all due respect and ofcourse I take it back if it is a sin, but in comparison, Pope Benedict XVI is a saint. And regardless, he is my Pope.
No matter what he does. He is the legitamete successor of St. Peter.
That is all that matters.
Posted by: Some Day | Aug 24, 2006 9:57:52 PM
A person does not usually wear a suit and remain closed indoors. Where did Pope Benedict intend to go with a suit on? I am certain the photograph was taken prior to him becoming pope.
Posted by: Dozie | Aug 24, 2006 10:12:29 PM
I suspect this image is from when B XVI was still a cardinal. He and his brother were probably going to go out to dinner at a fine restaurant, and this is appropriate attire. Some people really need to direct their attention to substance, rather than incidentals.
Posted by: Rebo | Aug 24, 2006 10:18:16 PM
Men of that age are not of the tracksuit generation. Suits are probably their relaxation clothes!
Posted by: Sharon | Aug 24, 2006 11:20:42 PM
Please please PLEASE don't take this the wrong way. I love the Pope; my wife and I celebrated when he was elected.
However....
Dozie brings up the point that I've been wondering why no one else thought up: Why wear a suit on down-time? Why wouldn't he (as someone else posted jokingly) wear a jogging suit or something else more comfortable?
Maybe this is my Gen-X American bias talking here, but suits are NOT what I'd think of as casual-wear.
I don't attach any signifigance to this, I just think it's weird.
Posted by: Jared Weber | Aug 24, 2006 11:26:38 PM
Jared,
I'm not a tie person myself, but a well made suit is rather comfortable. Plus, he does look sharp.
Posted by: dean | Aug 25, 2006 12:00:40 AM
O Mio Dio!!!
Talk about whether the suit is appropriate for down time? I've seen photos - in fact, you can see several in his autobiography MILESTONES where he's in the garden at his home in Pentling and at a picnic with friends and at lunch inside his home - all in the same type of suit!
This is what he's used to wearing ... in his pre-papal days. And I KNOW this photo is not post-Conclave .. he did not schedule a personal day last August when he went to Cologne.
I looked again for the Ring - God bless the one who said it was his Cardinal's Ring - how it could be seen, I don't know - I must be blind! But no matter - I think he deserves to wear whatever makes him comfortable on his private time. I was just glad to see him walking about at Les Combes (STILL in white cassock) but without the formal sash! That's about as "casual" as it gets now, I believe. And by the way, did anyone notice Msgr Ganswein wearing black jeans when accompanying the Pope on his daily walks in Les Combes? Is anyone going to complain about that too??
Aloha from Hawaii
Posted by: Linda Cacpal | Aug 25, 2006 12:15:32 AM
Who saw the cardinal's ring? I can't see it in the photo.
Posted by: Janice | Aug 25, 2006 2:23:28 AM
+J.M.J+
I wonder what Pius XII or any of his successors wore in their leisure time? Must have been easier back then for popes to avoid the all-seeing camera eye when they weren't on official business.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Aug 25, 2006 2:35:02 AM
Let them be. Who wouldn't have loved to be there, and to have taped the Mozart whatever they wore?
Posted by: Bob McCray | Aug 25, 2006 4:32:47 AM
This picture is scandalous!
Next someone will be claiming there are TOILETS in the Apostolic Palace!
Posted by: J. P. Stevens | Aug 25, 2006 5:20:56 AM
My default reaction was *thud* Too cute.
Posted by: Karen | Aug 25, 2006 5:43:11 AM
P.S. Thanks Michelle, I love pics like this and send them to family who loves them too.
Posted by: Karen | Aug 25, 2006 5:46:47 AM
I tend to be associated with the Traditionalists because I have a great affinity for the Latin Mass and, to be blunt, can't stomache some of the nonsense I've seen in the Novus Ordo Masses here in town. That being said, this is just silly. I'd love to have seen the veins popping out on the foreheads when the RadTrads saw the photo of JPII putting on Bono's sunglasses!
If Ben16 isn't Pope enough for you, then maybe it isn't the Holy Father who has the problem!
Posted by: Chris Molter | Aug 25, 2006 5:52:33 AM
Toilets in the Apostolic Palace?!? Please, we are coming closed to reconciliation with the SSPX. Let's not endanger it with such scurrilous rumors!
Posted by: Alois | Aug 25, 2006 6:23:07 AM
And why anyone fusses about things like this is beyond me. What would the Pope himself say about Catholics spending time worrying about a suit he wears while visiting a monaastery with his brother, rather than..other things they could be worrying about?
How do you say, "Get a life" in German?
HOw do
Posted by: Mark | Aug 25, 2006 6:41:10 AM
CLEARLY this man should be stripped of the papacy for bringing such scandal to the office of Vicar of Christ!
The cardinals should be called into conclave immediately to rid the Church of such a disgrace! What could they have been thinking in April 2005 when they elected this radical, secular modernist to succeed the likes of Pius X and Pius XII?!
Obviously, Josef Ratzinger is morally bankrupt and his choice of clothing calls into question his judgement.
A BILLION Catholics around the world will soon be taking to the streets because their spiritual "leader" has brought them such embarrassment that they've completely forgotten their abject poverty, their hunger, their oppression at the hands of cruel governments. This obscene photo so threatens Catholics' spiritual well being that "Pope" Benedict MUST be deposed, and the sooner the better.
GIVE ME A BREAK! I second the post by Alois: "GET A LIFE!!!!!!"
Posted by: David | Aug 25, 2006 7:19:19 AM
Jimmy,
Why would you print this thing? You're only feeding the monster. You'd do us all and Pope Benedict a favor by putting a post above this one explaining that the picture was taken prior to the Holy Father's election. It's clear by the ring, and not only that, I distinctly remember having seen it several years ago.
The Nitwits at another well-known similar site posted a picture not long ago of the Holy Father claiming the same thing. The picture was of Cardinal Ratzinger wearing black clericals. The only trouble was they were Northern European clericals, where that pointy little white collar is worn in place of the white tab Roman collar. What morons.
As for Benedict's day to day private dress, I have read that he wears a simple black cassock in private now that he is pope.
Posted by: Jon | Aug 25, 2006 7:29:38 AM
Pope Pius XII worked in his office IN THE VATICAN in his shirtsleeves.Minus the cassock. And if you called his phone (the custom was you spoke on the phone to the Pope kneeling) you would hear him answer "Pacelli here".
Posted by: franklyn | Aug 25, 2006 7:42:37 AM
At the Papa Ratzinger Forum, they say the picture is from 2004, when both brothers were on vacation in the Tyrol. So there!
Posted by: | Aug 25, 2006 7:44:57 AM
"As for Benedict's day to day private dress, I have read that he wears a simple black cassock in private now that he is pope."
Jon,
I wish you'd tell Rocco Palmo this (Whispers in the Loggia). He keeps saying that Benedict XVI wears a blue tracksuit.
Posted by: | Aug 25, 2006 7:46:38 AM
My Mom always used to say the "you act the way you're dressed." I've come to believe that she was right. That being said, I think that this picture shows two older men enjoying a light moment, probably on their day off, dressed most appropriately. What would JPII have worn to swim in his famous swimming pool? A wet cassock would have drfagged him down to the bottom?
Posted by: Chuck | Aug 25, 2006 7:59:30 AM
I'd love to see someone tackle the perennial criticism, "Why pay attention to it? By drawing attention to it, you make it worse!" As if that's axiomatic. Answer something, and you make it worse by drawing attention to it. "Oh, by answering Dan Brown, you are at fault for bringing more attention to him."
Jimmy? Michelle? SDG? I'm giving you a great topic opportunity here!
Posted by: Karen | Aug 25, 2006 8:04:40 AM
Can I simply ask a question? Why does a cleric wish to wear worldly clothing? Further, do any good priests you know prefer suits to cassocks or clericals? Even in private? And then allow themselves to be photographed that way?
Posted by: Stephen Heiner | Aug 25, 2006 8:18:40 AM
For a real look at the brothers at home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw7WLTM3zok
Turn up the volume and enjoy.
