POPE JOAN AND THE "COUNCIL OF THE MEDIA"

In a bombshell talk, breathtaking in its clarity, integrity and honesty, on Thursday, our Holy Father, His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI said the following about the "implementation" of the Second Vatican Council, hijacked by the progressive media that focused on the following:

"There was the Council of the Fathers – the true Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and the world perceived the Council through them, through the media. So the immediately efficiently Council that got thorough to the people, was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And while the Council of the Fathers evolved within the faith, it was a Council of the faith that sought the intellectus, that sought to understand and try to understand the signs of God at that moment, that tried to meet the challenge of God in this time to find the words for today and tomorrow. So while the whole council – as I said – moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics. It was a hermeneutic of politics. The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the “people of God”, the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all … popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help. This was the case for the liturgy: there was no interest in the liturgy as an act of faith, but as a something to be made understandable, similar to a community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a trend, which was also historically based, that said: “Sacredness is a pagan thing, possibly even from the Old Testament. In the New Testament the only important thing is that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, that is, in the secular world”. Sacredness ended up as profanity even in worship: worship is not worship but an act that brings people together, communal participation and thus participation as activity. And these translations, trivializing the idea of ​​the Council, were virulent in the practice of implementing the liturgical reform, born in a vision of the Council outside of its own key vision of faith."

In the early days of the reform, especially in the 1960's but even through to today and actually much more today, the media went to those they thought were experts on the Church as changes starting to trickle down to parishes immediately following the Council. I can remember a story on the CBS Evening news where a group of teaching nuns had completely abandoned their habits and this was reported on the evening news. The rationale that was given by the nun interviewed was this is what Vatican II wanted, which implied that Vatican II wanted a radical iconoclasm of all things Catholic and of every aspect of the Catholic Church. This small anecdote illustrates what the Holy Father meant by the "Council of the Media." The media went looking for people to explain the Council and people who had their own agenda for the Church made it sound like that their agenda was the Council's agenda. The reporting of what these people in the Church said and making it on par with the Council Fathers and their deliberations is the Council of the Media. Was the media intentionally trying to team up with the radical iconoclasts of the Church at that time. I don't think so, they didn't know any better. But today is a different story altogether.

One of the most insidious de-constructors of religious life, Benedictine Sister, Joan Chittister (Pope Joan) just wrote the following "honoring" in the most snarky way, the abdication of Pope Benedict XVI. This is the type of person that formed the "Council of the Media." Oddly enough, she writes this "blog" on the "Huffington Post" which in and of itself is what Pope Benedict describes as the "Council of the Media!" Thank you Pope Joan for illustrating what the Holy Father said so crystal clearly:

Pope Benedict XVI's Most Powerful Gift to the Church
Sister Joan Chittister, OSB

The end of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI is a dramatic one. It leaves the Catholic world at a kind of ecclesiastical hiatus between two worlds. The church that brought us to Vatican II, however hard Benedict XVI tried to restore it, is more distant than ever. It is at a crossover point between a church that still looks like the past but which is now forever marked by the issues of the age which Benedict XVI confronted but could not resolve.

The Church whose identity has been forever Western and European is less Western every day and barely European thanks to its declining numbers everywhere. A whole new kind of religious pluralism is everywhere now. Religious sensibilities are no longer regional, which means that a new sense of conscious formation must be seen as distinct from either local culture or politics and cannot be privileged by either.

(MY COMMENT: This following paragraph best illustrates what the Pope said: "The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the “people of God”, the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all … popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help." READ POPE JOAN'S CONFIRMATION OF THIS:)Issues of collegiality are simmering everywhere, the voice of the laity is clear, the integrity of the church itself is suspect. Its total disregard for the contribution of women to it, either as an institution or as a spiritual system, has rent the cloth right down the middle. It is a man's church -- organizationally, theologically and spiritually. But at the same time, secular society rather than the church has taken the lead in promoting the equality and role of women and a lay church which recognizes the spiritual role of women is growing up outside of it.

The attitude of the church toward gays has done as much to distance their families from the church as it has the LGBT community itself. Most obvious of all, the wound to the church as a result of the lingering effects of the sex abuse scandal is deep and costly, in more ways than one.

