Tuesday, October 4, 2016


On my previous post, this last part of Cardinal Sarah's interview, a very cogent, well thought out response to the questions posed to him, which shows his clairity of thought, is so important, that I give it its own space here.

I am particularly impressed with His Emminence's thoughts on mutual enrichment (rather than using the outdated term, "reform of the reform" where he encourages, as I have consistently done so, adding back elements of the older liturgy to the revised Mass. This means having what the Ordinariate's glorious new Missal has: Prayers at the Foot of the Altar (along with the older form or the Order of Mass), the clear option of the Gradual and Tract, along with explicit use of the Introit in the ancient form, along with the Offertory and Communion antiphonal, the older form of the Offertory Prayers, the older form of the conclusion of the Mass to include the Last Gospel and the older rubrics for the Eucharistic Prayers. In other words, the revised Mass in whatever vernacular with the older Mass's exquisite sensibilities which will never be considered out of date except by those who are literally out of date.

This tells me that the Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship in fact is preparing a new or reformed Roman Missal for general use in the general Latin Rite part of the Church which will be very similar to the Ordinariate's Missal with all its EF options to include elements of the older form of the Calendar, such as the season of Septuagesima, the Octave of Pentecost, ember days and the like.

But Cardinal Sarah also has my same sentiments concerning mutual enrichment when it comes to the EF Mass. Why can't there be some vernacular such as for the lectionary, for the changing parts of the Mass? Why can't there be more of a push to engage the congregation in actual participation of being mentally but quietly engaged in the Mass but also verbally, be it spoken or sung?

I love Cardinal Sarah's cogent analysis of the current situation of the Church and how the devil has used the liturgy and the catechesis crisis of the last 50 years to sow division and discontent amongst Catholics.


After your conference in London last July, you are returning to the topic of the orientation of the liturgy and wish to see it applied in our churches. Why is this so important to you, and how would you see this change implemented? 

Cdl. Sarah: Silence poses the problem of the essence of the liturgy. Now the liturgy is mystical. As long as we approach the liturgy with a noisy heart, it will have a superficial, human appearance. Liturgical silence is a radical and essential disposition; it is a conversion of heart. 

Now, to be converted, etymologically, is to turn back, to turn toward God. There is no true silence in the liturgy if we are not—with all our heart—turned toward the Lord. We must be converted, turn back to the Lord, in order to look at Him, contemplate His face, and fall at His feet to adore Him. We have an example: Mary Magdalene was able to recognize Jesus on Easter morning because she turned back toward Him: “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” “Haec cum dixisset, conversa est retrorsum et videt Jesus stantem. – Saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there” (Jn 20:13-14). 

How can we enter into this interior disposition except by turning physically, all together, priest and faithful, toward the Lord who comes, toward the East symbolized by the apse where the cross is enthroned? 

The outward orientation leads us to the interior orientation that it symbolizes. Since apostolic times, Christians have been familiar with this way of praying. It is not a matter of celebrating with one’s back to the people or facing them, but toward the East, ad Dominum, toward the Lord. 

This way of doing things promotes silence. Indeed, there is less of a temptation for the celebrant to monopolize the conversation. Facing the Lord, he is less tempted to become a professor who gives a lecture during the whole Mass, reducing the altar to a podium centered no longer on the cross but on the microphone! The priest must remember that he is only an instrument in Christ’s hands, that he must be quiet in order to make room for the Word, and that our human words are ridiculous compared to the one Eternal Word. 

I am convinced that priests do not use the same tone of voice when they celebrate facing East. 

We are so much less tempted to take ourselves for actors, as Pope Francis says! 

Of course, this way of doing things, while legitimate and desirable, must not be imposed as a revolution. I know that in many places preparatory catechesis has enabled the faithful to accept and appreciate the orientation. I wish that this question would not become the occasion for an ideological clash of factions! We are talking about our relationship with God. 

As I had the opportunity to say recently, during a private interview with the Holy Father, here I am just making the heartfelt suggestions of a pastor who is concerned about the good of the faithful. I do not intend to set one practice against another. If it is physically not possible to celebrate ad orientem, it is absolutely necessary to put a cross on the altar in plain view, as a point of reference for everyone. Christ on the cross is the Christian East. 

You ardently defend the conciliar Constitution on the liturgy while deploring the fact that it has been implemented so badly. How do you explain in retrospect the last fifty years? Aren’t Church leaders the ones primarily responsible? 