Posted by: Jon | Aug 25, 2006 8:28:39 AM
Maybe this is what the Pope/Cardinal Ratzinger would wear when he snuck out to feed Rome's stray cats so as to not bring attention to himself?
BTW, how hard would it be to ask someone at the Vatican when the picture was taken?
Posted by: Paul R. Hoffer | Aug 25, 2006 8:45:01 AM
Is anyone going to ask him who he's wearing?
--Ann
Posted by: Ann Margaret Lewis | Aug 25, 2006 8:47:45 AM
That was so cool, Jon. My French is extremely rusty; I don't know all of what's being said. (I can read it fine but listening is something else). But we here did enjoy that video. I didn't know such things existed! Thanks!
Posted by: Karen | Aug 25, 2006 8:49:29 AM
This is a public room, a choir practice room, in Regensberg perhaps, look at the raked chairs. Certainly not a private room.
Msgr Georg is playing an electron organ not a piano.
It is a wet day one of then has just walked there, notice the collapsable umbrella.
It would seem to indicate pre-election
Posted by: Fr Raymond | Aug 25, 2006 8:51:06 AM
Fr Raymond, that is Josef playing the piano (or whatever it really is).
Posted by: Karen | Aug 25, 2006 8:53:42 AM
It's also a true piano, not something electronic or some type of organ faking a piano sound. Audio suffers with all youtube flash encoded videos. That's a real piano.
Posted by: Karen | Aug 25, 2006 9:21:58 AM
Fr Raymond is talking about the photo above, not the video.
--Ann
Posted by: Ann Margaret Lewis | Aug 25, 2006 9:24:19 AM
Thanks to all the comboxers who pointed out that the photo is probably pre-election. I've updated the post.
Posted by: Michelle Arnold | Aug 25, 2006 9:26:22 AM
Tim, what straw man? Michelle Arnold hasn't misrepresented the website's position. Tradition In Action presents itself as a traditional Catholic organization and its commentary on Pope Benedict's sartorial sense are stated clearly, no?.
Two points about this comment:
1. While Tradition in Action does often cross the line into the ridiculous (with a number of photos of the "Here, the pope compromises the dignity of the papacy by smiling! Gasp!" variety), they also have as many legitimate complaints that should be addressed.
What of the photo of Cardinal Mahony consecrating the Precious Blood in a glass lemonade jar? The half-naked Jesuit performing an obscene dance before the tabernacle? The bare-breasted women reading the Epistle at Mass?
Clinton and Kerry receiving the Blessed Sacrament? Ladies in leotards dancing during papal Masses? Eulogizing the heretic Martin Luther?
Why no indignation about that? Shall we revise the Gospels and postulate that maybe, perhaps, St. Peter and the early Christians used earthenware jars, so we should do so? Or it's ridiculous to use Latin in the liturgy, because the early Christians used Greek, and Christ spoke Aramaic?
The danger is seeing 8-10 stupid photos by TIA, thinking that the whole site is like that, and dismissing LEGITIMATE concerns.
Posted by: MO | Aug 25, 2006 9:35:15 AM
2. About straw "radtrads"; I must agree, and use the dreaded term "neo-Catholic," to describe those Catholics who, in a genuine desire to stave off radical traditionalism (which isn't traditional at all), SSPX-ism, etc., who attack each and every manifestation of legitimate questioning of papal authority.
One such example, for instance, was Ms. Arnold's post "Surviving Sunday Mass." This is exactly what we are talking about; why "survive" the Holy Sacrifice when the TLM down the street does a fine job, by the rubrics, and was promulgated by a saint? No cutting out prayers, no excising pleas to the Blessed Virgin, mentions of Hell, purgatory, no profanation of the Holy Sacrament or changing the Lord's words of consecration. Instead, Ms. Arnold says she doesn't want to go "radtrad" and so invents her own liturgy, kneeling when others sit, saying the Creed when everyone else is singing, and generally doing exactly what she criticizes "radtrads" for.
An important point; someone who disagrees with the Holy Father, who doesn't think everything the pope mumbles in his sleep is infallible, who loves the TLM and doesn't think Pope Paul VI and Bugnini are saints who had no seedier motives in doing away with 1000 years of tradition...such a person ISN'T a radical.
Posted by: MO | Aug 25, 2006 9:36:12 AM
Jimmy, Michelle, did you note that the poster at the Papa Ratzinger forums was talking about "Akin's wife Michelle?"
Posted by: Eileen R | Aug 25, 2006 9:52:05 AM
I cannot understand the analaogy used by some of swimming or jogging. Ceratinly no one expects a priest, cardinal, or pope to wear clerical garb in such examples.
Relaxing with family or fiends playing the piano is not the same thing. Why is a dress suite more comfortable tham a black suite and roman collar?
"The Directory for the Ministry and Life of Priests, prepared by the
Congregation for the Clergy and approved by Pope John Paul II on
January 31, 1994, says:...
For this reason, the cleric should wear "suitable clerical clothing,
according to the norms issued by the Episcopal Conference and
according to legitimate local customs." (Canon 284) This means that
such clothing, when it is not the cassock, should be distinct from
the manner in which laymen dress, and in conformity with the dignity
and sacredness of the ministry.
Apart from entirely exceptional circumstances, the non-use of
clerical clothing on the part of the cleric can manifest a weak sense
of his own identity as a pastor completely dedicated to the service
of the Church (# 66)...
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/RMCOLLAR.TXT
I guess I am just wondering why the cardinal felt it necessary to wear a secular suit?
Posted by: FI | Aug 25, 2006 9:53:40 AM
I see, I stand corrected Ann!
Posted by: Karen | Aug 25, 2006 10:01:39 AM
"Jimmy, Michelle, did you note that the poster at the Papa Ratzinger forums was talking about 'Akin's wife Michelle?'"
No, I didn't see that. For the record, the poster is incorrect. Jimmy and I are not related, either by blood or by marriage.
Posted by: Michelle Arnold | Aug 25, 2006 10:06:14 AM
FI,
If you read Jon's post, you noted that Cardinal Ratzinger was wearing European clericals:
"The Nitwits at another well-known similar site posted a picture not long ago of the Holy Father claiming the same thing. The picture was of Cardinal Ratzinger wearing black clericals. The only trouble was they were Northern European clericals, where that pointy little white collar is worn in place of the white tab Roman collar. What morons."
Posted by: | Aug 25, 2006 10:59:07 AM
No priest is required to wear priestly clothing while "in house" (private).
Posted by: Donato | Aug 25, 2006 11:27:18 AM
Re. the picture of the bare-breasted woman reading the Gospel, IIRC this picture was from an event that took place in one of the islands off Southeast Asia, where grass skirts and little else are normal attire for the locals. In fact, IIRC, she is wearing the adornments that a woman of her people would wear to appear before a paramount chief or other VIP. IOW, she is showing respect in the Gospel in the manner of her culture.
Furthermore, that is a region without any textile industry -- which means if the people are expected to wear Western-style garments to "show respect," acquiring them is going to make the people perpetually dependent upon either Western donations or somehow plugging into the Western cash economy (which usually means exploitation, either by selling raw materials for First World industries, or opening the country to goggling tourists who go to "look at the colorful natives").
I've noticed a definite strain of racism in a lot of these radTrad complaints against supposedly "inappropriate dress" of Third World peoples meeting the Pope or other dignitaries. Not the ugly sort of murderous or exploitative racism, but more of the genteel "our little brown brothers" racism that was common among the upper class of the US and Western Europe at the turn of the last century. A condescending view of the local cultures, combined with a determination that, for their own good, they should be forcibly turned into ersatz Westerners -- but always second-rate imitations, never our equals.
Posted by: Leigh | Aug 25, 2006 11:35:09 AM
Well, good thing Ratzinger isn't a kilt-wearring Scot.
Posted by: Francis DS | Aug 25, 2006 11:37:17 AM
This picture is obviously pre-election. So what? The two old geezers are relaxing. I have many clerical friends (including a bishop) and we've all been out to dinner or whatever with them wearing civies. No big deal. Everyone take a breath and relax!
Posted by: Marco, Triumphalistic Papist | Aug 25, 2006 12:01:05 PM
A condescending view of the local cultures, combined with a determination that, for their own good, they should be forcibly turned into ersatz Westerners -- but always second-rate imitations, never our equals.
