Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 01

Heresy:

Scourge of Christ Our King

by Fr. Winfrid W. Herbst, S.D.S.

It is the infallible teaching of the Catholic church that Jesus Christ is truly God; that He is truly God because He has one and the same nature with God the Father; that He was always God, begotten of the Father from all eternity; that He is also truly man; that He is truly man because He has the nature of man, having a body and soul like ours; that He was not always man, but has been man only from the time of His Incarnation, when He took to Himself the nature of man; that there are, accordingly, two natures in Jesus Christ, the nature of God and the nature of man; that there is only one Person in Him, which is the Person of the son of God.

Against these eternal truths various heresies, false teachings, have arisen during the centuries since the coming of the Savior. There were heresies on the divinity of Christ.

The Cerinthians, in the first century, held that the Savior was born of Joseph and Mary and that the Son of God came on Him in His baptism. St. John wrote his Gospel, that magnificence vindication of the divinity of Christ, against them. Again, the Arians, in the fourth century, asserted that Christ had not the nature of God but only of man.

They were condemned in the Council of Nicea, A.D.325.

There were heresies on the humanity of Christ. The Docetae, also in the first century, taught that Christ’s body was not real but only a phantasm and that His acts and sufferings were, accordingly, only apparent. These also St. John refutes in his Gospel and in his first Epistle. The Apollinarists, on the other hand, taught that the Savior had a

~ See Heresy/ Page 2

Heresy:

Scourge of Christ Our King

Continued from Page 1

body but not a human soul. They were condemned in the Council of Rome, A.D.377. Again, the Monothelites, in the seventh century, taught that the Savior had only a divine will and not also a human will. They were condemned in the council of Constantinople, A.D.680.

There were heresies on the union of the natures in Christ. Thus the Nestorians, in the fifth century, held that there are two persons in Christ and that, consequently, Mary is not the Mother of God but of Christ only. This heresy was condemned in the Council of Ephesus, A.D.431. Again, the Eutychians, or Monophysites, in the fifth century, taught that Christ had only one nature.

They were condemned by the patriarch Flavian, A.D.448. And, lastly [this was published in 1932], the Jansenists, in the seventeenth century, forbade the worship of the Sacred Heart, the Precious Blood, etc. That heresy was condemned by Pope Urban VIII, A.D.1642.

Thus, during the course of centuries, have various heresies assailed the teaching of the Church regarding the God-Man, Christ, the Savior of the world. Heresy, it may be well to remark, abounds in the various Christian sects outside the Church today; for heresy is error repugnant to the faith, pertinaciously held by one who professes the Christian religion. It may be negative or positive. Negative heresy implies a denial of, or refusal to accept, a truth proposed by the Catholic Church; positive heresy asserts as a revealed truth something which the Church does not teach as such.

We must have charity towards all men and hence towards heretics also; but we must hate and detest formal heresy.

The reason for this, simply stated, we find in the words of St. Jane of Chantal as a child addressed to a Calvinist who said he did not believe in the Real Presence:

"So you don’t believe that Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament! Yet, Christ has declared that He is, and the Church teaches He is. So you mean to say that Our Lord is a liar! Well, if you said that to the King in my father’s house, he perhaps would kill you. And will not God punish you for calling His Son a liar, and not believing what He tells you?"

Let us often pray that all may come to a knowledge of the true faith.

(Taken from, The Divine Savior: A Pictorial Life of Christ Originally published by Benziger Brothers in 1932. It is currently out of print.)

St. Jane of Chantal

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 01

I’m With Jimmy Fallon on This One

■ So many modern churchmen, like so many modern politicians, are no longer serious men, and because they are no longer serious men, serious men no longer take them seriously.

By Michael J. Matt

Iwonder if it’s possible for modern churchmen to be any more out of touch with reality than they already are.

They keep making solemn statements to the world about this and that, almost as if the world hadn’t stopped listening some twenty-five years ago. With all due respect, exactly who in the world do these men imagine still cares? On any given day, Miley Cyrus has more social impact on society than any ten princes of the Church combined. If they realized this perhaps they’d start trying to say things that actually matter to real people, rather than just media people.

You see, media people are not the real people. The ones I lived with in Rome during the last conclave, for example, care much more about good Roman restaurants than the Roman papacy. A casual observer watching them at work, however--buzzing around with their cameras and high-tech microphones--might have come away with the impression that these guys really do care about all things Catholic.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

~ See Editor's Desk/ Page 2

From the Editor's Desk...

Continued from Page 1

So if a cardinal or a pope evaluates the world’s reaction to his words by the media’s reaction, he’ll likely end up with a fairly skewed notion of reality if not utterly oblivious to the fact that in the real world—in the bars, cafes, stadiums, workplaces, kitchen tables and churches—nobody cares. The scandal has been too great, the words too vapid, the dumbing down too complete, the liturgy too stupid, and the churchmen just too silly to matter anymore—which is why millions have opted out of the Church altogether. Bishop of Rome Francis hasn’t quite figured this out yet, I fear. He looks at the world’s media-driven approval of his young pontificate and concludes that he must be doing a great job. It doesn’t seem to dawn on him that, just as history demonstrates over and over again, if the world loves the pope there is either something very wrong with the pope or very right with the world. Which is it today? Time will tell us soon enough.

So many modern churchmen, like so many modern politicians, are no longer serious men, and, because they are no longer serious men, serious men no longer take them seriously.

It’s easy to point fingers at Hollywood or the divorced and remarried or homosexuals these days and say: A-hah! They are to blame!

But are they? The pioneers of the traditional Catholic movement would argue otherwise. They gave their lives to fighting against the new orientation of the Catholic Church not because they "preferred" Latin Masses, but rather because they knew if the moral and theological authority of the Catholic Church were ever compromised the whole world would quickly descend into chaos and depravity. They were not prophets but they knew their history, which is how they could so accurately predict what would happen if Modernism were to triumph. They were right then and here we are now.

Enter Jimmy Fallon.

Jimmy Fallon is the comedian/actor who recently took over for Jay Leno as host of NBC’s The Tonight Show— a variety show made culturally iconic by the late Johnny Carson. Jimmy Fallon was born and raised Roman Catholic.

When he was young he wanted to be a priest. He loved to serve Mass. The son of a Catholic Vietnam War veteran, Fallon is of German/Irish descent and grew up in Brooklyn, New York. He was educated at St. Mary of the Snow Roman Catholic school and attended the College of St. Rose in Albany.

Jimmy Fallon is also a fallen away Catholic whose recent Fresh Air interview will be of interest to readers of The Remnant, especially in light of Bishop of Rome Francis’s recent comment that the Traditional Latin Mass is a mere fashion—a papal gaffe that provides context for the Fallon interview, excerpts of which appear below and were lifted from NPR.org.

First, Pope Francis: According a Rorate Caeli report, Archbishop Jan Graubner of the Czech Republic told Vatican Radio that Pope Francis has:

….made a quite strong statement when he said that he understands when the old generation returns to what it experienced, but that he cannot understand the younger generation wishing to return to it. " When I search more thoroughly - the Pope said - I find that it is rather a kind of fashion.

And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion.

But I consider greatly important to go deep into things, because if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us."

Tell that to Jimmy Fallon, Your Holiness, and to the millions just like him who have left the Church largely because the "fashionable" New Mass was just that—a fleeting fashion which has already become passé and embarrassingly irrelevant to millions of young Catholics. Fallon commented on exactly that, as well as his Catholic upbringing in general, during the recent NPR interview. "I grew up in an Irish Catholic family…" he said, which prompted host Terri Gross to press him a bit further:

GROSS: So you went to Catholic school when you were young.

Mr. FALLON: Oh yeah.

GROSS: Did you have… Mr. FALLON: I wanted to be a priest.

GROSS: Did you really?

Mr. FALLON: Yeah. I loved it.

GROSS: Why?

Mr. FALLON: I just, I loved the church. I loved the idea of it. I loved the smell of the incense. I loved the feeling you get when you left church. I loved like how this priest can make people feel this good. I just thought it was – I loved the whole idea of it.

My grandfather was very religious, so I used to go to Mass with him at like 6:45 in the morning, serve Mass. And then you made money, too, if you did weddings and funerals. You’d get like five bucks. And so I go ‘Okay, I can make money too.’ I go, ‘This could be a good deal for me.’ I thought I had the calling… GROSS: Do you still go to church?

Mr. FALLON: I don’t go to – I tried to go back. When I was out in L.A.

and I was kind of struggling for a bit.

I went to church for a while, but it’s kind of, it’s gotten gigantic now for me. It’s like too… There’s a band.

There’s a band there now, and you got to, you have to hold hands with people through the whole Mass now, and I don’t like doing that…Now, I’m holding hands – now I’m lifting people. Like Simba. [Laughter] I’m holding them [Singing] ha nah hey nah ho.

I’m doing too much. I don’t want – there’s Frisbees being thrown, there’s beach balls going around, people waving lighters, and I go, ‘This is too much for me.’ I want the old way. I want to hang out with the, you know, with the nuns, you know, that was my favorite type of Mass, and the grotto, and just like straight up, just Mass Mass.

He's a comedian. I get it. But his sensus Catholicus is still right there, making him yet another lost and disenfranchised Catholic. Who’s responsible for the spiritual carnage left in the wake of the New Springtime of Vatican II? The ubiquitous Jimmy Fallons of the world? They're just collateral damage...the casualties of a self-loathing war against Catholic Tradition, waged from within. And now they’ve all left the Church. Do you blame them?

Jimmy Fallon is a bit younger than I am, and there but for the grace of God go I—along with entire generations of our Catholic brothers who were given stones to eat when they needed bread.

And now whose fault is that?

God help them. God help us all! ■

'I want the old way. I want to hang out with the, you know, with the nuns, you know, that was my favorite type of Mass, and the grotto, and just like straight up, just Mass Mass.' ... Jimmy Fallon

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 01

The Easy Way Out

Avoiding the Trap of Sedevacantism

By Brian McCall

people, Catholic and non-

Many

■ Whenever a pope’s statement contains novelties, it is a sure sign that he speaks outside of the august powers, faculties and gifts of the papal office. Such speculative and discursive statements can be harmfully erroneous, are amendable, and are not demanding of adherence by Catholics.

Catholic, are struggling to understand Pope Francis. He has been on the throne of St. Peter (or, as he prefers, the Bishop of Rome) for nearly three-quarters of a year now. In that short time he has managed to produce a flood of disconcerting statements in the form of written and oral communications in a wide variety of media. In the face of a dizzying array of novel acts and utterances, some have been tempted to the easy solution of sedevacantism.

Believing that a real pope could not be doing such things these folks try to conclude that he is not a true pope. Unfortunately, the historically unprecedented resignation of Benedict XVI in the shadow of intrigue and corruption in the Vatican has added fuel to this fire.

Father Brian Harrison has already written a refutation of the sedevacantist solution in these pages. Although Father and I have disagreed on certain points in the past (e.g., the legitimacy of the New Mass), I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusion that we must not be tempted to answer the riddle of Pope Francis with a sedevacantist solution. Taking Father Harrison’s lead I wish to examine in more detail the reasons why Catholic doctrine does not lead to the conclusion that the chair of Peter is vacant.

The sedevacantist error emanates from a flawed major premise: a pope cannot say and do things that are against the Faith. To this major premise the sedevacantists attach a list that grows

~ See Sedevacantism/ Page 8

The Easy Way Out

Avoiding the Trap of Sedevacantism

B. McCall/ Continued from Page 1

ever longer of the things Pope Francis is saying and doing that are against the Faith. He disparages the Church’s Tradition and liturgy while he seems to belittle those who are overly concerned with critical moral issues such as abortion, contraception and same sex marriage. He tells atheists they do not need to convert and in fact ridicules attempts to win the conversion of souls as ‘solemn nonsense’. He speculates that atheists need not convert and can simply follow the good as they conceive of it.

We could go on but we already concede that the sedevacantists have proven this minor premise. Pope Francis has said and done things that appear impossible to reconcile with what the Church has always and everywhere professed. Yet, a valid minor premise coupled with an inaccurate major premise produces a flawed conclusion. Contrary to their argument, it is possible for a pope to say and do erroneous and harmful things outside of the specific acts protected by his guaranty of infallibility. He can so act and yet still remain the pope.

Vatican I defined the narrow set of papal actions that are guaranteed infallibility and which are unalterable (cannot be changed by any future pope):

[W]hen the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable

When these conditions (which for convenience can be referred to as ex cathedra) are met, two consequences follow: (1) what is defined is free from error and (2) what is defined can never be changed by a future pope. The First Vatican Council explained the purpose of this divine guaranty which purpose acts as an internal restraint upon the great power of teaching infallibly.

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

The pope will always be prevented from using his ex-cathedra power to promulgate new doctrines and can only use it to religiously guard the ancient truths. This qualification, along with the other conditions for speaking ex cathedra, can assist us in distinguishing acts of the Holy Father which are protected by infallibility and which are not. An utterance which proposes a new doctrine, or contradicts an established doctrine cannot be ex cathedra.

Yet, the definition of Vatican I tells us very little about teaching which is not ex cathedra. All Vatican I says by implication is that such teaching is fallible (capable of being wrong) and is alterable by future popes. Yet, due to the invasion of Rome, the First Vatican Council was cut short and thus prevented from restating the traditional teaching regarding the non ex cathedra teaching of the popes.