Cdl. Sarah: I think that we lack the spirit of faith when we read the conciliar document. Bewitched by what Benedict XVI calls the media Council, we give it an all-too-human reading, looking for ruptures and oppositions where a Catholic heart must strive to find renewal in continuity. More than ever the conciliar teaching contained in Sacrosanctum Concilium must guide us. It is about time to let ourselves be taught by the Council instead of utilizing it to justify our concerns about creativity or to defend our ideologies by utilizing the sacred weapons of the liturgy. 

Just one example: Vatican II admirably described the baptismal priesthood of the laity as the ability to offer ourselves in sacrifice to the Father with Christ so as to become, in Jesus, “holy, pure, spotless Victims”. We have here the theological foundation for genuine participation in the liturgy. 

This spiritual reality ought to be experienced particularly at the Offertory, the moment when the whole Christian people offer themselves, not alongside of Christ but in Him, through His sacrifice that will be accomplished at the consecration. Rereading the Council would enable us to avoid having our offertories disfigured by demonstrations that have more to do with folklore than with the liturgy. A sound hermeneutic of continuity could lead us to restore to a place of honor the ancient Offertory prayers, reread in light of Vatican II. 

You mention “the reform of the reform” which you say you wish for (no. 257): what should this consist of chiefly? Would it involve both forms of the Roman rite or only the Ordinary Form? 

Cdl. Sarah: The liturgy must always be reformed in order to be more faithful to its mystical essence. What is called “reform of the reform” and what we perhaps ought to call “mutual enrichment of the rites”, to adopt an expression from the magisterial teaching of Benedict XVI, is a spiritual necessity. Therefore it concerns both forms of the Roman rite. 

I refuse to waste our time contrasting one liturgy with another, or the rite of Saint Pius V to that of Blessed Paul VI. It is a matter of entering into the great silence of the liturgy; it is necessary to know how to be enriched by all the liturgical forms, Latin or Eastern. Why shouldn’t the Extraordinary Form be open to the improvements produced by the liturgical reform resulting from Vatican II? Why couldn’t the Ordinary Form rediscover the ancient prayers of the Offertory, the prayers at the foot of the altar, or a little silence during some parts of the Canon? 

Without a contemplative spirit, the liturgy will remain an occasion for hateful divisions and ideological clashes, for the public humiliation of the weak by those who claim to hold some authority, whereas it ought to be the place of our unity and our communion in the Lord. Why should we confront and detest each other? On the contrary, the liturgy should make us “all attain to unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.... Thus, by living in the truth of love, we will grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (cf. Eph 4:13-15). 

In the current liturgical context of the Latin-rite world, how can we overcome the mistrust that remains between some devotees of the two liturgical forms of the same Roman rite who refuse to celebrate the other form and consider it sometimes with a certain disdain? 

Cdl. Sarah: To damage the liturgy is to damage our relationship to God and the expression of our Christian faith. Cardinal Charles Journet declared: “Liturgy and catechesis are the two jaws of the pincers with which the devil wants to steal the faith away from the Christian people and seize the Church so as to crush, annihilate and destroy it definitively. Even today the great dragon is keeping watch on the woman, the Church, ready to devour her child.” Yes, the devil wants us to be opposed to each other at the very heart of the sacrament of unity and fraternal communion. It is time for this mistrust, contempt and suspicion to cease. It is time to rediscover a Catholic heart. It is time to rediscover together the beauty of the liturgy, as the Holy Father Francis recommends to us, for, he says, “the beauty of the liturgy reflects the presence of the glory of our God resplendent in His people who are alive and consoled” (Homily for the Chrism Mass, March 28, 2013). 


Anonymous said...

If memory serves me correctly you agreed with the so called "smack down" that Cardinal Sarah received after he made his comments.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Yes, if the good Cardinal was promoting ad ORIENTEM by this Advent, without Pope Francis knowledge he should have been reprimanded. I would have followed his advise only with him acting in concert with the pope.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, if the good Cardinal was promoting ad ORIENTEM by this Advent, without Pope Francis knowledge he should have been reprimanded. I would have followed his advise only with him acting in concert with the pope."