I am not sure which traditionalists you are referring to, but I will state that I have never entertained such a racist thought.
Within reason, local customs should be respected. But when we fall into the sort of relativism that allows everything to go on the basis of "respecting others' cultures," well...we fall into the evil of relativism.
Adam and Eve were ashamed and covered themselves. It's been that way for many tens of thousands of years. Without promoting racism or condescension, perhaps it is time to inform those female lectors that revealing one's breasts at the Holy Mass is not acceptable in Western culture.
Your argument was the same one used several years ago when a Nigerian artist depicted the Blessed Virgin Mary surrounded by elephant dung. It was argued that dung is a "sign of great respect" in Nigerian culture. NYc mayor Rudolph Guiliani effectually said "screw cultural difference" and, if I recall rightly, pulled public funding for that exhibit.
So let's leave that sort of relativism with the same brand of thought that considers bongo drums acceptable musical instruments at Mass because "other culutures are different, so it must be OK." Nope.
Posted by: MO | Aug 25, 2006 12:01:49 PM
"FI,
If you read Jon's post, you noted that Cardinal Ratzinger was wearing European clericals:"
The pic posted here shows two men in dress shirts. One with a tie and one without. Niether appears to be European clericals. Perhaps I am missing something?
Posted by: FI | Aug 25, 2006 12:06:26 PM
P.S. While it may be possible to make arguments about some of the more nitpicking photos on TIA, the big ones I mentioned are inexcusable and cause for real concern.
The very, very radical site known as Traditio (which views, let me make it clear, describing the Sacred Hosts consecrated at NO Masses to be "cookies" I do not support in any way, nor do I concur with anything at all except their love for the TLM) also has a series of photos from NO Masses. There are priests "consecrating" coffee and Mountain Dew, clown Masses, rainbow sash Masses, Charismaticism...and some of these are celebrated by cardinals and bishops!
You might be tempted to say that this is a rare oddball Mass, until you see the sheer number of them. It's a real problem, and one, I'm afraid, that the NO Mass implicitly allows. Memorial Acclamation A, Penitential Rite C, Greeting B, Eucharistic prayer II, this prayer or "similar words..." halfway through the Mass, there are about 108 different possible permutations a priest can use and still be "following the rubrics."
Posted by: MO | Aug 25, 2006 12:08:36 PM
Jimmy and Michelle Akin. Now that would be an indefatiguable duo!!
Posted by: David B. | Aug 25, 2006 12:15:22 PM
MO,
It's a real problem, and one, I'm afraid, that the NO Mass implicitly allows.
Yes, it's a real problem. No, it's not one allowed, implicitly or explicitly, by the NO Mass.
Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Aug 25, 2006 1:27:01 PM
The good thing about the picture is that it shows the closeness between the two brothers - something very admirable. The picture seems to be emphasizing the two individuals as brothers - in a family situation - rather than as priets.
However, regardless of when the picture was taken, I would be opposed to a Cardinal wearing a business suit in public. This confusion of priestly identity is one of the major shortcomings of the priesthood in the West. I am used to seeing priets and even seminarians wearing, and being comfortable with, their cassocks in public. For a pope to wear a business suit at any time is simply tacky.
Posted by: Dozie | Aug 25, 2006 1:40:26 PM
I remember certain Monsignor involved in liturgical translations saying "When religious people get together they talk endlessly about other people's clothes. One might think religion was about clothes".
He has insight doesn't he?.
Posted by: | Aug 25, 2006 1:46:53 PM
For a pope to wear a business suit at any time is simply tacky.
Almost as tacky as comboxers criticizing him for it. Almost, but not quite.
Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Aug 25, 2006 1:50:38 PM
MO, my original comment was that Michelle Arnold wasn't using a strawman. Any point you wanted to make to me was lost when you presented your strawmen. (Especially about people thinking the Pope mumbling infallabilities in his sleep. That's just insulting.)
Posted by: MissJean | Aug 25, 2006 1:58:57 PM
I guess I am the only one who believes a Pope should dress like a Pope at all times
I once went to a "traditional wedding" at a chapel in which there had to be 25 nuns wearing full black garb and habits. It was August and had to be close to 100 degrees
My wife and I struck up a conversation with some of the nuns, who could not have been more than 30 years old, and I asked her if she was hot wearing black and covered all up on such a hot day
Her answer sticks with me to this day. She said "It is the least I can do as a Daughter of Mary, as Jesus suffered so much on the cross for me and my sins, and you as well she said, that a little bit of sacrifice in wearing what symbolizes someone devout to the church and Christ is not to much to ask".
This is exactly what is wrong with the church today after the council, where really anything is deemed acceptable and sacrifice and standards and morals are as one feels they should abide by, really no different today than the Protestants
Many here can make fun of traditionals all you want, but maybe they are the "few" our Lord spoke of when he shall return as true to the faith
If the Pope feels to "uncomfortable" wearing his cassock-then we have the wrong man as Pope
God bless
Posted by: John | Aug 25, 2006 4:35:14 PM
+J.M.J+
>>>I've noticed a definite strain of racism in a lot of these radTrad complaints against supposedly "inappropriate dress" of Third World peoples meeting the Pope or other dignitaries.
What bothers me is how some extreme traditionalists call the New Guinea Mass in question "pornographic" and an occasion of sin, yet they still publish the UNCENSORED photos of the event on their web sites! By their own standards, therefore, their websites have pornographic content and are an occasion of sin to visitors.
I mean, it's not like it would be that difficult to "censor" the photos at least a little bit. Though I haven't done it before, I reckon I could put a "black box" over the offending anatomy in about ten seconds flat with my image editing software. With a bit more tinkering, I might even be able to create a "pixilated" effect or something like it. So why do they post the picture uncensored?
>>>Your argument was the same one used several years ago when a Nigerian artist depicted the Blessed Virgin Mary surrounded by elephant dung. It was argued that dung is a "sign of great respect" in Nigerian culture.
Except that that was all nonsense. During that whole controversy, a priest visited the Nigerian Embassy to the UN and asked them about it. They told him that dung is never used by Muslims or Christians in Nigeria, who consider it disgusting. Thus it would never appear on a picture of the Virgin Mary in Nigeria; in fact, there are apparently laws in that country against desecrating holy images (or something like that), so that particular image would have been illegal there.
>>>If the Pope feels to "uncomfortable" wearing his cassock-then we have the wrong man as Pope
How do you know that the Pope feels to "uncomfortable" wearing his cassock? We really don't know that and should avoid such conjecture about the Supreme Pontiff. He is our spiritual father and Christian Charity demands that we give him the benefit of the doubt.
Traditionalists make comments like that, which are so offensive to pious ears, then they wonder why so many Catholics find them disagreeable! And I say this as someone who often attends Indult Masses and prefers tradition over many modern novelties.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Aug 25, 2006 4:50:40 PM
Notice the Holy Father's right hand, the ring he is wearing is his cardinalatial (sic) ring, not the fisherman's ring!
Posted by: Philip | Aug 25, 2006 5:22:32 PM
>>>Without promoting racism or condescension, perhaps it is time to inform those female lectors that revealing one's breasts at the Holy Mass is not acceptable in Western culture<<<
MO, your argument would be valid *if* the Mass in question were taking place in a Western country, or in a Westernized city where Western attire were the norm. However, as I recall, it was taking place out in one of the major villages of the ethnic group in question. IOW, on their turf, in their cultural context. To insist that they must adopt Western attire in that context is tantamount to saying that to come to Christ, one must become an ersatz Westerner, or that Western standards of modesty are somehow Biblically priveleged over other cultures' standards. This is an attitude that has often alienated people who otherwise would have happily converted.
Beyond covering the genitals and eliminatory openings, which is pretty much a human universal, modesty rules vary by culture. Pre-Revolutionary Chinese considered the female foot so intensely erotic that it was not to be portrayed in anything but erotic art. Other countries have decreed the elbow, or the brow, or the nape of the neck, to be similarly freighted with erotic tension, and thus not to be seen in polite society. Western culture happens to regard the female breast thusly, and while it's perfectly legitimate to expect visitors to our shores to adapt to our customs, imposing it on other peoples in their own lands and trying to claim it's somehow a universal moral rule rather than a particular cultural one is arrogance.