In his article Father Harrison refers in particular to Lumen Gentium no. 25 for a summary of the traditional teaching on the teaching authority given to the officials of the Church. Now some traditionalists’ eyebrows might be raised at the reference to a document of Vatican II. In fact some of the so-called Resistance crowd unfairly criticized Bishop Fellay for mentioning LG 25 in his doctrinal response to the Vatican. Yet, such objections demonstrate a lack of knowledge with Catholic doctrine, LC 25, and the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. We should begin with a consideration of these issues.

Archbishop Lefebvre

Archbishop Lefebvre, although highly and justifiably critical of the documents of Vatican II, never maintained that every passage of every document was flawed, erroneous, or ambiguous. In fact, he always maintained that one could find passages that were perfectly sound restatements of prior teaching. In fact, such passages had often been added by the Archbishop or other members of the Group of International Council Fathers that he led in opposition to the progressives. The legitimate criticism of the documents is that they breed and harbor error and heresy by combining such orthodox statements with novel innovations. The error of the documents consists in the whole and not in every part. The error lies in the admixture and not in the specific passages which are orthodox.

Archbishop Lefebvre voted against the document on Religious Liberty not because every word of it was false but because as a whole, the potential good of the restatement of correct truths which it contained in part was overwhelmingly outweighed by the confusion and error it encouraged by the novelties and ambiguities included. This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and his successor, Bishop Fellay, are often misunderstood. When they would admit that some passages of the documents were orthodox in isolation that did not mean that they accepted the documents as whole documents. It is not inconsistent to maintain that the documents contain some correct statements of Catholic doctrine but are also dangerous to the Faith or erroneous.

Lumen Gentium

Consistent with this distinction, when the Vatican insisted that Archbishop Lefebvre affirm his acceptance of the single passage in LG25 his reaction was that he could certainly affirm this paragraph as in fact this language condemned the innovation of the presently reigning authorities and not his faithfulness to Tradition.

What then does LG 25 say and how does it help with the refutation of the major premise of sedevacantism? Vatican Council I’s definition of papal infallibility had already definitively defined the circumstances under which the pope can exercise his extra-ordinary Magisterium and issue an unalterable and infallible dogmatic statement. LG 25 explained, as had prior traditional teaching, that the pope possesses the supreme jurisdiction on earth and thus he possesses the highest authority against which there is no earthly appeal, even when outside of an ex cathedra statement. As a result, Catholics must show a "religious submission of mind and will" to "the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff." (LG 25).

First, the required religious submission only relates to the "authentic magisterium" of the pope. Everything that follows relates not only to acts of official public teaching (magisterium) but to teaching which is authentic. This excludes from the discussion all speculations, interviews, prudential decisions, messages, academic writing, political or diplomatic speeches and addresses or other speech or acts not involving authentic teaching.

Not only are these utterances not covered by infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, they are not the subject of required religious submission. If such utterances are fallible, alterable and not even required to be the subject of religious submission, clearly they can be wrong or even harmful.

Thus, in this vast area of utterances outside of authentic teaching the pope can err. Error is always against the Faith and harmful to the Faithful. Thus, in this sphere of activity the pope is capable of such errors and harm to the Church. What about the middle category of authentic teaching, which is however not ex cathedra?

As with the prior category it is still fallible and alterable by future popes or the uttering pope himself. Thus even such "authentic magisterium" can be wrong. The teaching pope or a later pope can correct such erroneous statements.

Thus, Pope John XXII corrected his earlier erroneous teaching that souls do not undergo judgment until the end of the world. His teaching regarding the particular judgment was erroneous and was later corrected by himself. As to this teaching, the obligations of Catholics are not the same as with respect to ex cathedra definitions which must be accepted wholly without any reservation or qualification since it is known for certain to be true and unalterable.

As to this middle category, Catholics must show a "religious submission of mind and will." What does this phrase require? The passage explains "it must be shown in such a way that [1] his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, [2] the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." (LG 25) Religious submission requires first that the fact of the pope’s supreme and plenary authority on earth be acknowledged. Thus, one must never deny the principle of the plenary authority of the pope on earth. One must reverently hold in mind and will that Christ gave the supreme authority to the pope alone, a fact the proponents of the novelty of collegiality should remember. Yet, as the second condition indicates, that does not mean that the pope uses that supreme authority in every instance. He may act in a variety of capacities, using a variety of levels of definitiveness.

What the first condition requires is that if one fails to adhere to a statement of the pope it must not be on the basis of a principle that the pope does not have the power to teach with supreme authority on earth if he chooses to do so. The fact of the capacity to teach with supreme authority must always be accepted. The level of adherence to the various statements of the pope can and does vary depending, as LG 25 states, on the character of the particular utterances.

The character requiring adherence of mind and will is that of authentic magisterial judgments. The last word

Continued Next Page

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 01

Latest from Socci:

The Papal Games

■ While Pope Francis seems uncomfortable with the idea that he is Pope Francis, the former Cardinal Ratzinger seems uncomfortable with the idea that he is no longer Pope.

What is going on here?

By Christopher A. Ferrara

Today

(February 17) the world press reported that Pope Francis has obtained an Argentinian passport and identity card under his former name, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and that he "would like to keep traveling around the world with the Argentinian passport."

That is, although he already holds a Vatican passport as Pope Francis, head of the Vatican city state and Vicar of Christ, he would like to continue to be known, and treated by immigration authorities, as simply Jorge Bergoglio, citizen of Argentina. In yet another display of an endlessly praised humility that is becoming a titanic spectacle, Pope Francis—or should I say Jorge Bergoglio—insisted on personally paying the processing fees to the Argentinian government. In the "Church of the poor" there is no money to waste on fees for the Pope’s alter ego passport and ID card, but $28 million was readily available for a massive three-hour rock concert cum Novus Ordo Mass on the beach in Rio. While Pope Francis seems uncomfortable with the idea that he is Pope Francis, and wishes in some way

~ See Latest from Socci/ Page 6

Latest from Socci:

The Papal Games

Ferrara/Socci/ Continued from Page 1

to remain the former Jorge Bergoglio, the former Cardinal Ratzinger seems uncomfortable with the idea that he is no longer Pope, and wishes in some way to remain Benedict XVI. What is going on here? It seems we are dealing with another effect of the cloud of obscurantism that descended upon the Church during and after Vatican II, causing what Romano Amerio so aptly described as "the loss of essences" in post-conciliar thinking. It seems churchmen low and high, not excluding the Pope himself, have mysteriously become incapable of stating or even believing with firm conviction that one thing is clearly distinct from another— that, for example, the Vicar of Christ is distinct from the man he once was, and that "Pope" is not just a job title to be added to his folio of identity documents.

It is becoming clearer by the day that we are living in the midst of a situation that Antonio Socci rightly calls "almost apocalyptic" in one of two new newspaper articles posted on his website which I have translated for Remnant readers. Socci’s astonishing remarks about the apparent problem of "two Popes" living at the same time received serious treatment from none other than John Allen, writing from his new post at the Boston Globe. Socci, writes Allen, is "definitely not the lunatic fringe." Indeed he is not. The lunatic fringe would appear to be Socci’s subject, however. CAF

PERHAPS THE "RESIGNATION" OF POPE BENEDICT IS NOT CANONICALLY VALID

The "retirement" of Benedict XVI—a year later —is tinged with yellow [mystery].* Because of emerging "details" which compel serious questioning of its real canonical validity.

I start with that to which I myself have given testimony. In the summer of 2011 I received the news from a reliable source: Benedict XVI has decided to resign and will do so after having completed 85 years, i.e., in April 2012.

I wrote everything in these columns, on September 25, 2011. I was buried by an avalanche of contemptuous responses from both the Vatican entourage and the Vaticanists. Arriving at the Spring 2012, one of the Vaticanists noted repeatedly that my prediction had not come true.

I replied that it was in the middle of the storm of Vatileaks, and for that reason the Pope had not yet resigned. In fact, on February 11, 2012, with the Vatileaks case just closed, Benedict XVI announced his dramatic withdrawal (it was still in his 85th year).

Yet yesterday the gnawing critics [ rosiconi]* at "Vatican Insider" wrote: "Over the years, in the Italian newspapers, Antonio Socci and Giuliano Ferrara spoke, for different reasons, of the hypothesis that Joseph Ratzinger would resign. No one, however, was able to predict the timing."

Aside from the fact that mine was a news item, while the article by Ferrara, which was released months later, was a cultural reflection, in my article, the timing was very well defined.

CONFIRMATION BY BERTONE

Also yesterday, Cardinal Bertone, in an interview with Il Giornale, revealed: "The Pope had arrived at the decision some time ago; he had already spoken with me about it in mid-2012."

Then he decided to delay the communication awhile on account of the many storms that were in progress. But the decision had been made by April of 2012. Just as I had written.

At this point I wondered how my source already knew all of this for certain in the summer of 2011, two years before [the resignation]? Who and why was he in a position to know such a thing?

Or had someone close to the Pope, or some group of people, "negotiated" and obtained it? Well, in the summer of 2011, people close to the Pope did not know it. So, were there forces that wanted and pressed for that decision, even to the point of "extracting" a date from him?

CONSPIRACY?

I do not think it is a conspiratorialist exaggeration because, in addition to the very strong external attacks that have characterized his papacy, Benedict XVI has from the beginning been opposed in an extremely harsh way within the ecclesiastical world: this is evident from the document in which a group of anonymous cardinals, just after the conclave of 2005, broke their oath on the Gospel by circulating an alleged diary of the votes that de-legitimized Ratzinger and in practice broadcast the signal to quit. Deviously prefiguring the events that would then indeed be realized.

That public de-legitimization of a newly elected pope, on the part of perjured cardinals hidden behind anonymity, has no equal in the modern history of the Church.

And it is possible to think that from there was unfurled an entire hostile strategy that clearly pointed to the resignation of the Pope. In the book "Attack on Ratzinger" in 2010, Andrea Tornielli and Paolo Rodari reported the declaration of an important cardinal who, after the Conclave of 2005, said of Pope Benedict: "Two or three years; he will not last more than two or three years" (and "he accompanied the words with a gesture of his hands, as if to minimize").

A DISTURBING REPORT

It should be mentioned also the disquieting "report" presented to Benedict XVI on December 30, 2011 by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, in which are there are mentioned things that another Cardinal, Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, is reported to have said to some people in November 2011 during conversations in Beijing. Cardinal Romeo, according to the author of the report, "harshly criticized Pope Benedict XVI." Finally, "with self-assurance, as if he knew with precision, Cardinal Romeo announced that the Holy Father would have only twelve months to live. During his conversations in China he prophesied the death of Pope Benedict XVI within the next 12 months."

This document then went out in the press in February 2012 and caused a sensation, but was quickly forgotten, even by the media (always superficial). Downgraded to empty chatter by some absent-minded person who had misunderstood everything, imagining assassination attempts and the like. Certain aspects of that report were strange, but in light of what really happened in the ensuing twelve months, can we say that it was just a coincidence that the disappearance of Ratzinger was foreseen with certainty?

Certainly, with all this dark turmoil in the Curia, today appear hardly credible statements like the one by Cardinal Sodano in the heat of the Pope’s resignation: "A bolt from the blue."

Sodano—who was Secretary of State in 2005 and was replaced by Benedict XVI in 2006—is also the one who, as dean of the Sacred College, managed the new Conclave of 2013. And he remains the strong man of the Curia.

THE YELLOW [MYSTERY]

The story of the resignation of Pope Benedict is ever more mysterious. And embarrassing as well. Not coincidentally, on the anniversary of the withdrawal one read surreal things, such as the declaration by Cardinal Cottier, who told Avvenire: "With great clarity he measured his own strength and the work to be done. And he decided that you cannot force Providence."

To remain at his post would have been "force Providence"? And in what theology manual would such nonsense be written, offensive to Pope Benedict as well as to Providence, which is held to be incapable of guiding human lives? Perhaps the Conclave of 2005 went against Providence?

So here we are before the crucial question: that of the "resignation" of Benedict XVI. On February 11, 2013 he solemnly announced it, "well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom."

It is not admissible to doubt his words; therefore his was a free act. However, one can press in many ways to obtain a decision in this sense. Not necessarily with a direct demand.

Some have suggested that the Pope had heard being aired catastrophic events for the Church which, in his heart, he believed he would be able to avoid by stepping aside. In this case, he would have made own free decision, but how valid would his resignation have been?

The problem of the canonical validity of his resignation is enormous. In fact, invalidity —according to some canonists—does not regard only the case of coercion, but arises in other cases as well.

SIGNIFICANT SIGNS

For example, one may ask whether there was a contest of the will in his heart when the Pontiff made the decision— that is, he if retired interiorly as well as exteriorly. It seems a speculative question, but in the things of God’s the heart, which He alone sees, is determinative.

In fact, even for the sacraments this is requisite. The consecration of the Eucharist requires matter, form and intention: if it lacks even one of these elements, the sacrament is invalid.

For example, if there is no inner intention of the priest to consecrate, if he expresses the words, but has no intention of consecrating, the consecration is invalid.

Has Benedict XVI also retired interiorly?

In addition to the language of words there is that of actions. What we see is that he has chosen to remain "in the enclosure of Peter," to dress in white, to be called "Pope emeritus" and to continue to be called Benedict XVI (signing thus).

He also refused to change his coat of arms back to that of cardinal, still retaining one with the keys of Peter. The Vatican has said that Benedict "prefers not to adopt a heraldic emblem expressive of the new situation created by his renunciation of the Petrine Ministry."