What? Celebrating Mass ad oriented IS NOT AGAINST ANY EXISTING CHURCH LAW. But we see bishops making statements stating the priests can only offer Mass facing the people WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. Any priest is lawfully able to offer Mass either facing the people or facing liturgical East. Also any priest is able to offer the traditional Mass anywhere he pleases and does not need the consent of his ordinary. And Pope Francis had no problem when he was a bishop breaking liturgical law every Holy Thursday when the universal law of the Church was that only males get their feet washed. And didn't Pope Francis say "go make a mess". And didn't Pope Francis go and tell Protestants in a Lutheran house of worship to make up their own mind about receiving Commumion?

And what does Pope Francis have to do with anything? Pope SAINT John Paul officially taught that adultery cannot receive communion without amendment of life, confession and living as brother and sister if they can't separate. Pope Francis teaches that if adulterers find it to difficult to stop having sex they can keep fornicating and go to communion. Both can't be right.

Anonymous said...

Why should not any priest be free to advocate the ad orientem celebration of Mass that is equal to versus populum under the norms and superior in the traditional practice of the Church? Whatever the current pope may think personally. After all, the pope like any other priest is the servant of the liturgy, not its master.

Paul said...

Was it Belloc who said something like he believed the Church must be of divine origin as no other institution could last a generation being led by such scoundrels?

After some much needed sleep I will search for the exact quote tomorrow.

TJM said...

Henry, exactly. The Novus Ordo is a huge fail. Part of the recovery of the Holy, Catholic, Church in Faith and in practice is predicated upon either a thorough reform of the Novus Ordo, or just jettisoning it and returning to the EF. I hear the doubleknit dinosaurs in the distance howling!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

If the Church ever jettisoned one Council then all councils could be jettisoned. So that will never happen with Vatican II. But its correct interpretation and implementation is possible and we see the call for it not only from high ranking cardinals, like Sarah, but also from an Emeritus Pope who called for it as a cardinal and as the pope.

The post Vatican II Mass will never, ever be jettisoned. That is down right silly and illogical. But it can be reformed as Cardinal Sarah is calling. Cardinal Sarah's hermeneutic about both Masses is the only sane approach and the pitting of one against the other is of the devil, not of God.

John Nolan said...

I would not be against a priest whose Latin was adequate but not fluent, reading the epistle and gospel at Low Mass in the vernacular, provided the Douai-Rheims was used. The modern vernacular versions, both in the British Isles and in North America, are seriously deficient.

It is often forgotten that in the old days priests were familiar with the Vulgate and could read it at a brisk conversational speed. The faithful had the translations in their hand missals.

However, as I have said before, a Low Mass celebrated as a Sunday Mass, at the high altar and with a large congregation, would be inaudible in a large church. Singing vernacular hymns was not the answer. The sung Mass (either Missa Solemnis or Missa Cantata) with the appropriate ceremonies would fit the bill, and this should be not just the principal Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, but the only Mass - this was the tradition for a thousand years and is still normative in the Eastern Churches.

Pius XII allowed evening Masses. He should have done more to encourage the celebration of Vespers. Important as the Eucharist is, it is part of the liturgy. Stay at a monastery and you will find that the Conventual Mass (usually between Terce and Sext) is the only Mass of the day, although priests who wish to offer their own Masses in the morning are free to do so.

However, the scheduling of multiple Masses to conform with the habits of the faithful is in my opinion an aberration; it's 'hysteron proteron', putting the cart before the horse.

John Nolan said...


Vatican II doesn't have to be jettisoned. It can, however, be downplayed and accepted only as long as it conforms with Tradition. We know now (and have actually known for a long time but have not been prepared to admit it) that it was hi-jacked early on by a progressive faction and approved by a pope with liberal leanings who was too easily manipulated.

Why do you say that the 'post-Vatican II Mass will never, ever be jettisoned'? We now know a lot more about its provenance than was ever admitted at the time; we now know that Paul VI was acting ultra vires when he attempted to impose an entirely novel rite on the entire Latin Church, and we know from experience that everything that has happened since (including the emasculation of the Roman Ritual) has had a deleterious effect.

I do attend Paul VI's Mass, usually in its sung Latin version, but were it to disappear tomorrow I would not miss it. Like versus populum celebration, it lacks the 'auctoritas' which can only derive from time-honoured use. And the usual manner of its performance, whereby calling it a 'dog's breakfast' would be insulting to dogs, only serves to underline the point.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

Where did I say, I would jettison the Council? I am suggesting that the Novus Ordo be thoroughly reformed, such that is it much more in keeping with what the Council Fathers intended, id est,it would resemble the EF in a substantial way, or that it be jettisoned. The Novus Ordo was an unprecedented breach with the past and has wreaked havoc. It has spawned "Father Entertainer" and has definitely not attracted more people to the Church, quite the opposite. Why be contumacious by clinging to a liturgy which simply has not worked? Big people own up to their mistakes, little people just dig in deeper.