Posted by: Leigh | Aug 25, 2006 5:56:32 PM
I have to say, I find that whole TIA website ... unbelievably ... stupid. Between fussing about whether BXVI should wear a suit in private (and basing his suitablility for the Papacy on that issue alone!), or hinting at something salacious in the proximity of JPII as Fr. Wojtyla sitting next to a woman at a picnic, I think they're all absolute bonkers. IMO, many of their remarks about "Ratzinger" and "Wojtyla" are borderline libels, to say nothing of disrespectful. Indeed, as one poster noted above, they should get a life! As far as I'm concerned, the Pope is entitled to wear whatever he chooses to in private. And yes, he does look pretty sharp in a suit -- and that's a lovely photo of him with Msgr. Georg.
Posted by: Patricia Gonzalez | Aug 25, 2006 6:04:54 PM
It's a real problem, and one, I'm afraid, that the NO Mass implicitly allows.
Yes, it's a real problem. No, it's not one allowed, implicitly or explicitly, by the NO Mass.
I believe you are mistaken. The following article does a good job of showing why:
http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=211
I would also suggest that you read Archbishop Annibale Bugnini's autobiographical account of the reform of the liturgy, entitled, ironically, The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1975.
He was the chief architect of the New Mass, fired by Bl. John XXIII, then inexplicably re-assigned by Pope Paul VI before being fired again. It is thought that Pope Paul VI discovered his Masonic affiliations. Regardless, Bugnini's very publically stated attitudes about the Missal of St. Pius V, what he thought of Latin, Protestants, Catholics, etc. is all a very disturbing compendium.
When we consider that the TLM came from St. Pius V and the NO came, in effect, from Bugnini (and if you doubt me, read the book), I must opt for the Missal derived from the man with the word "Saint" in front of his name.
Posted by: MO | Aug 25, 2006 7:29:29 PM
MO, my original comment was that Michelle Arnold wasn't using a strawman. Any point you wanted to make to me was lost when you presented your strawmen. (Especially about people thinking the Pope mumbling infallabilities in his sleep. That's just insulting.)
While I certainly apologize if I have offended you with my comment, I think you must recognize hyperbole when you see it.
I do not literally believe that neo-conservative Catholics jump on everything the pope says as infallible pronouncement, but there are times when such behavior runs perilously close to that knee-jerk reaction (e.g., trying to defend Quran-kissing, Assisi, changing the Rosary with "Luminous mysteries," defending Communion in the hand, and various other seedy actions which no one would try to defend were a layman to perform them).
I do not use the term "neo-conservative" with the intent to insult either.
If I had to defend that, I'd expand it as referring to a sincere group of generally orthodox Catholics who, while espousing a love for various devotions and a desire to obey the Church and Her Holy Father, seem to almost fanatically ignore or whitewash all questionable pontifical decisions or apparent (or actual) departures from Tradition.
This is well in evidence with the recent spate of attacks on this blog against so-called "radtrads."
A commentator does him or herself a disservice in lumping together all traditional Catholics with Traditio or TIA. Not everyone who loves the TLM and hates the departure from Tradition is a sedevacantist or a supporter of the SSPX.
I would point you to an article posted on this blog recently entitled "Surviving Sunday Mass" in which Ms. Arnold submits an inexplicable reference to the disobedience of "radtrads" before going on to describe how she herself went to a Novus Ordo, disliked the abuses she saw, and proceeded to disobey in the same way that those "radtrads" do on many on occasion to escape the stifling heterodoxy of a liturgically abused Mass.
Posted by: MO | Aug 25, 2006 7:37:06 PM
Cut-off
I would point you to an article posted on this very blog recently entitled "Surviving Sunday Mass" in which Ms. Arnold submits an inexplicable criticism of "radtrads" while herself describing how she attended a Novus Ordo, disliked the all too common abuses that took place (there are 100+ post threads on abused Masses over at Catholic Answers--read the article I posted and you'll see why), and proceeded to practice the same disobedience in constructing her own mini-liturgy for which she faulted those "radtrads."
Why not skip out on those abuses and attend a TLM? There are little red books in the back for learning the Latin. Give it 4-5 Sundays and you won't even need the Missal anymore. You can evade those blasphemous little Haugen/Haas hymns and listen to the venerable chant given us by St. Gregory the Great. See real reverence for the Holy Sacrament, where people approach Christ on their knees and do not communicate themselves. You'll hear prayers referring to Hell, Purgatory, the soul, the Blessed Mother, the holy saints and apostles, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and sermons reiterating the same...you know, actual CATHOLIC doctrines, many of which were excised from the Novus Ordo Missal for absolutely no good reason.
Do we no longer require a reminder of the possibility of eternal damnation? Are we modern people in 2006 without the need of the Blessed Mother's intercession?
A Catholic saint promulgated that Missal. As for the New Order Mass...I do not dispute its validity, because to do so is to cast asperions on the Holy Spirit. But it was not promulgated, it would seem, by so ardent and saintly a defender of the Catholic Faith as St. Pius V.
Posted by: MO | Aug 25, 2006 7:45:45 PM
Bugnini was---pardon me while I spit on the ground---a vile reprobate and liturgical degenerate possessed of a diseased mind infected with the malignancy of freemasonry. Ecclesiastical vermin, in a word.
Posted by: Marco, Triumphalistic Papist | Aug 25, 2006 10:51:08 PM
MO,
Adam and Eve were ashamed and covered themselves. It's been that way for many tens of thousands of years. Without promoting racism or condescension, perhaps it is time to inform those female lectors that revealing one's breasts at the Holy Mass is not acceptable in Western culture.
Apparently the Hebrew word used for the garments God gave Adam and Eve probably means loin cloth or skirt. They both would have been topless after the fall.
The breasts of either sex are not sexual organs. They differ between the sexes, but are no more sexual than the male beard. Whether wrongly or not they have been sexualized in Western culture and others. Because their exposure now becomes a source of temptation in Western culture they should be covered here, but in a society where this is not the case there is no reason to cover them.
Indeed, I think it terrible racism (or ethnocentrism or something) to want Western clothing to spread to the whole world, including tropical climates where it is even less practical. To suggest that the Mass is specifically Western is even worse.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | Aug 25, 2006 11:02:22 PM
MO, let me get this straight. You think the addition of the Luminous Mysteries is indefensible? I ask because until I moved to this area, I had never heard the Fatima prayer that many people add to the Rosary I was taught by my family. Should I be appalled at that innovation?
How about the Divine Mercy devotion that is gaining such a following in my parish - is that acceptable? Did one of the previous Popes declare that new Marion prayers and meditations on the life of Christ were unacceptable?
Personally, I think there are a lot of knee-jerk condemnations.
In my parish, we have prayers referring to Hell, Purgatory, the soul, the Blessed Mother, the holy saints and apostles! But they're in English, so I was afraid that it didn't count. I'm so glad you commented that the New Order Mass is valid. Oh, and guess what? My young priest also promotes Adoration and has homilies about the importance of frequent confession in order to be prepared to accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Evidentally he's a Roman Catholic. Go figure.
Posted by: | Aug 25, 2006 11:05:25 PM
I do pray with many of the rest of you that there will be a liturgical restoration, and soon. Note that even Sacrosanctum Concillium talks mostly about restoration and continuity. If the abstract ideals of that document were separated from the concrete directives we could have some valuable guidance.
I agree that "radtrad" is a dangerous generalization, just like "liberal" or "neo-Catholic" since ideas associated with these do not always go with the qualities one connects with these ideas. There can be very liberal-minded traditionalists or very legalistic, fanatical liberals, for example. Still, steriotypes tend to form because there are many who fit into it.