We know that in the Church there is also a "tacit magisterium." Perhaps this is the case. And of course Benedict is in agreement with Francis. A beautiful mystery. Antonio Socci From Il Libero, February 12, 2014 PS. I wish to emphasize, quoting them, the beautiful and meaningful tweet yesterday by Pope Francis: "Today I invite you to pray for His Holiness BENEDICT XVI, a man of great courage and humility." (* Translator’s Note: "Yellow" is an Italian idiom connoting a mystery novel. "Rosiconi" (literally "gnawers") is an idiom connoting those who, out of envy or stubbornness, refuse to admit that another is right about a certain matter and continue gnaw away at his positin rather than admit that he was correct.)

THE TWO POPES AND US.

SOMETHING IS REALLY HAPPENING IN THE CHURCH On February 11th the anniversary of the "renunciation" of the papacy by Benedict XVI was remembered. On February 28 it will be a year since the end of his pontificate. But in recent days what happened in the Vatican a year ago

Continued Next Page

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 02

The Remnant

Est. in 1967

A Catholic Fortnightly

Published 22 times per year

Editor/Publisher

Michael J. Matt

The Remnant (ISSN # 0274-9726. U.S.P.S.# 606840) is published semi-monthly (monthly in January and July) 22 times per year by The Remnant, Inc. Periodicals Postage paid at Forest Lake, MN and additional entry offices. POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to The Remnant at P.O. Box 1117, Forest Lake, MN 55025. (Telephone: 651-433-5425)

___

Subscription Pricing

Standard U.S.: Print $35 Canada: Print Edition $40 U.S. FIRST CLASS: $50 Canadian FIRST CLASS: $55 Foreign (Outside US & Canada): $55 25-Copy Bulk Subscription: $150 E-Subscription Anywhere: $25 Single Copy Price: $1.50 Subscribe by phone:

(651) 204-0145

VISA, MASTERCARD& DISCOVER

Or subscribe by mail: The Remnant Press P.O. Box 1117 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Email: Editor@RemnantNewspaper.com Visit us on the Internet:

www.RemnantNewspaper.com

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 03

The Remnant Speaks

Letters to the Editor: The Remnant Speaks P.O. Box 1117, Forest Lake, MN 55025, Editor@RemnantNewspaper.com Father Michael Rodriguez on True Unity

Dear Mr. Michael Matt,

Blessed be Jesus Christ and His most pure Mother! Just a quick note to thank you for the message you conveyed in Remnant TV Episode 8, "The 2014 Grammys and a SSPX Leak." Keep it up, because we need a lot more of the same. I think one of the most urgent tasks we face at present is to bring greater unity and solidarity among tradition-minded Catholics, and to cease all the in-fighting that continues to take place between, for example, the SSPX and the FSSP. I am very interested in fostering greater respect and friendship among all traditionminded Catholics regardless of whether they see themselves affiliated with the SSPX, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, Diocesan Latin Mass community, independent, etc.

Ad Iesum per Mariam,

Fr. Michael Rodríguez

Lay Cardinals

Editor, The Remnant: The statement by your columnists Chris Jackson posted online 11/9/13 that "there has never been even a lay cardinal in the 2,000 years of the Church," is simply factually wrong.

Traditionalists of all people should be the first to check their facts before making historically false statement. Not doing so, leaves traditionalists open to ridicule.

Ferdinando I de’ Medici was a lay cardinal for twenty-six years. Even after he succeeded his brother Francesco I de’ Medici as Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1587, he nevertheless remained a cardinal until he married Christina of Lorraine two years later. Francisco Gómez de Sandoval, 1st Duke of Lerma was created cardinal by Pope Paul V on March 26, 1618, a title that protected him from prosecution, after he was banished from power on October 4, 1618. Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand of Austria was a lay cardinal for about 20 years from 1620 (about age 10) to his death in 1641. Teodolfo Mertel, a lawyer and layman, was named cardinal by Pope Pius IX as recently as 1858. He was not a lay cardinal for long, as he received ordination to the diaconate the same year. When he died in 1899 he was the last non-priest cardinal. Giacomo Antonelli, who died in 1876 as Pius IX’s Cardinal Secretary of State, remained a deacon when named cardinal in 1847. And in 1968 Pope Paul VI seriously considered appointing the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain a lay cardinal.

Most famously, Cardinal Pole, whose mother was martyred by Henry VIII, was a layman when he sat in parliament as the Pope’s legate and formally lifted the excommunication of the English Crown. He was still a layman when he put in place what was probably the best hierarchy the English had ever had, an hierarchy that had the courage and integrity to resign as one man when Elizabeth 1 came to the throne. Sadly Cardinal Pole died the same day as Queen Mary, the queen who had fought valiantly to restore the ancient faith. There is a movement among British traditionalists to have Cardinal Pole canonised. Indeed, it was not until 1917 that the Code of Canon Law decreed that from then on only those who were priests or bishops could be chosen as cardinals, thus officially closing the historical period in which some cardinals could be laymen.

Graham Moorhouse England Mr. Jackson’s Response

The term "layman" properly refers to a man who is not in the clerical state.

Before 1972, a man became a cleric (and thus no longer a layman) at first tonsure.

All of the so-called "lay-cardinals" you point out were not technically laymen, but clerics as they had received not only first tonsure, but also minor orders. In 1972, Pope Paul VI did away with the minor orders, meaning that since 1972 a man first enters the clerical state when ordained a deacon (at least in the Novus Ordo). Thus, in modern times, we have come to equate any man who is not ordained a priest or deacon as a "layman."

This distinction is important as it demonstrates that the position of cardinal was always meant to accompany the clerical state and be closely tied with ordination. This is confirmed by Pope Sixtus V’s apostolic constitution Postquam, issued in 1586, which likened cardinals to the apostles due to their role in assisting the pope govern the Church. Thus Tradition prohibits women (and laymen for that matter) from becoming Cardinals. If a Pope were to appoint women or a layman as a cardinal, it would be a tragic and unprecedented novelty. CJ Viva the Amish!

Editor, The Remnant: Hello- I really enjoyed your continuing response in the latest issue of The Remnant regarding popular music. Viva the Amish! I completely agree. I live among and my husband works with old order Amish. I am always perplexed when conservative Catholics hold such a prejudice toward them, yet give worldlings plenty of excuses and accept their ways. I have been told that my style of dressing and way of life (country living, woodstove cooking, "simple" life) drives people away from Traditional Catholicism.

So, it would be better if I put on an Aeropostale sweat shirt and some bu’huggin jeans and crank the tunes to draw in the crowds to the Traditional Church?

Sorry, I’ll stick to praying my prayers in the quiet country before feeding my pigs (while wearing a scandalous long skirt) in imitation of the Amish. All the while joyfully shunning the garbage that is cranked out for us to consume that is called modern popular "music" Thank you for continuing to be a loud voice of true counter-culturalism in our mushy modern Catholic world!

God Bless you, Stacia B It’s Only Rock ‘n’ Roll

Editor, The Remnant: " The Remnant" editor, Michael Matt, said in his "Cultural Chastisement" article (1/31/14) that he hesitated to write more about the musical "cultural sewage" in our society because he finds it difficult to believe that Traditional Catholics would need further guidance in this area.

However, "The Remnant" is committed to writing the truth; and Mr. Matt is very good at it. Matt’s book "Gods of Wasteland" and his years-ago articles on The Beatles should be re-published.

[I retained these, but only recall Mark Alessio’s 12/15/2002 article " George Harrison…Brainwashed?" as I write this.] Like the Catholic Faith (John 14:2), music also has "many mansions." I am 22 years into Tradition and still learn more each week. "Remnant" readers are not a clique; articles touching on aspects of music, art, plays, movies, books, etc.

are certainly welcomed. Just as our Faith should keep growing, so should our cultural knowledge.

In his "Cultural Chastisement" Mr.

Matt responded to online comments by "Traddie Trent" mentioning "a lot of amazing pop music out there…" He sounds like me at a younger age. Perhaps no one has seriously shown "Trent" truly good music. Despite classical music’s rewards, it remains difficult to tune out familiar songs from one’s youth which play ad nauseam in our society—even within Novus Ordo churches at funerals.

It was only after my first week-long Ignatian Retreat in 1999 that I realized the "loudness" of our world. I was always one who immediately turned on the radio in my car—No longer.

Previous " Remnant" articles have indeed pointed to musical areas for readers to explore: such as Irish Folk music. I encourage future articles in this vein. Explaining good music to those mostly exposed only to "cultural sewage" is akin to trying to explain the Latin Mass to someone unfamiliar with it without showing them the verbiage— side-by-side—of the Latin Mass versus the Novus Ordo changes; or having that person actually attend the Mass to reach one’s own conclusion. Many people simply think: "So it’s in English, rather than in a ‘dead language.’" Yet, for those who understand there is so much more— and that is the crux of it.

Many, including younger people, have the cultural odds stacked against them. Their musical expectations are probably the ill-informed, "bumpersticker" answers prevalent in much of today’s "thinking." Throw in a catchy beat, light show, videos, etc., and the snares are set. One of the kindest things parents can do for their children is to disconnect the cable "sewer pipe" connected to their living rooms, spewing filth all over their families via channels such as MTV and VH1 just to mention two. [This analogy was my Dad’s and is one I neither appreciated, nor understood, when I was a teenager.

Decades beyond cable and years beyond television, I regret the time squandered watching TV—books being one alternative.] One solution might be to direct musical interest toward better alternatives. What would "Traddie Trent" replace "Mumford & Sons" with if he had no real knowledge of better options? It is not enough to know the names "Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart."

Dr. Andrew Childs wrote an article "The List" which appeared in the November 2008 Angelus magazine which should be re-published as well

Continued Next Page

Letters to the Editor

Continued from Page 3

(with permission in "The Remnant"?: Hint, hint!) [Also available at "The Angelus Online" at http://www.

angelusonline.org/index.php?section=art icles& subsection=show_article& article_ id=2807 ] Dr. Child’s required-reading article listed his "The 100 Greatest Pieces of Music Ever Composed."

Six years into this list, I have yet to exhaust it and it has become my source document for exploring better music.

Yes, my government school played some classical music, but at the time I countered with the Rolling Stones "Hot Rocks." I was also told I was not suited to play a musical instrument; this was before I taught myself to play and compose on guitar, mandolin, piano, and the harmonica—sadly mostly in rock, country rock, and blues musical styles.

"The List" is an excellent beginning for those seeking to improve their musical enjoyment. I have yet to be disappointed in Andrew Childs’ selections.

For a "connoisseur" of "Rock-NRoll" and "Blues" (and who retains this knowledge), it was a difficult thing to begin to jettison the familiar and to ascend to better things—nearly everything in our culture works to prevent such improvement. Fortunately, I also enjoyed all good music including Glenn Miller, Count Basie, Benny Goodman, etc. My first concert featured Louis Armstrong.

As a former aficionado of Aerosmith, The Who, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, and others; starting with Dr. Childs’ prescription of Modest Mussorgsky’s "Pictures at an Exhibition" was "just what the doctor ordered." (Sorry, Ted Nugent.) You have not "rocked" until you’ve listened to Mussorgsky. Listening to this piece, one cannot help but feel embarrassment at ever having listened to Deep Purple’s "Smoke on the Water" more than once.(Duh, Duh, Duh…Duh, Duh, DUH, Duhhh…) Those seeking more complex themes, such as the work by Pink Floyd, will feel like they have just discovered the Novel after having only previously known about comic books. Listening to Beethoven’s "Symphony No. 9, Op. 125 in D Minor" or Bach’s "Brandenburg Concertos" in their entireties easily illustrates this point.

"The List" includes both the familiar and unfamiliar. For me, discovering Mussorgsky, Arcangelo Corelli, François Couperin, Johann David Heinichen, St. Hildegard von Bingen, and others was literally a Godsend for improving my listening habits with a vast wealth of music. This includes unknown (to me) pieces by familiar composers such as: Edvard Grieg’s "Piano Concerto", Frederic Chopin’s "Ballades for Solo Piano", Robert Schumann’s "Piano Concerto", and Johann Sebastian Bach’s "Mass in B-minor."

Combining titles such as those found above with modern-day search conveniences such as Amazon.com’s "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" feature has resulted in rewards such as Martha Argerich (Chopin, Rachmaninoff), Ingrid Fliter (Chopin, Beethoven) , Evgeny Kissin (everything), and many others.

My own "required" listening suggestions would include: Les Arts Florissants’/ William Christie’s "Vespro Della Beata Vergine" (Monteverde); the Chicago Symphony Orchestra’s "Brahms: Double Concerto Op. 102 / Mendelssohn: Violin Concerto Op. 62" featuring Daniel Barenboim, Itzhak Perlman, and Yo-Yo Ma; and Arvo Pärt’s " Te Deum" (It stuns me to know that such a composer lives within my lifetime—Palestrina lives!) One could supplement these titles with others such as "Chant Compendium Volume 1" from the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary.

Is the cultural argument against "rock music" unnecessary? Are there other forces promoted within such music? From personal experience, there is always more to the story if one looks. Sitting behind the stage at Paul McCartney’s 2002 tour, I saw what must have been a type of Hindu religious setup with burning incense and what I recall was a Hindu elephant "god" (Ganesha: "Lord of Success"?) Hidden from most attendees, the incense wafted over the unsuspecting audience throughout the concert. If one views McCartney’s "Back in the U.S.

Concert Film" of the 2002 tour; one sees guitarist, Brian Ray, and drummer, Abe Laboriel, Jr., sporting what appears to be black ash Hindu "Tilaks" on their foreheads during the encore songs "Sgt.

Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band" / "The End." [An historical note: Ash Wednesday fell on Feb. 13th that year.

The concert footage was recorded in April and May.] Violating the First Commandment is not benign stuff.

Do I infrequently falter and turn on a "classic rock" station in shades of 2 St. Peter 2:22? Yes, but then I think better of it and move on to more rewarding classical alternatives.