Anonymous said...

TMJ: "Big people own up to their mistakes, little people just dig in deeper."

Maybe the problem for the past half-century has been that so many mental and moral midgets have attained such high positions in the Church. Imagine how different it would have been, if our bishops had actually been the giants of the faith that we laymen once imagined bishops to be. Or if a significant number of them had simply been worthy of their high office, and faithful to their duty and sworn promise to defend the faith.

Rood Screen said...

Father McDonald,

I sort of see what you mean, but if the Holy Father did indeed instruct him to continue Benedict's reforms, then I see no problem with the cardinal's advice. A more troubling question is, why do high-ranking cardinals not know what the Holy Father wants them to do? Does he not meet with them regularly and guide them, answering questions and providing feedback?

TJM said...


I have thought the same thing. Otherwise, how could you explain that alleged Catholics, including priests and bishops, are voting for the Abortion Party.

George said...

When it says in the gospel of John about the Good Shepherd:"... and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice", is this voice it speaks of not the sacred teachings and liturgies of which we of faith embrace? When the shepherd calls his sheep, he transmits to them something from within himself. The sheep have heard his voice and know that it can be trusted and so they follow him, and come to him when he calls. Are not the words Christ has uttered, and what has been revealed to the Church by the Holy Spirit, not the manifestation into our reality of His calling out to us to listen and heed His holy, timeless, and changeless teachings, which are ever present to those of us of faith; and also to those for whom exists the hope they will listen and obey His voice? We know that Christ is substantially present to us today in our own time, calling out to us in silence, in our
participation in, and adoration of His presence in the Holy Eucharist. Likewise, He is present to us in the voice of His teachings and liturgies which have been written down,called out to us, celebrated, and accepted by those of faith down through the ages.
In Matthew we read:"If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them wanders away, what will he do? Won’t he leave the ninety-nine others on the hills and go out to search for the one that is lost?" So it is with the Good Shepherd who is ever present to even the lost sheep and continually calls out to them in the hope they will listen to the voice of His teachings and return to the fold of the Church. The sheep who wander do so of their own will, but do so to their certain peril.The faithful sheep are always oriented in concert with the shepherd's will; those who wander soon become disoriented. All is not lost though. Though there are those who abandon God, He will not abandon us. Human beings cannot always be depended on. God is ever
dependable. Human beings disappoint. God never disappoints. He, by His Divine Will is available and present to us, even to those who wander away
from the flock.

Mark Thomas said...

Robert Cardinal Sarah did not deserve to have been "smacked down."

1. His Holiness Pope Francis desires open and frank discussion within the Church. He also noted the following: "In the Orthodox Churches they have kept that pristine liturgy, so beautiful. We have lost a bit the sense of adoration. Instead you keep this beauty of God at the center, the reference. We are in need of this renewal, of this fresh air of the East, of this light of the East."

2. As Cardinal Sarah noted, the promotion of ad orientem worship is in accord with Church teaching and Tradition.

3. At least since 2015 A.D., via prominent articles that he'd written, as well as interviews that he had granted, Cardinal Sarah has urged priests to return as soon as possible to ad orientem worship.

During his July 5, 2016 A.D., "controversial" address at the Sacra Liturgia conference, Cardinal Sarah noted, with great care, the following:

"I want to make an appeal to all priests. You may have read my article in L’Osservatore Romano one year ago (12 June 2015) or my interview with the journal Famille Chr├ętienne in May of this year. On both occasions I said that I believe that *******it is very important that we return as soon as possible to a common orientation, of priests and the faithful turned together in the same direction******* — Eastwards or at least towards the apse — to the Lord who comes, in those parts of the liturgical rites when we are addressing God.

"This practice is permitted by current liturgical legislation. It is perfectly legitimate in the modern rite. Indeed, I think it is a very important step in ensuring that in our celebrations the Lord is truly at the center."

3. Cardinal Sarah's ad orientem-related remarks during the Sacra Liturgia were offered in sober, careful fashion.

"And so, dear Fathers, I humbly and fraternally ask you to implement this practice *******wherever possible,******* *******with prudence******* and with the *******necessary catechesis,******* certainly, but also with a pastor’s confidence, that this is something good for the Church, something good for our people.