Posted by: J.R. Stoodley | Aug 25, 2006 11:13:00 PM
I forgot to add that much of the above was hyperbole. Seriously, though, I'm getting a little tired of Catholics glomming onto this saint or that theologian as somehow the end of all theology/religious expression/prayers. My older brother and I are currently trying to get my younger brother to stop fretting over the new translation - he's sceptical because he thinks "And with your spirit" is New Agey. :)
Perhaps it's because I've had to endure so many Protestant jabs at various Popes and my "unBiblical" traditions. Plus a painful discourse on why Luther (or, conversely, Calvin) were RIGHT and how if I just READ and UNDERSTOOD them, I would realize how wrongheaded I am to be a Papist.
Posted by: MissJean | Aug 25, 2006 11:18:04 PM
FI, you said:
"The pic posted here shows two men in dress shirts. One with a tie and one without. Niether appears to be European clericals. Perhaps I am missing something?"
Yes, you're missing something. Cardinal Ratzinger is not wearing a tie. He's wearing Northern European clerical - the two pointy edges LOOK like a tie in some photos. I've seen other photos of him on this vacation with his brother and he clearly identifies himself as a priest by wearing this black shirt with the white, pointy collar. So, he's fulfiling your exacting requirements.
Posted by: Janice | Aug 26, 2006 3:28:20 AM
I don't think His Holiness, The Dalai Lama has ever been photographed in a suit.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 26, 2006 6:56:28 AM
MO, let me get this straight. You think the addition of the Luminous Mysteries is indefensible?
The Blessed Virgin Mary instructed St. Dominic to preach Her psalter consisting of 15 decades of Hail Marys. At Fatima, She instructed the children to pray one third of the Rosary daily.
It would have been a lovely thing for Pope John Paul to have made a little Luminous Chaplet, like the Divine Mercy chaplet, to incorporate those 5 events from the life of Christ.
But, simply put, neither he nor anyone else save the Mother of God has the authority to alter the Holy Rosary, just as no pope dared to alter the canon, not even to add St. Joseph's name (until, of course, the "new springtime" of Vatican II came about).
Trying to pray one third of a 20 mystery Rosary, or preserve the connection to the 150 strong Davidic psalms is an operation that not even Conciliar spin artists are able to undertake.
For a very good article about this, try this:
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20021108_The_Twenty_Mysteries_of_the_Rosary.html
Also, St. Louis de Montfort's wonderful treatise on the Holy Rosary. You'll be clear after reading this why St. Louis likely would have been horrified to see such a change:
http://www.hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/The.Secret.of.the.rosary.PDF#search=%22Secret%20of%20Rosary%22
I ask because until I moved to this area, I had never heard the Fatima prayer that many people add to the Rosary I was taught by my family. Should I be appalled at that innovation?
Two simple questions for you:
1. Who gave us the Fatima prayer?
2. Who gave us the Luminous "mysteries"?
And a third: What was the respective authority of Each?
How about the Divine Mercy devotion that is gaining such a following in my parish - is that acceptable? Did one of the previous Popes declare that new Marion prayers and meditations on the life of Christ were unacceptable?
You're mistaking the opposition here. There is nothing wrong with the Luminous mysteries.
They make a lovely source of meditation on the Lord's oublic life.
The problem is trying to add them to the Rosary. Meditate on them as much as you like. But the Rosary has 15 mysteries, and I'm going with the Blessed Mother, St. Dominic, Blessed Alan, St. Louis, and Our Lady of Fatima on this.
In my parish, we have prayers referring to Hell, Purgatory, the soul, the Blessed Mother, the holy saints and apostles!
Excellent! Pray for the many parishes that don't; 75% of Catholics don't go to Mass, priestly vocations and seminarian numbers have dropped ENORMOUSLY since 1958, as have religious notiviates and orders, belief in the Real Presence, prevalence of Marian devotions, knowledge of the Faith and proper catechesis, etc. I'll find the statistics for you if you require them.
I've been to Masses in nearly a dozen different states along the East Coast and many different parishes within those states and I've consistently seen abuse after abuse, downplay or non-mention of doctrine, and profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. And those are not going by my standards, but going by those of the GIRM, the popes, and the saints.
But they're in English, so I was afraid that it didn't count.
Latin is the least of our worries.
My young priest also promotes Adoration and has homilies about the importance of frequent confession in order to be prepared to accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Evidentally he's a Roman Catholic. Go figure.
I'm a bit confused as to why you've launched a personal campaign to vindicate your own parish priest. I never said anything about your own parish. I am speaking of a larger and undeniable trend in the United States.
Read the commentaries provided by the U.S. bishops in the New American Bible sometime (maybe take an antacid first). Bishop Bruskewitz and others have gone to bat about those little tidbits, which are, quite frankly, many times heretical. Cardinal Ratzinger did not even approve their psalter in 1995.
And those are the ones, lest we forget, who are leading the Church.
Can't make sunshine out of a monsoon, no matter how much you try.
Posted by: MO | Aug 26, 2006 8:26:05 AM
MO
I agree with you totally, and I noted that no one commented on my earlier post, I guess they dont have an answer for what I posted, that the clerics of today, including the Pope have no regard for standards, traditions, customs and norm and since the council feel they can do whatever they want and get away with it. We watch Telecare here in NY with shows imported from BCTV with priestst wearing sweaters with little children talking about sadistic rock music (with Bishop Sheen ever do something like that?), and I hate to say this priest himself looks a little wierd, like a 3 dollar bill if you get my point
Be careful-Those like Rosemarie above I see have started to reach and they are desparate and have pulled the "racist" card to describe the "trads"-so watch where you tread! If you desire reverence, custom, love for the sacred heart, priests and a Pope for that matter that actually dress like a pope, and all that made the church what she is for centuries and oppose pygmy masses as JPII loved to attend so much with bare chested woman-you are a RACIST. Go figure
Posted by: John | Aug 26, 2006 8:33:03 AM
Incredible what sparks these LONG threads. Lets add some more fuel.
MO,
When Our Lady has appeared, has she not presented a humble attitude toward the local bishop?
Posted by: Dean Steinlage | Aug 26, 2006 8:45:55 AM
Um, the Vicar of Christ has greater authority on earth than the Blessed Mother. Shocking but true, because Peter is the head of the Church on earth, and Mary is a member of the Church, although certainly the most pre-eminent member.
Thus, we never see Mary giving directions to the first pope and his college; she did not ever tell the world, "I am the Immaculate Conception" until after the pope declared it; and Mary's comments at Fatima were requests to the pope, not commands.
Mary's last words, in the Deposit of Faith, are: "Do whatever he tells you," referring to her Son. The Lord's decision was to say, to Peter and the Apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you..." and "Tu es Petrus" etc.
As venerable as the many appearances and messages of Mary are, not one of them is public revelation, and cannot be held to define or constrain what is contained in the Deposit of Faith, or the authentic interpretation thereof by the Magisterium. For that matter, our Blessed Mother was never given any share in the Magisterium, and that is without dispute.
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox | Aug 26, 2006 9:34:47 AM
+J.M.J+
John: Exactly where did I "pull the racist card"?
First, I pointed out that certain extreme traditionalist cites are being inconsistent when they call the New Guinea Mass "pornographic" and then post the uncensored pictures. What does that have to do with racism or a "racist card"? I never said that trads are "racist"; I have traditionalist sympathies myself, so I wouldn't make such a blanket statement.
I also pointed out the falsehood behind the claim that Nigerian society would countenance dung on a picture of Blessed Mother, and that you were jumping to conclusions about the Holy Father's attitude toward clerical garments. Again, how was I pulling a "race card"?
Janice: Yeah, I think you're right. He's not wearing a tie; that may very well be European clerical garments.
In Jesu et Maria
Posted by: Rosemarie | Aug 26, 2006 10:13:20 AM
+J.M.J+
A search at Google Images has unearthed a few more pre-conclave photos of Ratzinger where he appears to be wearing a simlar "jacket" with his clericals:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:2004_katholische-akademie-habermas-ratzinger_1-799x533.jpg
www.toytownmunich.com/archive/josef_ratzinger.jpg
http://www.duitslandweb.nl/binaries/Actueel/Uitgelicht/2005/4/ratzinger_art.jpg
http://www.papaluciani.com/benedetto/ratzinger464.jpg
So I think it's quite plausible that he is actually wearing clerical garments in that picture.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Aug 26, 2006 10:40:53 AM
MO,
By what authority do you say that the Holy Father has no authority to alter the Holy Rosary?