Whereas Led Zeppelin nicked and sang Willie Dixon’s "You Shook Me"; Michael Matt and his staff shook me from my former complacency regarding the detrimental effect of some music. As a father, I can now help to set a better example for my children while guiding them within this cultural "fishbowl" we call society. Please stay in the ring on this issue, Michael! You’re up to the challenge. I value The Remnant’s input not only on Faith, but on culture as well.

Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini, qui fecit caelum et terram. (Psalm 123:8.) Robert G. Dwyer West Bend, WI The Remnant at the Beach

Dear Mr. Matt,

The Remnant can, and should be, read anywhere! Yours truly by the Pacific at the Playa Blanca Beach Resort, Panama (picture taken by my wife).

Keep up the good work! Med vänliga hälsningar/Best regards Ferdinand Hellers Sweden

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 05

Catholic Vignettes:

On 'Catholic Christians' and Other Debatable Points

By Kenneth M. Weinig

Ibelieve many Catholics today have been lulled and propagandized into a too-defensive position, causing them, mostly unconsciously, to feel hesitant, if not embarrassed, to proclaim their Faith.

Although parts of the following little essays may seem a tad pugnacious, keep in mind that any points readers may find worthwhile must be expressed with tact, prudence, and, above all, charity. Choose your audience well, perhaps your golfing buddies.

I. Are You a "Catholic Christian"?

My first reaction to hearing this oftenrepeated phrase was negative, but I could not understand why. Now I think I do. Consider these situations: Would you say to your wife, "Please pass me a fork utensil"? Do you say to your neighbor, "I enjoy baseball sport"? Do you ask your grocer if he has "oranges fruit"? Rhetorical questions, to be sure; we don’t normally find it necessary to identify a sub-category with its category—unless the person doesn’t understand the connection. If you uttered any of the above quotations, your listener might think you a little odd, or, at best, speaking in near-redundancies.

Then why do so many of us today refer to ourselves as "Catholic Christians"?

I believe this is an unconsciously defensive phrase, perhaps said to make sure people understand that Catholics are true Christians. Is this really necessary?

Do most people think that a Cadillac is not actually a car? Well, I’ve read about some Protestant bigots who believe that Christianity really began with Martin Luther, and that Catholics/Papists aren’t really Christians, that our Church might even be the Anti-Christ.

Start to notice how often Catholics use this phrase. I just heard a priest on EWTN use it. I checked the website of a Catholic elementary school, and it was there, too. I think the phrase is both commonplace and unnecessary, and my objection is not just a linguistic cavil.

Considering that from Its foundation until the Revolt 1500 years later, the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church, we should not have to remind people—and ourselves—that the Roman Catholic Church is Christian. And, if you’re in a puckish mood and point this problem out to a priest, and he responds, "Why don’t you like this phrase?", tell him that it’s a pleonasm.

Kenneth M. Weinig is a traditional Catholic writer whose work has appeared in various journals, including New Oxford Review and Education Week. He holds a B.A. from Manhattan College, an M.A. in English literature from Fordham University and a doctorate in education from the University of Delaware. He has been happily married for 36 years and has 4 grown children and 13 grandchildren, all practicing Catholics. We’re very pleased to welcome Mr. Weinig to The Remnant’s stable of writers. MJM

II. Let’s Switch Commandments

We have all been in ideologically mixed company when there emerges the unpleasant topic of teenage promiscuity. Faithful Catholics’ ears should redden when we hear or overhear conversational fragments like this: "… well, if they’re sexually active, there’s not much to do except to make sure they have protection…" Now you can smile and ignore this, or, like me, you can sometimes lead with your chin. I posed to my audience, by writing on a napkin, a multiple-choice moral quiz but without first stating it as such. Here’s the list: a. A couple falls in love (or lust) and engages in pre-marital sex.

b. They use a condom.

c. The girl becomes pregnant anyway.

d. The couple opts to "terminate the pregnancy" because they are too young to begin a family.

Now, ask someone to choose the "Least desirable phenomenon" of the four. Unfortunately, he or she today is most likely to choose "c." This is the opportunity to preach! Remember, you must point out evil acts just as you must not judge the actors. Tell this audience that all the choices except "c" (conception) are moral evils! There is not even a need to reference Dante and point out that "sin ‘a’" might be relegated to a higher circle of Hell than "b" or "d."

If this overt didacticism is not your style or appropriate in this given situation, try this in deadpan: "Yes, well, you know that besides the problem of teenage promiscuity, there is this new, rampant fad of home burglaries." Ignore their quizzical stares and continue: "Yes, and our children kept coming home with those horrible cuts on their arms from the broken glass; so we decided, that, since they were going to be larcenally (sic) active, we would provide them with leather safety gloves for protection."

Those who see your point immediately will scoff that the comparison is a poor one, but you can then defend your analogy by saying, "Yes, I’ve just changed Commandments from the Sixth to the Seventh and referenced more egregious sins than petty theft, viz., fornication, the use of artificial birth control, and, worst of all, abortion."

III. Fear Not the Third Person

Question: What’s wrong with the following statements?

"For Catholics, the use of artificial birth control is considered a sin."

"As a Catholic, I believe abortion is an evil."

"We Catholics believe that homosexual acts are morally wrong."

"I believe, as a Catholic, that there are three Persons in one God."

You see nothing amiss? Try these: "In my family, we think the Nazis did evil things."

"I personally believe that Los Angeles is in California."

"I think that putting your hand into boiling water hurts."

"It’s my opinion that 2 + 2 = 4."

See?

I once sat in on an apologetics class at a college and heard the instructor say, "The truths of the Catholic Church are truer than mathematical truths." Since we would never subjectively pull our punch by using the first person for the obvious truths in the second group of quotations above, why do we do so in the first group? Why are we afraid to use the third person, to state the truths of our Church as objectively true, and applicable to all people in all times?

What would happen if, in casual or formal conversation, you were to make these same statements omitting the crossed-out words?: "For Catholics, the use of artificial birth control is considered a sin."

"As a Catholic, I believe abortion is an evil."

"We Catholics believe that homosexual acts are morally wrong." "I believe, as a Catholic, that there are three Persons in one God."

*** True, more conversions occur through the silent sermons of our acts; however, do not succumb to today’s false ecumenism, let alone the outright heresy of indifferentism and the lethal danger of moral relativism. Of course, remind them that errors have no rights.

You didn’t really like those golfing buddies anyway, did you? ■

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 07

Continued...

POPE FOREVER

is ever more mysterious. And what is the true nature of the "retirement" of Benedict XVI.

In previous cases, in fact, popes who resign have always returned to their status as cardinal or religious: five months after he abdicated, the famous Celestine V, elected in 1294, returned to being the hermit Peter of Morrone.

And the legitimate Pope Gregory XII, who, in order to repair the great Western Schism retired from the papal office on July 4, 1415, was reinstated to the Sacred College with the title of Cardinal Angelo Correr, serving as papal legate in Marche.

Given the precedents, the same spokesman for Benedict, Father Federico Lombardi, during a briefing with reporters on 20 February last year, in answer to the question "and if he decides to call himself Pope Emeritus?" said: "I would rule it out. ‘Emeritus’ is a bishop who, even after resignation, maintains a link ... in the case of the Petrine ministry it is better to keep things separate."

Famous last words. Just one week later, on February 26, the same Father Lombardi had to communicate that Benedict XVI would remain precisely "Pope Emeritus" or "Roman Pontiff Emeritus," retaining the title of "His Holiness." He would no longer wear the ring of the fisherman and would dress in a simple white cassock.

In these days Benedict XVI also refused to change his papal coat of arms, rejecting both a return to the heraldry of a cardinal and the coat of arms of a Pope Emeritus. He will keep the coat of arms of a Pope, with the keys of Peter.

What does all of this mean? Obviously excluded is any personal vanity for a man who has given proof of total detachment from worldly positions (here it involves matters theological, not worldly goods).

So, there can be only a weighty historico-ecclesial reason, probably related to the motives for his retirement (for which so many pressed unduly). But what is this reason?

The only official explanation lies in his speech of February 27, 2013, the one in which he clarified the limits of his decision: "Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord."

Note: I emphasize that expression "always and forever" because the Pope then explained it thus: "Always—anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church (...) he no longer belongs to himself…."

Then he added, and I quote:

"The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’—there is no longer a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this."

It is amazing that a statement of this sort passed unnoticed. If words have meaning, in fact, here Benedict XVI says he renounces "active exercise of the ministry," but the Petrine ministry, as such, is "forever" and is not revoked. In the sense that his resignation applies only to "active exercise" and not to the Petrine ministry.

What other meaning can these words have? I do not see it. Hence we must ask what kind of "resignation" was that of Benedict XVI.

That speech of February 27 seemed consistently to confirm the distinction between "active exercise" and "passive exercise" of the Petrine ministry.

He said, in fact: "I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life that, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God."

To the fact of these words, and the words "forever" and "ministry not revoked," were then added the acts of which we have spoken, that is, the permanence of the name Benedict XVI, the dress, the title "His Holiness," and the pontifical coat of arms.

IN COMMUNION WITH FRANCIS

Moreover, perfectly recognized by Pope Francis, who on February 11 broadcast this tweet: "Today I invite you to pray for His Holiness Benedict XVI, a man of great courage and humility."

This is a totally new situation in the history of the Church. In past centuries, in fact there have been, again and again, conflicts between popes and anti-popes, even three at a time.

There had never been, instead, two popes in communion, who recognized each other in the process. I said "two popes," considering that one of the two is the previous pope, become "Pope emeritus," and that involves a completely unheard-of figure.

What in fact is his theological status? And what does "retirement" from only the "active exercise" of the Petrine ministry mean?

Benedict XVI, speaking to the cardinals before the conclave, anticipated his reverence for and obedience to his successor. This in fact is the attitude of Benedict toward Francis. The communion between the two was made visible when they co-wrote the encyclical "Lumen fidei."

But it is striking that in their filmed encounter at Castel Gandolfo, as well as in the ceremony held in the Vatican gardens to bless the statue of St. Michael, you see the two men of God who embrace each another as brothers, and from neither of the two the gesture of kissing the Ring of the Fisherman. It makes one wonder: who is the Pope?

A SECRET BETWEEN THEM

Is there perhaps a secret, between them, which the world ignores? Or are they to be considered on the same level? We know that cannot be because the Church’s divine constitution can have only one Pope. But then?

There are new and surprising problems in light of which some may also assign unexpected meanings to certain gestures of Francis, such as presenting himself on the balcony of St. Peter only as "Bishop of Rome," without pontifical vestments, or the lack of the pallium in his Papal coat of arms (the pallium is now the symbol of the pontifical coronation, having replaced the papal tiara).

Of course people who are now trying to pit one against the other are acting arbitrarily. Moreover, some Lefebvrians and the sedevacantists who question the authority of Francis are equally hostile to Benedict.

The constant prayer of Benedict for Francis and the Church is perhaps the great prophetic sign of this historic moment.

However, one cannot pretend that everything is normal, because the situation is almost apocalyptic. And one cannot avoid the questions: about the reasons for the resignation of Benedict, about how many desired it, about the undue pressure they caused. And about his current status.

AN ERA NEVER SEEN

In the days following the announcement of the resignation, before he had specified his new situation, even Civiltà Cattolica, like Father Lombardi, had committed a gaffe.

In fact, it published an essay by the canonist Gianfranco Ghirlanda where it was affirmed: "It is clear that a pope who has resigned is no longer pope, and thus no longer has any power in the Church and cannot meddle in any affair of government. It can be asked what title Benedict XVI will retain. We think there should be attributed to him the title of Bishop Emeritus of Rome, like every other diocesan bishop who resigns." In any case, not "Pope Emeritus." But Benedict has chosen to be precisely "Pope Emeritus." There must be a very serious reason for deciding to "continue" thus. And the consequences are obvious. His are very important signals sent to those who have to understand them, and to the whole Church.

He signals that he continues to defend the treasure of the Church, albeit in a new way. And he seems to repeat what he said during his inaugural Mass: "Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves." Antonio Socci From

Il Libero,

February 16, 2014 ■

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 07

Veteran Journalist, John Allen, on Antonio Socci

In a Feb. 12 piece in the Italian paper Libero, Antonio Socci floated the question of whether Benedict’s resignation was actually valid under church law — hinting that in the eyes of God, anyway, Benedict may still be the pope…

Socci, to be clear, I [not] a crackpot. On the contrary, [he is] a veteran voice in Catholic affairs who speak[s] for important constituencies in the church. Socci is associated with the powerful lay movement Communion and Liberation, probably the most important grouping of more conservative-minded Catholics in Italy. He’s worked for the state television network RAI, and is the author of best-selling books on topics such as John Paul II, the Capuchin stigmatic Padre Pio, and the reputed revelations of the Virgin Mary at Fatima. Socci…would be considered fairly far to the right, perhaps, but definitely not the lunatic fringe. The fact that [he is] voicing misgivings about the new pope indicates that despite Francis’ astronomic approval levels, he may have some work to do in bringing along the stragglers in his own flock. Socci’s piece is especially interesting for its attempt to resurrect Benedict XVI as a rallying point for the discontented. Church law requires that for a papal resignation to be valid, it must be "made freely." Socci speculates that Vatican mandarins may have twisted the pope’s arm to step aside in the wake of the spectacular leaks scandal of 2012, meaning that it may not have been a truly free act. Socci also asks if Benedict may have resigned only in "exterior" fashion, meaning that in his heart he still regards himself as the pontiff.