*******"Your own pastoral judgement will determine how and when this is possible,******* but perhaps beginning this on the first Sunday of Advent this year, when we attend ‘the Lord who will come’ and ‘who will not delay’ (see: Introit, Mass of Wednesday of the first week of Advent) may be a very good time to do this."

"...wherever possible...with prudence...with necessary catechesis...perhaps...on the first Sunday of Advent..."

Cardinal Sarah's sober, careful remarks, should not have caught anybody off guard as he, at least since 2015 A.D., had suggested that the Latin Church return "as soon as possible" to ad orientem worship.

Therefore, Father McDonald, I don't understand your support for the "smack down" that Pope Francis had delivered supposedly to Cardinal Sarah.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

"Therefore, Father McDonald, I don't understand your support for the "smack down" that Pope Francis had delivered supposedly to Cardinal Sarah."

I grew up in the rural Protestant southern Bible belt before Vatican II. In those days Jack Chick type anti-Catholics caricatured Catholics as naive simpletons who believed their pope to be personally infallible in all his words and actions, and who sycophantically defended and parroted everything he said, however patently misguided and even stupid it might be. I never myself encountered any such simpleton Catholics back then, but paradoxically they are fairly common now, even among educated post-Vatican II clergy who are well-intentioned and seem otherwise generally well-informed.

TJM said...


Amen. Prior to the Council, the average 5th grader had a better understanding of the Faith than most adult Catholics, including clergy, do now.

rcg said...

What about this: Cardinal Sarah deserved to be smacked down because he spoke out of turn and with an apparent authority inappropriate to the occasion. He was, however, correct and despite the smack down is being vendicated and somewhat supported now. My wife remarked, that Cardinal Sarah was a "tough customer". I think he knew the risks and thought it was the right thing to do. So do I.

Rood Screen said...


The press office statement was issued because someone, somewhere, thought the cardinal was announcing new rubrics to take effect this Advent. I would like to know who, exactly, thought this. There was certainly nothing on the internet in English claiming any such rubrics were pending. As for the cardinal, his only fault was assuming that those who would read about his remarks would also have the intelligence to understand them.

TJM said...


Cardinal Sarah's mistake was assuming most of the hierarchy is still Catholic.

Mark Thomas said...

Henry, your reference to Jack Chick reminded me of the following: There are right-wing Catholics who, in their daily determination to attack and condemn Pope Francis, make Jack Chick look like an amateur.

Via the Catholic blogosphere, there are right-wing Catholics who spew venom at Pope Francis, traffic in bizarre conspiracies designed to discredit Pope Francis, and even, a la Jack Chick's comic books, draw cartoons (such as portraying Pope Francis as a hippie) and/or concoct "photographs" to defame Pope Francis.

I also thought about Jack Chick a few weeks ago when the "Catholic" right-wing pushed their latest bizarre Pope Francis-related fantasy world conspiracy theory...that George Soros controls Pope Francis.

The Remnant got into the act via the following anti-Catholic "photograph" and story.

The Remnant depicted George Soros sitting on a stack of money. The United Nation logo appeared next to Soros. Pope Francis was depicted, a la Holy Thursday, washing Soros' feet.

Jack Chick must be proud of various right-wing "Catholics" who occupy the Catholic blogosphere.


Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

I was around during the pontificates of Pope Pius XII and John XXIII, and guess what? These sorts of anti-papal attacks did not exist within the Church. The reason is, both of these men,conducted their affairs with dignity and did not go around giving pressers and making buffoonish statements and providing curbstone "theology." Pope Francis has brought this on himself. Period, end of discussion. When Francis decides to quit the clowning, act papal, and stop pandering to the left which hates the Church, these attacks will stop.

ps: Piux XII and John XXIII were both warm, friendly men, who exhibited a human side, so spare us going down that rathole

Mark Thomas said...


The right-wing denounced Pope Venerable Pius XII's liturgical reforms. His Holiness Pope Francis noted that Pope Venerable Pius XII was denounced as a "heretic", for example, when he (Pope Venerable Pius XII) overturned the traditional midnight Eucharistic Fast.

The right-wing denounced Pope Saint John XXIII as a "revolutionary" when he convoked Vatican II. The right-wing, within and without the Church, labeled him a "communist" following the release of Mater et Magistra.

Via the Metz agreement, the right-wing claimed that Pope Saint John XXIII had sold the Church and Council to the communists.