Certainly you can not appeal to Tradition, because Tradition gives him that authority. So what authority do you appeal to?
Seriously.
Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Aug 26, 2006 10:46:38 AM
Be careful-Those like Rosemarie above I see have started to reach and they are desparate and have pulled the "racist" card to describe the "trads"-so watch where you tread! If you desire reverence, custom, love for the sacred heart, priests and a Pope for that matter that actually dress like a pope, and all that made the church what she is for centuries and oppose pygmy masses as JPII loved to attend so much with bare chested woman-you are a RACIST.
Precisely.
So outlandish, misplaced, and foolish was that comment about racism and cultural sensitivity that I did not even know how to begin to reply.
Even that poster admits to certain "cultural universals" which immediately underpins her own argument.
Posted by: MO | Aug 26, 2006 10:53:29 AM
By what authority do you say that the Holy Father has no authority to alter the Holy Rosary?
By the same authority that has declared the Psalter to be composed of 150 psalms.
The Rosary is, from Our Blessed Mother's own words, "the Angelic Psalter."
I suspect you may not have read any of the articles I linked to, and doing so would provide a better idea of where I am coming from.
Certainly you can not appeal to Tradition, because Tradition gives him that authority. So what authority do you appeal to?
Really? Tradition gives the pope the authority to alter a devotion revealed by the Blessed Mother to St. Dominic?
Tradition provides the authority to redefine what "psalter" means and, in the name of the "new evangelization" (notice how everything in the post-Conciliar era must be new; new Mass, new "Liturgy of the Hours," new Rosary mysteries, new charismatic renewal, new ecclesiology, new ecumenism, and on and on) add mysteries that were never part of the Rosary?
How did past generations manage without these Luminous mysteries?
You'll note, too, that Pope John Paul's apostolic letter refers to an "impoverished method of praying the Rosary" having discouraged faithful from undertaking the devotion.
And what, pray tell, is this "impoverished method"?
Silent, reverent meditation?
Worked fine for Blessed Jacinta and Blessed Francisco.
15 Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries?
Worked fine for St. Dominic, Blessed Alan, St. Francis de Sales, St. Louis de Montfort, St. Alphonsus, and every other pre-2002 generation.
But we must have more "novelty" in order to allow that famous tornado (or "breeze" if you prefer) to enter the Church, having opened a window, to swirl everything about.
We must entertain the faithful, turn the priest around, engage the congregation, have rock concert Masses, World Youth Days, new Rosary mysteries, new Divine Offices, new ecumenical efforts, new "interpretations" of centuries-old traditional teachings, more and more prayer conferences, endless meetings, "dialogues" with heretics, pagans, schismatics, and unbelievers, new methods of prayer.
When does it end? Apparently, with large declines in priestly and religious vocations, Mass attendance, belief in the Real Presence, devotion to the Blessed Mother, etc., etc. ad nauseam.
What is the great fruit of this novelty? That 3/4 of all Catholics abstain from their grave DUTY to attend the Holy Sacrifice each and every week?
That more and more souls, far from being concerned about hell, so infrequently hear of it as to render its existence trivial in their minds?
This is a matter with eternal stakes, and I have yet to see why you think it fit to depart from the traditions that nourished millenia of saints for novelty and modernism.
Posted by: MO | Aug 26, 2006 11:04:09 AM
+J.M.J+
MO: "That poster" was not me. I did quote a single sentence from Leigh's post (perhaps it was ill-chosen) because I was more or less responding to her post. Her discomfort with certain objections to the New Guinea Mass made me recall my own thoughts about it - which admittedly didn't have much to do with racism, though.
Again, I do not believe that all trads are racists - and, for that matter, I don't think Leigh believes that either. She was saying that the idea that non-Westerners should all dress like Westerners smacks of racism, not that everyone who loves traditional Catholicism is a racist (as John unfairly caricatures her view).
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Aug 26, 2006 11:10:29 AM
I'm always appalled, but never surprised. In this case, it's the so-called traditionalists, who have kept every tradition, except that of charity. I'm not surprised because I have read the comments of their fellow travellers elsewhere. One signature of their attitude is extreme disrespect for the Pope. Apparently, in this case, it covers his life before he became pope. I used to wish for the reconciliation of the traditionalists with the Roman Catholic Church, and I guess it's still something to be wished for, but given the nasty dispositions of some in the comments here, and their disrespect for Benedict XVI, who has always been proud to identify himself as a priest and who has led a life of exemplary holiness, I wonder if it would not just introduce more dissension into the Church.
Posted by: Janice | Aug 26, 2006 11:11:21 AM
Mary's comments at Fatima were requests to the pope, not commands.
Father, with all respect, while what you say about Fatima is true in the strictest sense, the entire range of issues surrounding that issue is very troubling indeed.
Russia has spread her errors, there has been no time of promised peace, no European nation has converted, and yet some attempt to maintain--the Vatican included--that all parts of the request were honored.
The Blessed Mother's request, in my view, is more than merely a request. To not heed such a request borders on spiritual suicide.
The 3rd secret was supposed to be revealed in 1960 because it would "be more clear then."
It wasn't.
Russia was supposed to be consecrated by name, so that it would be converted. It wasn't. How difficult is it to mention Russia by name in the consecration? Really? Perhaps the Vatican did not wish to offend Russian Orthodox heretics, what with the great leaps and strides made in this new ecumenism?
Then, in 2000, 19 years after the pope was shot, it is revealed that the 3rd secret, which supposedly dealt with martyred bishops and priests and religious and an army of soldiers shooting a bishop in white with arrows and bullets, was to be applied to a lone gunmen shooting the pope in 1981.
So, after all of that fuss about the 3rd secret, having shown the children visions of Hell, the miracle of the sun, converting many in Portugal, etc., the Blessed Mother appeared to the world in Fatima...to tell us that, in 1981, a pope would be shot.
Can anyone honestly entertain this idea with a straight face?
Even Mother Angelica, on May 16, 2001 on her show, said that she does not believe we received the whole secret.
Cardinal Ratzinger, in a 1987 interview (and I can dig it up if you'd like), said that the 3rd secret dealt with some sort of grave trouble at the high levels of the Church, including the loss of the Faith.
This stuff is serious, serious business. Why would a pope, given a request by the Mother of God, not fulfill to the letter the precise stipulations?
Posted by: MO | Aug 26, 2006 11:13:59 AM
Really? Tradition gives the pope the authority to alter a devotion revealed by the Blessed Mother to St. Dominic?
Yes.
Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Aug 26, 2006 11:18:19 AM
I'd add one more tradition they don't keep, Janice: Obedience. Like Luther, Calvin, and other rebels, they will try to justify their disobedience.
(Guess I just painted another target on my chest. Now, where did I put my cyper-space body armor?)
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 26, 2006 11:19:15 AM
+J.M.J+
Did you know that when Mary gave the Fatima Prayer to the children to add to the Rosary, it ended with the words "lead all souls into heaven"?
That didn't sit too well with the Church authorities (I think they feared it would be understood in a universalist sense). So they insisted that the words "especially those in most need of Thy mercy" be added onto the end. The children were obedient, those words were added, and to this day Catholics all over the world - trads and nontrads alike - use those words added by the heirarchy.
Did the Church authorities have no right to add to the words revealed by Our Lady of Fatima?
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Aug 26, 2006 11:29:48 AM
Tradition has never regarded private revelation as binding on anyone, much less the Holy Father.
Perhaps the Holy Father has information not available to you. Maybe he has earned the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Christ and His Holy Spirit knew what they were doing when they entrusted the Church to his hands -- and not yours. Maybe.
Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Aug 26, 2006 11:53:14 AM
I'd add one more tradition they don't keep, Janice: Obedience. Like Luther, Calvin, and other rebels, they will try to justify their disobedience.
(Guess I just painted another target on my chest. Now, where did I put my cyper-space body armor?)
Bill--reverse the stakes.