For sure, Benedict XVI has done nothing to stoke such a reaction. On the contrary, he’s kept himself out of the spotlight while privately signaling his affection and support for Francis.

Nonetheless, the Socci essay points to a plausible trajectory if right-wing backlash to Francis continues to mount. The church could end up with a majority of "Francis Catholics" and an influential minority of "Benedict Catholics." That may not quite add up to a schism, but it’s still something to think about.

Excerpt take from www.bostonglobe.com/news/ world/2014/02/15/legionaries-are-pope-francisproblem- now/FRRvSKzl7ntrg14NmDUVJJ/story.html

Antonio Socci

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 09

Continued....

Conclusions

The

sedevacantist’s

provides another important distinction. The authentic teaching which must be adhered to must consist in judgments. A judgment is a final conclusion of truth or falsity. Thus, the aspects of the authentic magisterium which require adherence do not include speculations, opinions, hypotheses, personal reflections, or expository explanations but only judgments. Not only is the pope capable of errors in such statements lacking judgments, but Catholics are not even required to adhere to them. Once again we find a vast area of papal statements and teaching which can be erroneous and hence harmful to the Faithful seeking to know the truth.

Again Vatican I’s explanation of papal primacy and privileges offers an extremely helpful guide to distinguishing among these categories. The power of the papal office was given for the purpose of "religiously guarding" the previously defined Faith, not for the purpose of introducing novel teaching. A power or function is always circumscribed by its end or purpose. Just as the marital embrace is limited by its primary end, the procreation of children, so are all the powers of the papacy limited by this clear purpose of preserving truth and not promulgating novelty.

Thus, whenever a pope’s statement contains novelties, it is a sure sign that he speaks outside of the august powers, faculties and gifts of the papal office. Such speculative and discursive statements can be harmfully erroneous, are amendable, and are not demanding of adherence by Catholics.

major premise thus lies in tatters. Clearly a pope who refuses to exercise his divinely given authentic teaching authority to render judgments is capable of uttering many errors and thereby harming the Church. The apparent appeal of the major premise is a result of the accidents of history. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Church experienced a long line of popes who judicially restrained their public acts to

ex cathedra

definitions or authentic magisterial judgments. They did not opine personally or offer personal subjective reflections. They did not give off the cuff interviews to atheist journalists. They did not write meandering, expository, tentative and speculative encyclicals and exhortations of over 50,000 words. They succinctly and clearly judged and reaffirmed the previously taught doctrine. Thus, Catholics became accustomed to associating papal utterances with either

ex cathedra

definitions or authentic magisterial judgments. They became accustomed to treating all papal utterances accordingly.

Yet, a vast sea change in papal behavior initiated with John XXIII. All popes since have pursued dialogue rather than judgment, speculative and tentative and pastoral ambiguity rather than authentic magisterial judgment. All of the subsequent popes have been infected with a Modernist way of understanding knowledge and truth. I do not say that all of these popes were Modernists. That statement involves a judgment as to their interior disposition which only God can make. Objectively, however, from John XXIII through Francis, these popes have acted consistently with a Modernist conception of truth as non-definitive, changeable, evolving and elusive. As a result they have embraced dialogue as an exchange of tentative views among those still seeking an elusive and changing truth.

Such an attitude toward truth renders the holder incapable of pronouncing authentic magisterial judgments. Thus, in contrast to the pre-conciliar period, the Church has lived through a line of popes who act almost exclusively outside the scope of

ex cathedra

definitions and authentic magisterial judgments. Such a dramatic difference will require a different approach on our part than our predecessors could have toward the popes of the preconciliar

period.

Our attitude must be informed by the teaching of LG 25. We must first not confuse recognition of the fact that postconciliar popes have chosen to abstain from exercising their power to define

ex cathedra

and to render authentic magisterial judgments with a claim that they lack these powers.

Essentially, this is the fundamental error of the

sedevacantist

position. They equate an abstention from use with a lack of the power.

Because these men do not use the authentic authority given them by God on the throne of Peter, they are not on the throne of Peter. Rather, the more reasonable position is that they sit on the throne of Peter and abstain from making use of the authority accompanying it.

Secondly, we cannot bind the pope to continue to act as he has for the past three fourths of a year. The power to invoke the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost resides in his office. We must thus show a reverence for the divinely instituted authority and powers he possesses even though he himself refuses to make use of them and rather dabbles in vague and useless dialogue. We must continually acknowledge his potential to exercise that which he neglects. We cannot simply dismiss him or pay no attention to him. We must follow the advice of the traditional teaching and examine what he says to determine if he has chosen to reverse the post-conciliar path of dialogue and elusive speculation or begin once again to authentically teach. If he does we must adhere to his authentic teaching judgments and accept without qualification any

ex cathedra

definitions.

We must not obliterate our potency to react in this way, even if it is never actualized in the pontificate of Francis. Although its occasion was rare, postconciliar popes have occasionally rendered authentic judgments to which we should adhere. Paul VI and John Paul II, although refusing to act ex cathedra, did authentically judge that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil and that women were improper matter for ordination. Although these occasions were rare, they still existed.

Is it likely that a man who daily shows a great enthusiasm for the general papal abstention of his recent predecessors will return to the restrained and judicious path of the pre-conciliar popes and restrain his utterances to such authentic magisterial judgments? Humanly speaking, the answer is obviously no. Pope Francis, humanly, seems committed to expanding the scope and breadth of non-authentic nonmagisterial chatter. We must accurately judge these signs of the times and not be lured into the errors that lurk in such dangerous free-wheeling stream of consciousness.

Yet, in reading the signs of the time we must not preclude the possible. We must adhere to what Francis authentically teaches when he religiously guards the deposit of Faith (even if such occasions turn out to be very rare), reverently and respectfully refuse to adhere to any novel doctrine he may tentatively and speculative pour forth. Our fundamental guide to distinguish the two is the principle of Vatican I: "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles," a formulation every Catholic should commit to memory as it is so critical for our times.

Why would God allow so many popes for so many decades to cause such harm to the Church by choosing to live in the world of speculative dialogue rather than in the world of authentic Magisterium? As Bishop Fellay has repeatedly noted, the answer to this question is a great mystery. Mysteries are hard to accept. It is hard to accept that God would allow this line of popes virtually to abdicate their responsibility and lead the Faithful astray through these vagaries of speech.

We cannot approach a hard mystery, a chastisement sent by God to try our Faith by looking for an easy way out. The sedevacantist opt-out of this effort may appear to offer an easier course. Pope Francis could simply be ignored as an imposter. Yet, as we have seen this easy way out is bought at the price of a flawed major premise that overstates the actual guaranties given to the papal office. It finds an easy way at the expense of truth.

Thus, its temptations are understandable. Yet, we have not been called to find an easy solution to the crisis of our times, but rather the true solution. That true solution requires prudence and judicious discernment. It also requires that we know our Faith and educate our children in that Faith with more rigor than did the generations preceding the Council. They could rely on a presumption that they would not be misled by their popes who limited the scope of their utterances prudently and judiciously. We do not have such an historical luxury. We cannot presume such security. We must know the perennial doctrine so as to be able to sift the grains of wheat from the flood of chaff. ■

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 09

Prayer for the Pope, Restoration of Catholic Order and World Peace

By Hamish Fraser, RIP

O Heavenly Father, Who didst choose Blessed Peter to be the firm Rock on which to build thy Church, grant to the successor of Blessed Peter, His Holiness John Paul II [Pope Francis] all graces necessary to enable him effectively to sanctify, teach and govern the Church so as to restore Catholic Order in all of its many institutions.

Grant also to the Bishops of Holy Mother Church, successors to the Apostles, whom Thou didst choose to assist Blessed Peter as labourers in the harvest, all graces necessary to enable them become effective instruments for the restoration of Catholic order, by sanctifying, teaching and governing their dioceses under the direction of Peter and in full accordance with the mind of Holy Church as indicated by .the consistent and therefore infallible teaching of successive oecumenical Councils and Pontiffs.

Grant also to any Bishop who should so falter in obedience and loyalty as to become an obstruction to, rather than an instrument for, the restoration of Catholic order the graces necessary for his conversion so that he may become truly worthy of his privileged office: and should he fail to correspond with such graces as have been abundantly bestowed, grant him O Lord the grace of a happy death so that he may make way for the appointment of a successor uncompromisingly dedicated to the restoration of Catholic order under Peter.

Grant also to Thy humble servants the grace that above all things, we may learn to detest and fear sin which offends Thee, results in the eternal perdition of souls, and is the cause of evil in every shape and form; grant therefore that we may seek to do Thy will, so that by our prayers, penances and sacrifices we may merit the graces whereby the Holy Father and the Bishops of the universal Church may be enabled to fulfil the demand of Our Lady of Fatima, consecrate Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, and thus obtain peace for the world.

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 10

The Hermeneutic of Continuity —

■ The citing of the hermeneutic of continuity is not an explanation at all: it’s just a gratuitous assertion.

By Nate Metzger

Faithfulness

requires a clear head and the ability to call out nonsense for what it is. To be steeped in history is to cease to be neo-Catholic. It is to see the truth of Tradition, and the farce that is the ritual reference to the hermeneutic of continuity.

I’m always amazed by the sheer number of converts who have written books about their journey to the Church. I’m not sure who reads these books, but apparently there’s quite a market for them. I promise you to never join that fray. For one thing, I can’t imagine My Story would be of interest to anyone but a small group of (no doubt annoyed) confessional Lutherans. For another thing, even within this niche market, it would prove to be terribly boring reading. I simply have had no Road to Damascus experience, no existentialist crisis, no particular phenomenological breakthrough, and no precise ‘ah ha!’ moment; I didn’t have an apparition or vision, and I was never ‘shaken to the core’ or some such thing. More importantly for my present purposes, I didn’t see in the Church the solution to some life crisis or trauma, I didn’t ‘feel’ my way into the Church, I didn’t ‘fall in love’ with any aspect of it, and as a result of finding the Church, I didn’t ‘find myself’, nor did I have any other sort of emotional epiphany or therapeutic recovery (though it should be noted that if my conversion had given me such an emotional headway, no Lutheran worth his salt would have taken me seriously anyway—call it the Lutheran Catch-22).

If my conversion story were made into a movie, it would be incredibly drab. It would basically consist of me reading some book or other, usually while sitting in a pub; perhaps it would also have a few scenes of me arguing with friends about Catholic dogma…while sitting in a pub (actually, I wouldn’t mind if they made this movie, provided they cast me as me). My conversion was simply a matter of my own phlegmatic, contrarian, and skeptical nature going out and investigating things—and I can’t imagine my inner monologue would be that captivating to anyone but a select few. In fact, it’s probably exciting only for me. My conversion story boils down to this: as a result of conversation, reading and research, I slowly figured out that the Church was right about….well, everything.

I hate testimonials, so let’s not get carried away here (consider the above two paragraphs my story). I mention this all to make a serious point: one fortuitous advantage of a dispassionate discovery of the Truth is that it better allows one to see what the Catholic Church can do, and what false churches cannot do. To wit: the Church can tell you precisely why it says what it says about anything. Indeed, part of the reason that the Church has been attractive to skeptics and intellectuals since its inception, is that it is quite willing to back up its claims, and show its work.

Typical of any healthy skeptic, I am not going to believe what the Church tells me ‘just because’. I am simply not conditioned, culturally or emotionally, to care one cent what the Church teaches about anything; I’m not going to believe what the church says simply because it declares something to be such. Rather, I believe it (all) because I’ve found it (all) to be true. I must emphasize: this attitude is not unique to me, but to many converts—or, at the very least, to those converts who are not privy to mystical experiences, epiphanies, or emotional breakdowns. If you did not find in the Church a therapeutic answer to your own psychological hang-ups, but instead found it to contain the truth (perhaps begrudgingly, as in my case), you are probably like me. For folks like me, the magisterium of the Catholic Church did not get the benefit of the doubt: it had to prove its salt. This might seem scandalous to some faithful readers, but I assure you that it’s a trait that has proven handy in these confusing times.

An oft cited quip of John Henry Newman goes something like this: to be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant. You bet. To get past the protestant’s own historical index liborum prohibitorum, and to engage in some detailed reading of the Church’s history, is to discover a Christianity practiced since its inception that looks inconveniently identical to the one advanced by the Church Immemorial, and it is to see the ideas of the Reformation as a rupture from this continuity. Yet we must recognize that the post-conciliar Church has cleverly censored the past to its liking as well. Indeed: the same detailed reading into the Church’s history that should shake a protestant, should also shake a neo-Catholic.

A detailed investigation into Catholic history and Catholic dogma should disturb anyone who has simply gone along with the idea that the present Church is ‘continuous’ with the past. To update Newman’s quip, we should say: to be steeped in history is to cease to see the novelties introduced by the Second Vatican Council as anything other than troubling. To be steeped in history is to see the New Mass as egregious, along with much else promulgated by Vatican II. To be stepped in history is to see what is deemed the ‘ordinary’ form of the Mass as anything but. To be steeped in history is to cease being a neo-Catholic. To be steeped in history is to be a traditionalist.

G.K. Chesterton once said that our religion should be less of a theory and more of a love affair. I appreciate his attitude, but in an important and relevant sense, I disagree with the Catholic Bard. When our approach to the Church becomes rooted in feelings and sentiments, and removed from ‘theory’ and argument, we can too easily be led astray, and we can fail to see when we’re being duped. To approach our true religion more dispassionately, by contrast, is to see not only precisely why its tenants are entirely and wholly true, but also why the post-conciliar mutation is frighteningly anomalous.