The Catholic right-wing remains vicious toward Pope Saint John XXIII. They have hurled at him throughout the decades any number of insults.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...


Pope Francis has not brought upon himself the vicious attacks that the Catholic right-wing has launched against him from the beginning of his Pontificate to date.

Catholics, right-wingers or otherwise, do not have the right to sin against charity in regard to Pope Francis (or anybody). Right-wingers don't have the right to misrepresent Pope insult him, concoct conspiracy theories to defame him.

We have the right to offer to him in respectful fashion our concerns in regard to his policies.

But right-wingers sin against Pope Francis via insults, "The Evil Clown," "Frankie the Hippie,"...they draw nasty cartoons or Photoshop images designed to defame him.

Again, Jack Chick must be proud of various Catholic right-wingers who, via the Catholic blogosphere, launch round-the-clock vicious attacks against His Holiness Pope Francis.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Amen Mark Thomas. I totally agree.

TJM said...

Mark Thomas,

You are real out in left field. Cite one mainstream Catholic publication or theologian who trashed Pius XII or St. John XXIII during their pontificates. I won't hold my breath. You are an apologist for a Pope who has little regard for his office or faithful Catholics. I see your're in good company with Anonymous (Satan )

Anonymous said...

TJM, you must think you are God's gift to this earth? LOL
You better go to confession for all of your judgmental statements.
You are not God in case you didn't know.

Mark Thomas said...

TJM, you may begin with Dr. Carol Byrne's articles located on Tradition in Action. You will read the outrage within the Church during the 1950's that was expressed against Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical liturgical reform policies.

Begin here:

Via his diaries penned during Vatican II, Monsignor Joseph Fenton included Popes Venerable Pius XII and Saint John XXIII in his declaration that "since the death of St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men."

The right-wing most definitely denounced Pope Saint John XXIII as a "communist" following the release of Mater et Magistra.

Are you unfamiliar with the Catholic right-wing's attacks against Pope Saint John XXIII?

As Pope Francis noted, the right-wing accused Pope Venerable Pius XII of "heresy" when he (Pope Venerable Pius XII) overthrew the traditional midnight fast. I read decades ago right-wing Catholic publications which featured harsh assessments of the two Popes in question.

Right-wingers insisted that Pope Venerable Pius XII betrayed Father Leonard Feeney and Traditionalists. Father Feeney was persecuted by various Churchmen who, following Pope Venerable Pius XII's decision to enter the Church into the Ecumenical Movement, watered-down EENS to open the door to ecumenism.

On May 28, 1949 A.D., Father Feeney penned a lengthy letter to Pope Venerable Pius XII to beg protection from the Pontiff. The right-wing was angered when Father Feeney's letter was unanswered. They were angered throughout the 1950s as ecumania swept through the Church...and Pope Venerable Pius XII instituted radical reforms.

Right-wingers were enraged when Pope Venerable Pius XII, via his 1956 A.D. Christmas Address, called upon nations to surrendered armaments to the United Nations Organization.

I guess that you're not old enough to recall the right-wing outrage that existed decades ago within the Church against various Papal policies. Pope Francis isn't the first Pope to face the wrath of right-wing Catholics. But he is in good company with holy Popes (such as Venerable Pius XII and Saint John XXIII) who were attacked by right-wingers.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

TJM, please note that I said that "right-wing," not "mainstream" Catholic publications, trashed Popes Venerable Pius XII and Saint John XXIII. That said, various policies of the Popes in question were (and are) subjected to respectful criticism.

Much, pro and con, was written about Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical reforms. Even today, many Catholics study and discuss (respectfully) Pope Venerable Pius's XII's reforms

During the early 1960s, such Catholics as William F. Buckley (requiescat in pace) engaged, as I recall, in respectful criticism in regard to Pope Saint John XXIII's Encyclicals (Mater et Magistra, for sure) and policies.

You said that I'm "an apologist for a Pope who has little regard for his office or faithful Catholics." I am just a Catholic who does his best to heed Jesus Christ's teaching that compels me to remain attached to His Holiness Pope Francis as the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

I also do my best to take seriously the following from the CCC (I wish that certain right-wing Catholics would do so in regard to Pope Francis):

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it.

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

"Pope Venerable" is a bizarre form.

What's next? "Pope Servant of God"?

Gene said...

How about "Pope Laughable."

Anonymous said...

Pope Laughable is also bizarre and reflective of the users need for self-aggrandizement.