You've grown up with nice, "tolerant" teachings about religious freedom, all religions "have some truth," "ecumenism is good," English Masses with female altar servers, female lectors, Communion in the hand standing, priest versus populum, a nice, quick and easy "Liturgy of the Hours," etc., etc.
Then, over the course of 5 years, a pope gives a new Missal with the Mass in Latin, ad orientem, adding numerous prayers referencing the Blessed Mother and the saints, makes the Divine Office much longer and in Latin, begins to teach that other faiths have very serious and fatal errors to overcome, bans female lectors and altar servers, mandates Holy Communion on one's knees on the tongue at an altar rail, brings back the complete fast from midnight, restores Holy Days of Obligation, and teaches the Faith undiluted.
Can I take a guess, that, given that hypothetical, you and your traditionalist-bashing friends would not be the first to submit in holy obedience?
Posted by: MO | Aug 26, 2006 12:27:50 PM
One signature of their attitude is extreme disrespect for the Pope. Apparently, in this case, it covers his life before he became pope. I used to wish for the reconciliation of the traditionalists with the Roman Catholic Church, and I guess it's still something to be wished for, but given the nasty dispositions of some in the comments here, and their disrespect for Benedict XVI, who has always been proud to identify himself as a priest and who has led a life of exemplary holiness, I wonder if it would not just introduce more dissension into the Church.
It's generally always best to confront a problem head on. You might as well name your targets (me and a few others) rather than the thinly veiled, unsubtle "some nasty traditionalists on here."
With that said, where is the disrespect for the pope?
Is the wish that the Blessed Mother's wishes be carried out to the letter "disrespectful"?
Is the wish that St. Pius X's, Bl. Pius IX's and Pope Pius XI's teachings on false ecumenism be followed "disrespectful" to the falsely ecumenical efforts that thrive today?
Please explain what you are saying, because if the substance of your argument is, "You're wrong because you're mean," we really have nothing to discuss, do we?
I apologize to you if I come across as bitter; in a face to face conversation, I will certainly tell you that I would come across differently. I suppose the Internet has a way of blurring conventional lines of charity.
With that said, please, I implore you, read deeply into Church history, the Fathers, the encyclicals of all popes before 1963, then read the Conciliar popes, compare, evaluate, study all of this, and reach your own conclusion.
I tell you sincerely that, not so long ago, I would have rushed into the defense of every questionable papal action myself, without even reading what happened, with some knee jerk concept of perfect "obedience."
Then I read parts of Annibale Bugnini's works, and I read about the Council, and about what St. Pius X and Blessed Pius IX and all the past popes taught, and I saw what they did to the Mass and what was taken away from us, how, week after week, I see conservative Catholics suffering through these abusive liturgies but bearing it for some misguided sense of "obedience," and when you arrive at that point, you'll no longer try to pretend that everything in the post-Vatican II land is perfect, or even very good, or that the Church is where it needs to be.
However much contempt you may nurture for all things traditional, I repeat my request; please, learn about all of this for yourself, without taking my remarks or those of some radical on TIA to be representative of the entire traditional Church. Conservative Catholics become just as nasty in these debates, whether or not you realize it (remarks about "trad racism" on this thread being a prime example).
I have found the following to offer a very nice synopsis of many of the problems, particularly the "For Catholics" section. Read through it all if you can, then come back and we can probably speak with more charity, less animosity, and more understanding:
http://www.fisheaters.com/
Posted by: MO | Aug 26, 2006 12:38:06 PM
Rosemarie--
About Fatima; where did you hear that they altered the prayer?
My understanding was the original went:
O my Jesus....lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need."
It appears that someone appended "of Thy mercy."
Regardless, this is a petition, not a teaching, so it is hard to see how this leads to Universalism.
Nonetheless, the concern about Universalism certainly seems a just one after we have run up against Hans Ur von Balthasar and other priest who were universalists.
Considering Our Lady of Fatima showed the children a vision of souls burning in hell, anyone who holds to Universalism would appear to deny the Fatima apparition.
Imagine, too, the children being shown hell...and today, it seems some priests think that this is too offensive a concept for modern ears. Apparently, the Blessed Mother did not think so.
Posted by: MO | Aug 26, 2006 12:43:27 PM
+J.M.J+
I read it in a few different places. I'll see if I can find it again. I agree that the prayer does not promote Universalism (I think the phrase "all souls" refers specifically to the souls in Purgatory), but I suppose the Church authorities were being hypercareful.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Aug 26, 2006 12:52:23 PM
+J.M.J+
As for the Luminous Mysteries, when they were first introduced I was under the impression that they were optional, not a manditory addition to the Rosary. I got that impression from the late Pontiff's actual words in "Rosarium Virginis Mariae," such as:
"I believe, however, that to bring out fully the Christological depth of the Rosary it would be suitable to make an addition to the traditional pattern which, while left to the freedom of individuals and communities, could broaden it to include the mysteries of Christ's public ministry between his Baptism and his Passion....
"Consequently, for the Rosary to become more fully a 'compendium of the Gospel', it is fitting to add, following reflection on the Incarnation and the hidden life of Christ (the joyful mysteries) and before focusing on the sufferings of his Passion (the sorrowful mysteries) and the triumph of his Resurrection (the glorious mysteries), a meditation on certain particularly significant moments in his public ministry (the mysteries of light). This addition of these new mysteries, without prejudice to any essential aspect of the prayer's traditional format, is meant to give it fresh life and to enkindle renewed interest in the Rosary's place within Christian spirituality as a true doorway to the depths of the Heart of Christ, ocean of joy and of light, of suffering and of glory."
Note that he says the addition should be "left to the freedom of individuals and communities." He never once commands or proclaims anything; the whole text has the feel of a suggestion rather than an official pronouncement.
So I was actually a bit surprised when I saw people start to treat the Luminous Mysteries as "on par" with the traditional 15 Mysteries, even sometimes to the point of saying, "The Rosary has 20 Mysteries now!" I'm still not so sure that the Pope really intended to change the Rosary in that way. I thought he was just suggesting a new set of Mysteries the same way other people have sometimes invented things like "The Healing Mysteries" or "The Teaching Mysteries" or "The Mysteries of Mary's Words" or what have you. The Luminous Mysteries just come from "higher up" than a mere lay person's meditations.
I guess I still look at them that way. It's nice to have a set of Mysteries which are partially related to the Seven Sacraments and which bridge the gap between Our Lord in the Temple at age 12 and in Gethsemane at age 33. But I don't see them as quite equal to the other traditional 15.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie | Aug 26, 2006 1:16:10 PM
MO,
You are simply disingenous. My argument was not that you were "mean." That's childish. You claim to be an expert in the Fathers, encyclicals, etc., so hopefully you know the meaning of "charity." Or not. The basic problem with the hyper-traditionalistis, which bill912 identified, is obedience to the Magisterium. You, like countless Protestants before you (and if you read the criteria in Dominus Iesus for a Protestant Church you will find that SSPX, et al., more than fulfills them) decided that an ecumenical council, i.e., the bishops in communion with the Pope, did not supersede your own private views of what consituted a church. Therefore, you went away and became yet another Protestant church. Now you are offended because people are calling you on it. Well, decisions have consequences.
As to "false ecumenism," most rightly pointed out by the great Pius XI (for whom I have the utmost respect), let me point out that John Paul II practiced false ecumenism, by glossing over the real differences among the various Christian denominations and Roman Catholicism. If you have noticed, Benedict XVI does not do this. Nor has Benedict XVI kissed a Koran. If you going to claim that you are scholarly, then be precise when you identify your bogeymen and scapegoats.
By the way, if you actually have read the Fathers of the Church, you will have noticed that they prized religious liberty. That is why they denounced gnosticism so strongly: because it reeked of determinism. In the second century, the Christian Apologists (Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, et al.) recognized that the loving God had spread knowledge of Himself, not only to the Jews and Christians, but to all men. Glimpses of Him had been granted even to Socrates and Plato, according to the Apologists. Therefore, all men were the recipients of God's grace, in varying degrees. And, don't forget, Jesus Christ came to save the whole world, not just Catholics. It is difficult to believe that He would not grant even a glimmer of His grace to those who, for whatever reason, are unable to participate fully in the Roman Catholic Church.