In other words, the same impassive approach to history, philosophy, and theology that rightly leads one to reject Protestantism and accept The Faith, should also lead one to reject so much that is contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. It is no wonder, therefore, that so many converts come to eventually embrace some form of ‘reactionary’ Catholicism. They are happily in a position that many cradles are not: they are able to see with greater clarity the absurdity of Vatican II, its discontinuity with what came previously, and the utter ridiculousness of the idea that ‘all is well.’ Many converts are not culturally or emotionally conditioned to find anything that the Church says to be so. They are obviously not in love with the Church prior to converting, and they are not struck with love potion during their confirmation. Therefore, they are more easily able to see our post-conciliar nightmare for what it is. They are not suffering from the sort of cognitive dissonance that understandably affects so many souls born into the Church— souls that love Her like a family member. It is easy to see how someone mired in emotional attachments brought on by years of cultural conditioning might fail to see how Vatican II led to the Church’s disintegration; such folks might be more easily led to believe in the risible idea that there is ‘continuity’ between the past and present.

Yes, continuity. What a silly notion. As far as I can tell, this continuity is like an autostereogram. We are told by most everyone in the know, that if you squint really hard, you will see continuity. Or even if you can’t see it, even after much practice, you should know that it’s there—it’s there between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo, between the magisterial teachings prior to the Council and after, between the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Catechism promulgated by the late John Paul II, and between the tenants of Vatican II and the teachings of every council prior. We are told this. We are not shown this.

The citing of the hermeneutic of continuity is not an explanation at all: it’s just a gratuitous assertion.

If we are a bit more cool and collected—if we bracket our ‘love affair’ and hold on to some elements of good ‘theory’ (for example, elementary logic and ostensive data)—we can more easily notice the problem here. It’s one that in academic circles is known as ritual citation. The ritual citer plays a clever trick on his reader. He cites the work of those who challenge his own position, and then he makes reference to a concept that supposedly answers this objection, without actually making the argument himself. That is, he does not actually

ruminate on the counter-argument now cited, or offer detailed reasons for its falsity. He simply cites the problem and the gratuitous solution: for to cite the works at all is to give the impression to the inattentive reader that the writer has in fact dealt with the critique of the work. ‘Well,’ the casual reader might say, ‘he seems to know about this counterargument…’ Basically, it’s a way of bluffing. After all: most weak arguments are a result of simply not being aware of the relevant counter-arguments. Usually, when an argument or work is broached, it is properly dealt with. The ritual citer is exploiting your regular assumptions about how arguments are made: we regularly assume that arguments that are mentioned are analyzed and defeated. To ritually cite is to give the inattentive reader the impression that you not only know precisely what the criticism of your own view happens to be, but also that you have overcome it.

References to the hermeneutic of continuity are an example of such a bluff. Casual readers will often see references

Continued Next Page

A Thousand Years of Continuity....

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 11

Or, Adventures in Bluffing

to the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ ritually sprinkled throughout papal documents, Catholic articles, blog posts by lay apologists, and in blog comments meant to defend the doings of the new catechism, the New Mass, or some other antic of the Church this side of its French Revolution. Those who make reference to this supposed ‘hermeneutic’ are assuming not only that the mere citing of it should be evidence of its legitimacy; they are also counting on a readership that is emotionally invested in the teachings of an extraordinary magisterium that has itself made mention of it. In fact, it would be unfair to assume that the average citer of the chimerical hermeneutic is consciously trying to pull a fast one on its reader. Rather, most of the time, the citer of the hermeneutic is himself as emotionally invested in the truth of this hermeneutic as his intended audience. In fact, it could well be that no one person—at this point, anyway—is bluffing consciously. It could be that everyone who presently makes mention of the ‘hermeneutic’ in order to defeat those who see rupture, really believes that there is continuity. Yet it’s still a bluff. After all: if it were not, that which is believed could be unpacked and explained.

By someone. Anyone.

It’s one thing to believe in continuity; it’s an entirely different thing to be able to

show it. Thus, we should also notice that while many believe there is continuity, and while many are happy to make mention of this hermeneutic, that no one is actually able to deal with the arguments that quite easily point to discontinuity. No one can explain how there is continuity, content as they are to simply cite the complaints and the contrary ‘explanation’.

We should see just how oddly anomalous this situation is. In and outside of the Vatican, the Catholic world is saturated with many intelligent and talented writers and intellectuals who have dedicated much of their time (and in some cases, their entire livelihood) to defending the truth of the Catholic faith. Many of these apologists are extremely deft and proficient at defending the tenants of the faith, and are quite skilled at showing why a particular Catholic position is correct. They are able to rationally defend sundry Catholic dogmas and teachings over Protestant criticisms, secular complaints, and heretical protestations. What is particularly admirable about many of these apologists is their ability to defend Church teaching without relying on Church pronouncement, in order to make their case. After all: to simply insist that a particular proposition is true because the church says it is true is not to actually deal with the proposition itself, but merely to gratuitously assert it again by other means. No skeptic would be convinced of the truth of a Catholic position because the Church said as much. They know quite well already what the magisterial authority says! The way to convince a skeptic is to show why a particular magisterial proposition is true independent of its endorsement by that same magisterial authority. Many apologists seem to realize this, and are quite good at presenting the Catholic teaching in ways that would appeal to the charitable seeker.

However, when it comes to defending the post-conciliar Church from charges of ‘rupture’, these same apologists seem happy to rely on The Bluff, and seem curiously unaware of how woefully inadequate this move appears to skeptics and seekers, and also how inconsistent it is with their own methodology otherwise. They seem strangely oblivious to the fact that their ritual reference to a hermeneutic is only convincing to those who already (blindly) believe to begin with that there is continuity, forgetting that the very issue under discussion is whether it exists at all, regardless of who believes in it. More oddly still, some of these apologists seem to incorrectly assume that the issue of continuity is merely an intervarsity affair, and therefore that it is only able to be ‘seen’ by the faithful, believing Catholic.

Alas, no doubt to the annoyance of these apologists, the Church is not esoteric. We should not need special glasses to see continuity, and it should not be inside information; more relevantly, we should be able to explain how there is continuity, and not just ritually assert its existence. If there is no explanation available—anywhere—this might well mean that it simply isn’t there. Indeed: it doesn’t take a Catholic to see this. Any casual observer ‘steeped in history’ can easily see the rupture brought on by the Council. For this reason, some of the most instructive and devastating arguments concerning the farce that is the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ have come from—you guessed it—skeptics, protestants, and even unbelievers and atheists, writing on Catholic blogs.

One of the great things about blogs is that its discussion threads cannot so easily parse the washed from the unwashed, the good guys from the bad guys, the critics from the sycophants. Every assorted variety of seeker is free to make comments on a thread, provided that the host is willing to countenance their view. While any one post will usually draw the like-minded, it has the capability of including anyone who has a vested interest in the issue at hand. Much to the chagrin of a host, sometimes a blog post will draw devastating critique. I’ve read some outstanding comments by atheists on Catholic blog threads, charitably pointing out that Vatican II marked a total break from what came before. Responses to such comments have usually taken the form of: if you were Catholic, you’d see it differently.

Oh? Are we, like members of some Gnostic cult, led to a secret back room upon our conversion, and finally shown how reality is different than it seems? Are cradle Catholics therefore privy to this Secret Knowledge since birth? I think not. Our Church is boringly transparent, from the outside looking in. What the ubiquitous and farcical ‘hermeneutic’ citation shows us is that there is a certain unhealthy emotional attachment to the Faith among many of its members, and a corresponding lack of dispassionate analysis. This state of affairs, as far as I can tell, is the main reason why so many faithful Catholics seem incapable of rejecting what is impossible to defend: the hermeneutic of continuity. The fact that so much blind emotionalism exists among the faithful is unfortunate, not just because it stops otherwise intelligent people from seeing the truth, but also because it verifies the secularist’s supposition that Catholic folk are merely relying on emotion and not argument. It seems as if, when it comes to hermeneutic of continuity anyway, the secularist is exactly right.

Yes, our faith should be a love affair. But we should not let our emotions get the best of us. True love for the Church, and true faithfulness to its tenants, means criticizing heresy, novelty, and rupture— wherever it is found—and it means calling out whomever it might be that promotes such discontinuity. Faithfulness requires a clear head and the ability to call out nonsense for what it is. To be steeped in history is to cease to be neo-Catholic. It is to see the truth of Tradition, and the farce that is the ritual reference to the hermeneutic of continuity. ■

Continued

Blatant Discontinuity

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 11

Straining at Gnats, Swallowing Camels

By Chris Jackson

While

responding to a Tuesday night rollover accident in Chula Vista, Calif., a police officer and firefighter got into a dispute over where the fire engine should park. It ended with the uniformed firefighter in handcuffs.

The California Highway Patrol officer reportedly ordered the firefighter, identified as Jacob Gregoir, to move the fire engine off the center divide or he would be arrested. As he worked the scene and checked the overturned car for more victims, he reportedly told the unidentified officer that he would have to check with his captain. That’s when the officer decided to detain the firefighter instead.

According to UT San Diego, Gregoir — a fire service veteran of more than 12 years — parked the truck behind an ambulance to provide protection to the emergency responders from oncoming traffic. This is apparently a standard safety procedure fire crews

are taught." (Take from Theblaze.com)

Sometimes news stories in the secular press bear a strange resemblance to what has happened in the Church. In this story, an accident left passengers trapped in an overturned car. They were injured and in desperate need of help. Similarly the train wreck of Vatican II has left countless souls seriously wounded and in desperate need of Catholic Truth and the sacraments. Enter a fireman who starts to help the people in the vehicle, but had to park his fire engine illegally to do so. This is reminiscent of a certain Archbishop who ordained Traditional Catholic priests to assist desperate souls during the crisis in the Church. This Archbishop also acted against the letter of the law by ordaining these priests without permission. In the story above, the police officer, apparently more concerned with parking laws than passengers in the vehicle, arrested the fireman, thereby preventing him from assisting the passengers. Similarly, the Vatican suspended the Archbishop and his priests for attempting to save souls drowning in the post-Conciliar chaos without their permission. There is one difference in these two stories, however. In the news story only the fire engine parked "illegally" on the center divide. In the Church, we have had clerics in states of constant disobedience to Rome and the Holy Father for decades. This would be analogous to 1,000 cars being parked illegally on the center divide, and the police officer preferring to single out this specific fireman for targeting at the scene of an accident. The Neo-Catholics are analogous to media pundits who would constantly bemoan the illegality of parking on the center divide, reprimanding the rebellious fireman for disobeying duly promulgated parking laws, while ignoring the accident which necessitated the action. Such is the state of our Church in the post-Conciliar epoch. ■

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 12

A Remnant Book Review….

Shadowplay

By Clare Asquith (2005)

■ Little is actually known about Shakespeare’s private life, other than his place of birth, early schooling, members of his family and death. Perhaps he wanted it that way given the constant turmoil of England, but what of his religious life?

Reviewed by Vincent Chiarello

Remnant Columnist

Despite

the turbulent times for practicing Catholics during the reigns of Elizabeth I and her successor, James I, England was home to a host of writers who were to make an indelible mark on world literature. Often referred to as the "English Renaissance," this period gave rise to the careers of William Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe and others, whose creativity had a lasting influence. In evaluating the relative merits of these talented authors, however, clearly the one whose reputation rises above all the others is Shakespeare, a writer whose works have been translated into more than 80 languages, surpassed only by the Bible.

Little is actually known about Shakespeare’s private life, other than his place of birth, early schooling, members of his family and death. Perhaps he wanted it that way given the constant turmoil of England, but what of his religious life? What, if anything, is known about his views on religious matters?

For centuries scholars who have delved into the subject have come up empty handed, but over the past decade several books including, Shakespeare the Papist, by Peter Milward, S.J. (2005) and The Bard of Avon and the Church of Rome, by Joseph Pearce (2008), have been written that seek to identify William Shakespeare as a Catholic, or "crypto-Catholic," that is, one who concealed or camouflaged his beliefs. The conclusions of these authors have been met with fierce criticism by literary critics, including an Oxford Don, who basically refuse to believe that the evidence justifies the authors’ claims.

The most criticized and controversial is the author Clare Asquith, whose book, Shadowplay, posits that Shakespeare was, indeed, a Catholic, but arrives at that conclusion in a very unusual way.

Suppose you were to attend a theatrical production in a foreign country, one whose language you knew well enough, and listened to the actors on stage recite their lines and draw laughs and guffaws from the audience. To you, however, there was nothing funny about what was being said. Suppose, further, that the inexplicable laughter would continue throughout the entire production with you clueless as to why. You know the language; you know the meaning of the words...or do you?

In the winter of 1983, Asquith and her husband, the Duke of Oxford, a diplomat assigned to the British Mission to the Soviet Union, attended a performance of samizdat theatre where unauthorized readings of poems, books and plays forbidden by the state were recited by Soviet dissidents. During the performance the audience cheered and laughed, while the Asquiths and the few other foreigners in the audience remained silent. Something was going on that they did not understand, for in the rendering of these words and lines by the performers a meaning known only to the Soviets was apparent.

But coded language has long predated samizdat performances: nursery rhymes have been employed in using simple words to express a far deeper meaning. For example: Mary Mary quite contrary, how does your garden grow? With silver bells and cockle shells and pretty maids all in a row.

The Mary being referred to is believed to be "Bloody Mary," the Tudor Catholic queen of England, who executed some Protestant clergymen; the garden referred to is actually a graveyard.

What, then, if Shakespeare was writing in coded language, and only the Catholics in the Globe Theatre audience really understood what his words were meant to convey? It is that supposition that undergirds Shadowplay. Farfetched? Hardly. Today anyone interested in the subject of coded language can purchase the lectures on "The Secret Life of Words," from the Great Courses program, a course designed by two linguistic professors.

Several of the reviewers of Asquith’s book were unusually strident in a very non-English sort of way, claiming that she had gone far beyond the limits of scholarship and was, literally speaking, acting as a cheerleader amongst the "Shakespeare is Catholic" contingent with no evidence to do so. By far the most vitriolic reviewer was Prof. David Womersley, a member of the British Academy, and Thomas Warton, Professor of English Literature at Oxford University. His review concluded: "There are people who will find the argument of this book persuasive, just as there are people who believe that Elvis Presley is still alive, that the moon landings were staged in a hangar in Southern California, and that the Royal Family are the ringleaders of an international conspiracy aimed at world domination. Shadowplay is perhaps best regarded as a Da Vinci Code for that subset of the credulous whose obsessions are as much literary as religious."

Less personal, another reviewer made the point that Asquith was "...looking from the man to his work, or from the mask to the man hidden in his work," whereas the opposite approach should be operative: looking from his work to define the man. Fair enough.

Further, the reviewer makes one other important point: Asquith and her supporters, "...deal not so much with the biographical as with the literary aspect of Shakespeare – with the Catholicity of his mind, about which we can (I claim) achieve certainty, rather than the Catholicity of his allegiance, which is always open to debate." Again, fair enough.

The publication of these three books – and others – within a short period of time elicited this comment from Thomas McCoog, S.J., Principal Archivist for England and Wales for the Jesuits: "The quest for such proof has progressed from a demi-confessional cottage industry to a non-sectarian semi-circus."

Is Asquith’s book, then, just another addition to this "semi-circus?" What can be said of the author’s efforts to demonstrate that her theme is clearly within the reasonable bounds of academic research, and her conclusions are examples of extensive research and reasonableness, too? The References at the end of the book list more than 100 book titles; there are 27 pages of footnotes, and A Glossary of Selected Code Words is also included. Asquith claimed that Shadowplay was five years in the making, and given the scope and breath of her readings and resources that extended time frame seems perfectly understandable.

Asquith seeks to set the stage for what follows by describing an England that began to change slowly after Henry VIII’s break with Rome. The immediate embrace of the Church of England by the English people was not nearly as evident as we have been led to believe. (For the pioneer work in this aspect of the English Reformation, see: Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars, 1992, to be reviewed in the next edition of The Remnant.) For those "recusants" who would not accept "the dark new religion" there were serious penalties, including heavy fines, land expropriation, and in some cases, death, so why would Shakespeare, remarkably successful at Elizabeth’s court, even consider such a move? Biographers of Shakespeare have commented that his native intelligence and self-confidence separated him from his contemporaries, to which Asquith adds: "These two qualities...are the hallmarks of the way Shakespeare set himself the task of encoding and perpetuating the true story of England."

Did his Catholic sensibilities compel him to use coded language in his plays and sonnets to avoid the religious sensors and ubiquitous government spies? If so, how long would that evasion survive? An answer and the final piece to the Shakespeare puzzle remains to be put in place, something Asquith refers to in her chapter entitled, "Silenced."

In 1610, at the relatively young age of 45, William Shakespeare, Court favorite, financially secure, and at the height of his creative energies and powers, closed up shop: he left the Globe Theatre and London, the city and site of his greatest successes, and returned to Stratford, the place of his birth.

A well-planned retirement, no doubt. Author Asquith thinks otherwise: "Later comments imply that Shakespeare did not go quietly, but that to the end he refused to compromise, that force was used to get him either to conform or to leave."

Ben Jonson, who had renounced his Catholic beliefs, commented that Shakespeare’s failure to use restraint and prudence, something Jonson had done, coupled with Shakespeare’s refusal to keep quiet, resulted in Shakespeare’s current problems and trouble. With one exception, his writing of The Tempest, Shakespeare slowly faded into English memory. Asquith claims that in the play’s Epilogue, which begins, " ‘Please you draw near,’ " there is further evidence that Shakespeare did not leave voluntarily.

At the end of the day, however, does it really matter if William Shakespeare, the Bard of Avon, Will of the World, was a member of the Church of England, the Church of Rome, an agnostic or an atheist? I’ll allow Asquith to answer that: "The hidden, Catholic, level matters, literally, like a mountain—because it’s there. It’s a part of this work by the greatest of writers. And therefore we should give him his due. If he was writing with the intention that what he was covertly saying should be preserved down the generations, it is to do him an extraordinary disservice not to look at it." Game...Set...Match.

Read the book...if only as a mystery trying to assemble what happened and why. You will thank me for the suggestion. ■

William Shakespeare, Roman Catholic?

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 13

Modernism = Darwinism

■ The Protestant Revolution of the 16th century has become a prototype for a modernist/ evolutionist revolution in the Catholic Church today.

By Peter Wilders

What

has Darwinism got in common with modernism? Everything!

They are two edges of the same blade. A century ago, how could any Catholic dare question the Church’s dogmatic teaching and not be excommunicated as a heretic?

The answer is that natural science has allegedly shown that nothing in the realm of the created world is immutable.

It has proved thereby that the Church was wrong in dogmatically declaring that fully operating living beings with stable natures were produced from nothing. The knowledge now amassed from biology, physics, and chemistry is already sufficient to render the notion of creation ex nihilo totally ridiculous.

Magisterial teaching proclaiming such things as revealed truth has to stop!

Thanks to Charles Darwin, Catholics have been liberated from centuries of ignorance imposed by the Church. Modernism is doing nothing more than seeking emancipation for the downtrodden.

Only this morning, the parish priest told his congregation they had no need to worry, all their sins would be forgiven them (with the caveat regarding sins against the Holy Spirit) on the basis of Mark 3:28 Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter. To follow this logic, no one needed to have gone to church in the first place!

The troubling question remains, of course, whether Darwin got it right. Did he? Ay, there’s the rub… It appears that data from the disciplines of biology, physics and chemistry—now far more developed than they were in his day— are demonstrating the fatal flaws in the evolutionary hypothesis. Perhaps the God of Creation did not mislead his people for so many thousands of years after all… Needless to say the hierarchy not only is unaware of this but refuse to listen to anyone who brings it to their attention. Indeed, the Pontifical Academy of Science admits no one to their number who contests evolution, and shields Church leaders from anti-evolution dissidents. Moreover, the seal of obedience of consecrated persons to their superiors guarantees that the hierarchy’s acceptance of Darwinism cannot be questioned. (In any case, how many clerics would want to debate such matters as the existence of pseudo-genes and whether they have a function?) "Leave natural science to trained scientists examining empirical facts," they are told; "and leave religion to theologians who can discern the supernatural from the natural."

Looking at the situation today, why are loyal Catholics so dismayed? What is seen today to be a catastrophe is only a natural development of what went almost unnoticed years ago. As the dragon slipped into the unguarded side-gate of Eden, so Darwin under the trappings of "science" got into the Church. Some discerning Catholics saw the signs, but tragically too few. To accommodate the demands of evolutionary "science" over the years the Church’s hierarchy has become increasingly tolerant of what can now be clearly seen as abuses of Christ’s teaching. It had already reached the point over half a century ago where from the pulpit priests professed God creator of the world and all its contents from nothing, whilst simultaneously denying that doctrine in the schools. Successive generations of intelligent students recognized the blatant hypocrisy of that position and did the logical thing: they abandoned their religion.

I wonder if readers of the Remnant have read Roberto de Mattei’s incisive writings, especially his recent articles. He is an Italian historian, much respected in Catholic intellectual circles. I noticed Chris Ferrara referred to him recently in one of his Remnant articles. Mattei sees evolution as the Church’s number one enemy. The interest of his articles is the light they throw upon the current problems facing Catholics. They explain how the terms "modernist" and "modernism" apply today to the quasitotality of Catholics. They show why the shocking statements made by members of the Curia—like Cardinal Kasper’s recent admission that ambiguities were deliberately inserted into the documents of Vatican II—are nothing new. In fact the former render a service by merely articulating more clearly the thinking that has come to shape the views of most of the "faithful."

In tracing the recent history of modernism his most significant points are:

1. Dominican, Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the most respected theologians of the 20th century, saw truth being reduced to "religious experience." He wrote in 1946: "The truth… is no longer the conformity of judgment with objective reality and its immutable laws, but…with the demands of action and human life, which is continually evolving."

2. Today’s modernism come from Luther’s belief: "all that is dogma and theological reflection is nothing other than the symbolic transcription of a collective religious experience in continual evolution."

3. The replacement of doctrine by "feeling and experience." As an example, he cites George Tyrell (1861 – 1909) who after converting from Protestantism became a Jesuit. He then challenged the Order’s teaching. For Tyrell religion is a union of the heart with God that does without the truth of dogmas.

4. Henri Brémond S.J. (1865 – 1930) befriended Tyrell when the latter was excommunicated. The former wrote to Tyrell that the ideal would be a "clerical life without dogma."

5. Henri de Lubac L.C. (1896-1991) followed the same line—the possibility of encountering God by one’s own efforts.

The message is clear. The Protestant Revolution of the 16th century has become a prototype for a modernist/evolutionist revolution in the Catholic Church today.

The latter started at the end of the 19th century with the Biblical School of Jerusalem ( Ecole biblique de Jérusalem), and Soviet infiltration of seminaries in the early 1900’s. Evolutionary philosophy was largely promoted at first by the Dominican order, and then by the Jesuits.

Finally it encroached upon teaching in Catholic schools, monasteries and convents throughout the Church. No institution was spared.

Although this is perhaps a fair summary of the current situation, it requires more than a basic grasp of Darwinism to bring it into focus. From the time of the Apostles, all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers in their authoritative teaching held that God created all things by fiat for man and that the natural order did not begin until God had finished creating Adam and Eve as the crowning work of creation.

At the beginning of the so-called Enlightenment, Rene’ Descartes became the first thinker of note in Christendom to speculate, without evidence, that it would be more reasonable to explain the origins of everything in nature in terms of presently observed material processes, rather than by the creative action of God. As the culmination of more than a century of Enlightenment propaganda, the evolutionary hypothesis purported to explain the origin of the world and living things by natural processes: divine intervention was categorically excluded!

Today, those Catholics who consider themselves members of the Mystical Body of Christ, as traditionally defined, yet still believe in evolution, risk succumbing to a severe psychological disorder. They are obliged to subscribe to two opposing truths. God the omnipotent Creator; and the omnipotence of evolution. The aberration is assumed to be justified by the worn expression; "God used evolution to create." Those ignorant of orthodox Church teaching could possibly be excused for this incoherence, but not the qualified custodians of the traditional Magisterium.

God created alone by his own omnipotent power. No secondary productive causes such as the evolution of existing beings into beings of a different nature were involved. Lateran IV and Vatican I define this as a revealed truth.

The majority modernist creed, however, adds the caveat "unless such assumed truth is preempted by natural science."

The abandonment of the traditional metaphysics of the Catholic tradition, noted by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in 1989, has made it almost impossible for modern theologians to recognize the absurdity of the modernist’s unsupported assumption that he can extrapolate from the material processes going on in nature today to explain how everything in nature came to be in the beginning!

To make matters worse, for several decades, arguments from the Church’s magisterial teaching have only carried weight with the Catholic hierarchy where there is no clash with evolutionary teaching. In this regard, the present Pope is no more blameworthy than his predecessors. Although they were less outspoken on some issues than Pope Francis, the end result is the same.

Modernism fuelled by evolutionism has triumphed within the Church. It must be remembered that Pius XII did not discount evolutionary cosmology, John Paul II in 1986 said that evolution theory could be reconciled with Genesis, and Benedict XVI’s 2006 meeting at Castelgondolfo entitled "Creation and Evolution" claimed there was proof for evolution.

The silence on the subject from those in the Church presenting themselves as traditionalists suggests that they have not seen the connection between the success of Darwinism and the modernist destruction of orthodoxy—or are they too intimidated by scientism? Happily, one straightforward body of evidence is enough to floor the evolutionary Goliath: and it is ready and waiting for recognition by the Church. It is the research published by the Russian Academy of Sciences, invalidating the standard geological timescale— without which the hypothesis of biological evolution is rendered completely untenable. Had members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences recognized the importance of this research when it was first published, they could have countered some of the negative effects of faith in the evolutionary hypothesis on scientific research.

Modernism has largely eroded traditional Catholic values from society. These were encapsulated in the Beattudes now swamped and replaced by the pop-culture of materialism.

Nonetheless they still represent the way back. For the record here they are:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven. ■

Roberto de Mattei the Italian historian who is very much respected in Catholic intellectual circles, sees evolution as the Church’s number one threat.

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 14

Praying the Hours

By Timothy J. Cullen

Among

the greatest treasures of medieval European art are the "Books of Hours," the illuminated manuscripts that served as devotional aids for laymen praying the Canonical Hours. In essence, the books could be thought of as "mini-breviaries," the liturgical books used in monasteries. As a nearly general rule, the books cover the entire liturgical year and are based on The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a method of praying the hours now sadly set aside by the post-Conciliar Church. Even the simplest books, those without major illustration and illumination, also contain the fifteen Psalms of Degrees (Psalms 120-134) and the Seven Penitential Psalms (Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, and 143), as well as a Litany for the Saints, the Hours of the Cross and an Office for the Dead.