Posted by: Janice | Aug 26, 2006 1:21:11 PM
MO,
Can I take a guess, that, given that hypothetical, you and your traditionalist-bashing friends would not be the first to submit in holy obedience?
Call me whatever you like, but given your hypothetical, I would be the first to submit in holy obedience to what the Holy Father proposed. You seem to miss our point, or at least my point. Christ left him the keys to the kingdom, not me. I value his personal opinion more than mine. While I've studied the Church Fathers and tradition quite a bit, I am under no illusion that I have spent even a fraction of the time studying the matter than the Holy Father. I do not have the weight of being responsible for 1+billion souls on my shoulders.
With that said, where is the disrespect for the pope?
Attempting to answer that question would result in an immediate Rule 3 violation.
Is the wish that the Blessed Mother's wishes be carried out to the letter "disrespectful"?
It is the absolutely preposterous notion that you know what the Blessed Mother's wishes are and the Holy Father does not. It is the even more astounding assertion that the Holy Father knows the Blessed Mother's wishes and is willfully ignoring them. Disrespect does not begin to describe your attitude.
I apologize to you if I come across as bitter; in a face to face conversation, I will certainly tell you that I would come across differently. I suppose the Internet has a way of blurring conventional lines of charity.
Nice venom is still venom, and in many ways more vile.
However much contempt you may nurture for all things traditional
The contempt is not for things traditional, it is for things arrogant, disobedient, and disrespectful.
Hans Ur von Balthasar and other priest who were universalists.
Hans Urs von Balthasar was not a universalist. Get your facts straight.
Posted by: Brother Cadfael | Aug 26, 2006 2:24:40 PM
You are simply disingenous.
What was it we were saying about charity?
You claim to be an expert in the Fathers, encyclicals, etc., so hopefully you know the meaning of "charity." Or not.
Well, within 2 sentences, you've already begun to butcher my words. I said I'd READ the Fathers--not all, but some. I NEVER said I was an expert. There are people who can study the Fathers their whole lives and never become experts.
You, like countless Protestants before you (and if you read the criteria in Dominus Iesus for a Protestant Church you will find that SSPX, et al., more than fulfills them) decided that an ecumenical council, i.e., the bishops in communion with the Pope, did not supersede your own private views of what consituted a church.
Let me just point out the irony of the above. You've upbraided for violating an unspoken code of charity before going on to call me a member/supporter of the SSPX (I'm not), a Protestant (I'm not), and someone who decided to reject the validity of VII because it conflicted with my personal views (wrong again).
In baseball, one generally gets three strikes. Then, they're out.
Therefore, you went away and became yet another Protestant church. Now you are offended because people are calling you on it.
I'd love to know who this shadowy fellow known as "you" is. I know it's not me, because I am not Protestant, I am not SSPX, and I am not offended when someone calls the SSPX on the internal inconsistency of their views. I've done it myself, in fact.
If you have noticed, Benedict XVI does not do this. Nor has Benedict XVI kissed a Koran. If you going to claim that you are scholarly, then be precise when you identify your bogeymen and scapegoats.
First of all, the first part you said is true.
But Pope Benedict has convened the 20th anniversary bash of the Assisi conference. Surely there's no stock apologetics answer for that one?
I also never claimed I was scholarly. You seem to have an affinity for straw men.
I suggested to you that you read deeply into Church history. I mentioned that this is how I arrived at my current view. I nowhere claimed that I was a scholar of Church history, or that I have all the answers, but that I know more now than I knew back when I espoused the same views that some on this thread do.
It is difficult to believe that He would not grant even a glimmer of His grace to those who, for whatever reason, are unable to participate fully in the Roman Catholic Church.
There's a difference--a KEY difference--between religious tolerance and religious liberty.
The former is likely what you are referring to.
The latter is invalid--error, as the phrase goes, "has no rights."
And, according to St. Faustina, Christ gives every person sufficient grace to find Him, even if not until the moment of death.
Posted by: MO | Aug 26, 2006 4:18:01 PM
Call me whatever you like, but given your hypothetical, I would be the first to submit in holy obedience to what the Holy Father proposed.
I was actually replying to Bill, not you.
I do not have the weight of being responsible for 1+billion souls on my shoulders.
That's true.
Attempting to answer that question would result in an immediate Rule 3 violation.
One example would suffice.
It is the absolutely preposterous notion that you know what the Blessed Mother's wishes are and the Holy Father does not.
Brother Cadfael, and I quote:
" To prevent this, I shall come to the world to ask that Russia be consecrated to my Immaculate Heart...If my wishes are fulfilled, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, then Russia will spread her errors throughout the world..."
Brother Cadfael--Russia has not converted. There has been no peace. Russia has spread her errors--atheism and secular humanism
I do not need to presume to know the Blessed Mother's wishes. They are right there on the page, for you, me, the Holy Father, and anyone else to see them.
The consecration of Russia was requested and peace and conversion were promised.
Peace and conversion have not come--quite the opposite. Russia is terribly anti-Catholic, and it has not been consecrated.
Hence, we have a simple syllogism which you choose apparently to ignore in favor of telling me I'm "disrespectful."
It is the even more astounding assertion that the Holy Father knows the Blessed Mother's wishes and is willfully ignoring them.
You're RIGHT; it IS astounding!:
Sister Lucy had made the Bishop of Fatima-Leiria promise that the Secret would be read to the world at her death, but in no event later than 1960, "because the blessed Virgin wishes it so...In 1955 Cardinal Ottaviani asked her why it was not to be opened before 1960. She told him, "because then it will seem clearer (mais claro)."
Cardinal Oddi was a close friend of Pope John XXIII who was the reigning pontiff in 1960. The cardinal observed that the pope would relate joyful things without hesitation but when Oddi asked him about the Third Secret, he would sigh deeply and reply, "Don't bring that subject up with me please....
When Pope John XXIII was pressed on the issue, he gave his view that "this does not pertain to my reign". So even though Mary selected the date of 1960 for the secrecy to expire, the pope felt the message could not possibly relate to anything happening at that point in time.
If you persist in believing that the Blessed Mother appeared in 1917 in order to inform us that this cataclysmis 3rd secret was that the pope would be shot by a lone Arab gunmen in 1981 in St. Peter's square, you go right ahead and believe that. And where are all those nuns and religious who were martyred in 1981? You do remember that part of the secret, don't you?
I personally would not impute such a banal message to the Mother of God, especially considering the fact that various cardinals who read the secret over the years let it slip that it involved apostasy of some variety in the hierarchy (and I'll even find the links for you if you want them).
Disrespect does not begin to describe your attitude.
Whatever begins to describe my attitude, you haven't provided it here, as the above Fatima example shows.
Nice venom is still venom, and in many ways more vile.
I'll ask again, because you insist on the attacks--what venom? What disobedience? I've already told you I'm not an SSPX member. Is it disrespectful, disobedient, and arrogant to agree with Mother Angelica that we didn't get the whole 3rd secret (and I never speculated as to the reasons; that was your kind and charitable addition)?
Disobedient to point out that Pope Pius XI CONDEMNED the sort of thing that took place at Assisi?
Arrogant/schismatic/heretical to point out that the Vicar of Christ should not be kissing an unholy book that blasphemes against Christ and His followers?
Please, I sincerely request that you find me at least one example, just one, of this alleged disobedience and grave disrespect. I don't see it, and as one of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish sinners, it is on you to correct me.
Hans Urs von Balthasar was not a universalist. Get your facts straight.
A friend of mine wrote a book on Balthasar, and yes, he was an "optimist" universalist without question.
Posted by: MO | Aug 26, 2006 4:58:29 PM
"But, simply put, neither he nor anyone else save the Mother of God has the authority to alter the Holy Rosary..."
He wasn't altering the Rosary. He was just offering another set of meditations. An option. And you are aware of the 7-decade Franciscan rosary, right? Just because it's not as popular doesn't mean it's illegitimate as a form of prayer.
If I were you, I wouldn't make suppositions about St. Louis de Montfort being "horrified" by the Luminous Mysteries. That's not fair to St. Louis.
"And a third: What was the respective authority of E