There is a web site—http://www.

medievalbooksofhours.com/index.

html—devoted to Books of Hours that is likely to be of great interest to anyone wishing to learn more about these wonderful works of art inspired by the Faith. It includes two tutorials, basic and advanced, both richly illustrated. This writer—who came upon the web site while researching the material for this essay—has taken advantage of the two tutorials to improve his knowledge of the subject. Books of Hours first came to this writer’s attention at age eleven during a visit to the Morgan Library and Museum (then the Pierpont Morgan Library) on East 36th Street in Manhattan. As the years went by this marvelous resource, along with the Cloisters in northern Manhattan’s Fort Tryon Park, would become a favorite for late afternoon meditative visits; the Medieval was truly the meditative age in Christendom and both these museums impart a strong sense of the Medieval. The sheer visual magnificence of these medieval manuscripts is—in a very literal sense of the word— breathtaking, particularly when one looks upon them for the first time.

Their popularity during the Middle Ages comes as no surprise. "For three hundred years the Book of Hours was the bestseller of the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. From the mid-thirteenth to the mid-sixteenth century, more Books of Hours were commissioned and produced, bought and sold, bequeathed and inherited, printed and reprinted than any other text, including the Bible."

1

Facsimile copies—often high quality—of these magnificent achievements are a favorite collectible for many of those who are first inspired when seeing the originals on display; this writer has a number of them, the first having been acquired as a Christmas gift in 1971 and carried from one country to another as its owner awaited finding what he hopes will be his last dwelling on this earth. The facsimiles are carefully arranged on the

1 http://www.medievalbooksofhours.com/ advancedtutorial/

bookshelves that line one wall. Many is the afternoon when one or another is taken down and carefully perused, a silent and solitary activity that has deepened in intensity with the passage of the years.

Take for example the Très Riches Heures of Jean, Duke of Berry,

published in 1969 by George Braziller, Inc. The reproductions of the miniatures by the Limbourg brothers and Jean Colombe are of exceptional quality, as the work deserves. The book has been reissued as of 2008, but has received negative reviews with respect to its quality, particularly when compared with the edition which this writer was fortunate enough to have received as a gift forty-plus years ago. The 1969 edition, however, was worked with actual metallic gold as well as high resolution color, creating an effect that, as the saying goes, must be seen to be believed.

The art of the Limbourg brothers can be described only with superlatives. Without exaggeration, one can spend half an hour or more gazing at one single page of the book, a page upon which is reproduced an absolutely exquisite miniature representing a Biblical vignette. Well before one attempts to read the text on the facing page or on one of the illuminated pages, well before one begins to use the book as a devotional tool, one simply allows oneself to delight in the genius of the artists, delight in the astonishing visual representation achieved by the artists.

And while the art of the Limbourg brothers gives the impression of being finer than that which was created by Jean Colombe, there are plates of his work that also merit the highest praise.

Perhaps one of the most moving of all the miniatures is that entitled "Christ in Gethsemane," painted by the Limbourgs. It is a full page plate, numbered 107 in the Braziller edition, and "is not only one of the three brothers’ most extraordinary works, but the most beautiful night scene ever painted by a miniaturist."

2

( artificially brightened for illustration purposes)

Very different in style but also of great impact is the representation of

2 Lognon and Cazelles, Très Riches Heures of Jean, Duke of Berry, George Braziller, Inc., NY, 1969, plate 107, facing page (unnumbered).

the "Garden of Eden," plate 20 in the Braziller edition. The use of gold in the creation of that airy almost ethereal tower, the richness of color in the blue of God’s robe, the demure aspects of Adam and Eve as they pass through the fiery gate on their way east of Eden, Paradise lost to them and their posterity, all this makes for a composition as satisfying thematically as it is visually.

Although Books of Hours were greatly appreciated for their artistic content, "[o]ne of the reasons for this popularity lies in the book’s contents.

The Book of Hours is a prayer book that contains, at its heart, the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that is, the Hours of the Virgin. For this reason the Latin term for the book is Horae (Hours). The Hours of the Virgin are a sequence of prayers to the Mother of God that, ideally, were recited throughout the course of the entire day, sanctifying it through her to God, Hour by Hour."

3

Indeed, "[t]he Book of Hours played a key role in the late medieval and Renaissance cult of the Virgin.

Marian devotion placed the Mother of God in the pivotal role as intercessor between man and God. As our spiritual mother, Mary would hear our petitions, take mercy on our plight. She would plead our case to her Son who, surely, could not deny his own mother anything for which she asked. In a Europe dominated by cathedrals dedicated to Notre Dame, the Hours of the Virgin were deemed Our Lady’s favorite prayers, the quickest way to her heart."

4

The heart of the Book of Hours is the Little Office, the most widely used and popular of the short breviaries.

"Until the Second Vatican Council, it was the liturgical prayer of hundreds of religious communities, mostly active, (and a few contemplative orders, as well), several Third Orders (lay members of the Carmelite, Dominican, Augustinian and other Orders and Congregations, for example), Oblates attached to Benedictine abbeys and convents, and thousands of other lay people, not affiliated with any Order,

3 http://www.medievalbooksofhours.com/ advancedtutorial/ 4 Ibid.

made use of it century after century.

From its inclusion in the earliest hand written and illuminated Book of Hours in the early and high Middle Ages, to the printed Primers of the Reformation period and beyond, it was seen in every century. Prior to the Second Vatican Council (1963), every printed edition of the Roman, Monastic, Carmelite, Dominican breviaries (before the Council) included a version of the Little Office."

5

Like so many other venerable Catholic traditions, however, the Second Vatican Council would see to it that the Little Office would be relegated to the ash heap of history. "The Constitution on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council added a new dimension to the Little Office(s). The Little Office(s), whether prayed out of obligation or out of devotion, were now to be classified as liturgical prayer, and those who prayed them would be participating in the official liturgy of the hours of the church. By 1966, however, religious and lay people were encouraged to adopt at least the Morning and Evening Prayer from the Divine Office. This was the beginning of the end of the Little Offices. Interest in, and use of, the Little Office(s) virtually died. When the Liturgy of the Hours was published, beginning in 1973, it did not include a version of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary."

6

A hypertext copy of the Little Office is now available on the web— http://medievalist.net/hourstxt/home.

htm—for those who do not have the printed version, now no longer as easily obtained as once it was. More information about Books of Hours in general can be obtained at http:// www.dmoz.org/Society/History/By_ Time_Period/Middle_Ages/Religion/ Christianity/Books_of_Hours/, a web site providing a number of useful links to varied information and illustration focused on these devotional and artistic treasures. A print copy (preferably the 1969 hardback edition) of the Très Riches Heures of Jean, Duke of Berry, while not a trifling expense, is well worth its cost for its value to a Catholic family.

Catholic culture, like the liturgy and so much else, is much the poorer for the modernist takeover of the Church and Her position as the keystone of the structure of western civilization and the culture that defined it. Young people of the post-Conciliar era have little or no familiarity with the artistic wonders of the Middle Ages or even the Renaissance and later cultural developments within Christendom.

History for many of these unfortunates begins with the second half of the twentieth century, a period in which Catholicism and its culture have been steadily marginalized even within the Catholic "community," now diluted into a "sub-sect" of the emerging "One World Church" from which all believers

5 http://www.kellerbook.com/PARVUM~1.HTM 6 Ibid (emphasis added).

Continued Next Page

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 15

The Last Word…

The Super Baʿal Halftime Show

■ Christians worship the God of Light by morning and illuminati celebrate the prince of darkness by night. The contrast could not be starker nor implication more unsettling. An apocalypse is approaching: the manifestation of pure evil.

By Father Celatus

Afew years ago I saw an interview of a woman who had perfect recall of whatever she had done on any particular date and time of day, no matter how long past or mundane. The interviewer randomly picked dates, such as March 3, 1997 and this amazing person was able to recall that she had shopped and made spaghetti for dinner, for instance.

No doubt this ability can be a blessing or a curse, depending on particular memories. So what did you do on Sunday, February 2, 2014?

If you are a good Catholic you attended Mass that morning: the Feast of the Purification of Mary for traditionalists or the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord for the New Order Mass. Could those revolutionary reformers not leave anything of tradition unchanged? As for the evening, perhaps many of you watched the popular Doper Bowl, which featured the Denver Burnouts versus the Seattle Stoners. How ironic that the two states with legalized marijuana were in the Bowl.

How ironic as well that on a Feast day which reflects holy purity and divine light, Candlemas Day, something quite impure and dark was celebrated by the masses. No, not the football game itself but much of what surrounds it and increasingly defines it, most especially the halftime show. Traditionalists learned some years ago that in order to avoid a near occasion of sin or sin itself, they need to switch channels or shut down the television for the half hour of halftime.

But some good folks may watch halftime spectacles not for entertainment but to critique them and take the pulse of America. And it is increasingly clear that such displays of sexual lewdness are not merely to entertain but they have a much more sinister, diabolical purpose.

Since ancient times, fornication has been closely linked with demonic worship.

We see this illicit association between sex and the demonic in texts and events of both the Old and the New Testaments:

And Israel at that time abode in Settim, and the people committed fornication with the daughters of Moab, Who called them to their sacrifices. And they ate of them, and adored their gods. And Israel was initiated to Beelphegor: upon which the Lord being angry, Said to Moses: Take all the princes of the people, and hang them up on gibbets against the sun: that my fury may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said to the judges of Israel: Let every man kill his neighbours, that have been initiated to Beelphegor. (Number 25:1-5) Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body?

For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit. Flee fornication.

Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body. (1Corinthians 6:15-20)

Saint Paul condemned fornication by the Corinthian Christians not only because it is sexually immoral but also because they were joining themselves with temple prostitutes of the pagan gods and goddesses, which was an act of sacrilege. The Apostle notes that pagan gods are actually devils: "The things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils." Ritual sex and satanic worship go arm in arm.

Which brings us back to halftime shows and other productions that are intended to be sexually immoral and also satanic.

Some of these diabolical elements are becoming increasingly explicit, though other elements remain more hidden, reserved for the illuminati. By illuminati I mean collectively those who seek a new world order which is not oriented toward God but toward Lucifer. The illuminati are influential and powerful people with a frightening capacity to manipulate the masses.

The 2014 Super Bowl halftime began with a chorus of children chanting mindlessly, "Prepare, prepare, prepare" followed by a Bruno Mars performance of a perverted hit "Locked out of Heaven." Here is a sampling of lyrics (readers beware!):

Never had much faith in love or miracles…Never wanna put my heart on the line…But swimming in your water is something spiritual…I’m born again every time you spend the night…’Cause your sex takes me to paradise…You bring me to my knees…You can make a sinner change his ways…’Cause you make me feel like I’ve been locked out of heaven…

Mars was then joined by shirtless Red Chili Peppers screaming out "Give it Away," which hit from the 90’s earned the group an MTV award, on which occasion they expressed publicly their gratitude, "First of all, we want to thank Satan…" Those watching carefully would have noticed the illuminati symbol of a triangle, choreographed into the performance.

Believe it or not, satanic symbols of Super Bowls past have been even more egregious and explicit. Who can forget—if only we could—the ritual performance of the high priestess Madonna in 2012, who said, "The Super Bowl is kind of like the Holy of Holies in America. I’ll come at halfway of the ‘church experience’ and I’m gonna have to deliver a sermon." Dressed to look like an ancient Babylonian goddess and wearing a luciferian headdress, this lost soul is no longer content to blaspheme but has set herself up as a parody of the ancient Ark of God in the Temple.

Following in the hoof prints of

Madonna, the halftime ritual in 2013 was presided over by the female singer Beyoncé, whose illuminati performance consisted of sexual seduction, satanic symbols and the fires of hell. Similar demonic performances have been done recently by Miley Cyrus at the MTV Music Awards and by Katy Perry at the Grammys.

Christians worship the God of Light by morning and illuminati celebrate the prince of darkness by night. The contrast could not be starker nor implication more unsettling. An apocalypse is approaching: the manifestation of pure evil. ■

Super Bowl 2012

A ritual halftime performance by the high priestess Madonna, dressed to look like an ancient Babylonian goddess and wearing a luciferian headdress.

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014

Next Article >        < Prev Article

Sat, 15 Feb 2014 | Cover | Page 15

Continued...

and their puppy dogs too are on the way to Heaven and all those repressive ideas that predate the Age of Aquarius will have been swept away so that everyone everywhere will be part of one big happy family that may be semi-literate, but can do the Harlem Shuffle with the best of ‘em!

Will the once exalted culture of Christendom be relegated to history’s ash heap along with the Tridentine Liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church? The answer to that question will depend largely upon the efforts of the few truly Catholic institutions of higher learning that remain in operation and upon the efforts of individual families and perhaps concerned parishioners to ensure the survival of the cultural "gold vault" of Christendom that has been replaced by the fiat currency of "pop" everything. The post-Conciliar Catholic Church is committed to subsuming the high culture of old Christendom into a mass multi-culture that is centered on the mediocre rather than aimed at the apex of human refinement, but this tragic treachery of tradition need not be subscribed to by the Catholic family that still values excellence. Yes, "Joe Six-Pew" is every bit as much a member of the Mystical Body of Christ as the most learned and cultured Catholic, but that does not mean his intellectual limitations should be set as the standard for the Catholic community and its culture. Buy yourself a Book of Hours, gaze upon the work therein, then see if you can say with a straight face that a comic book can serve to exalt the spirit every bit as much as the medieval museum piece.

Raise high the banner of the culture of Catholicism as once it was! Buy yourself a Book of Hours or more than one. Buy it for yourself, for your family and for your friends. Learn the greatness of your heritage and respect it as your Church apparently no longer does.

Pray the hours and be at peace. ■

Powered by TECNAVIA

Copyright (C) 1996-2014 Remnant Press 02/15/2014