These are not business-as-usual organizational questions in a changing world. These are issues that touch the very core of what it means to be human, to be holy, to be Christian, to be church. They are not going to go to disappear when this pontificate disappears. They have not been addressed by this pontificate in any way that gives hope for their resolution. But they have been exposed.

The fact that Benedict XVI has very humbly admitted the immensity of the present moment for the Church and decided to step out of it in favor of someone whose energies are fresher and, hopefully, more in touch with the pastoral problems of this transition from one era to another is, perhaps, the most powerful gift of this papacy. Old laws will not save us from this time. Cosmetic changes in the church will not renew it.

(MY COMMENT: POPE JOAN'S FINAL CONFIRMATION OF POPE BENEDICT'S THESIS ABOUT THE "COUNCIL OF THE MEDIA":)As Pope Benedict clearly knows, this will take new energy, deep insight and the willingness to rethink the face of the faith from the bottom up in a world now doing experiments on Mars, grappling with a theology of evolutionary spirituality, coming face to face with all the religions of the world in every city on the planet -- and the implications of that for politics and society, as well as religion -- and breaking down barriers between "Jew and Greek, slave and free, man and woman" everywhere. It will be a contest now between attitudes and new vision. This pope is making way for that new vision. At this time in history, when the world is changing by the day, it is hard to imagine a greater contribution to the church.

MY CONCLUDING COMMENTS: What Pope Joan writes is in fact the crisis the Church is facing. The question is how to resolve it. Her method which one could metaphorically say is the method of the "Council of the Media" is to embrace these cultural fads and trends, to acquiesce to them, to become them. The Episcopal Church has done such. Does Pope Joan hold them up as a model of virtue, a beacon of light and the fastest growing Church in the world? Of course not, she's strident in her ideologies but she's not stupid!

But what is occurring and what Pope Joan disingenuously and intentionally fails to point out is that the trends she correctly sees in society and the Church are in fact sins brought upon us by a grotesque secularization of morality and the false egalitarianism of the age. She is a part of this infection and thus not the anti-biotic for it. The true Church of Christ and the true Second Vatican Council is. Or rather should I say, the true God is!

What Pope Benedict has done but cannot complete because of a lack of energy due to age, he knows must be completed by a robust pope. That awareness in a man his age is breathtaking. And in a man of supreme power, to let go of that power is equally breathtaking and to trust that the Holy Spirit will not be manipulated by the anti-popes such as Pope Joan, or the anti-Councils, such as the "Council of the Media" is equally breathtaking and inspirational, like a new Pentecost!

PLEASE CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR KELSEY

Kelsey's parents have posted this video message from their daughter now diagnosed with cancer in her knee. We are awaiting word on the course of treatment. Continue to pray for her!

GUESS WHO THE POPE MET WITH TODAY IN PRIVATE AUDIENCE, AND THE ONLY CARDINAL HE MET WITH TODAY?

You guessed it!
Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, Archbishop of Genoa! Is he the future Pope Benedict XVII or Pope Pius XIII? Time will tell!


Please note the manner in which Pope Pius XIII confirms:

VINTAGE POST CARD OF SAINT JOSEPH CATHEDRAL, YES, LOOK AT THE POST CARD, IT SAYS SO, I DON'T MAKE THESE THINGS UP!

This is the first image I've seen of the Macon's Cathedral taken from this angle. It was taken more than likely between 1915 and 1920. Please note how the original pipe organ hides the magnificent rose window. The new organ is built around it now, revealing it completely.
Also note the weird confessionals on the right and left at the back of the church, completely open where the laity kneel to confess with the priest hidden. I had been told that confessionals were there at one time, but this is the first evidence of it for me!

Also note the wooden pulpit with its acoustical shell in the right front of the photo! That too is lost.

SOME VERY GOOD INSIGHTS INTO THE MAN, POPE BENEDICT XVI AND HIS DECISION TO RESIGN

Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ on Pope Benedict and his resignation:

PRIESTLY RECRUITMENT IN MACON, GEORGIA

Our parochial vicar, Father Dawid Kwiatkowski, the unshaven one, recruits young men at Mt. de Sales Academy for the priesthood. They seem to like the uniform!

BOMBSHELL! POPE BENEDICT XVI IN WAINING DAYS OF HIS PAPACY KEEPS THEM COMING!

UPDATED! His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI is just too good to give an abridged text of his bombshell talk to the clergy of Rome today, so the whole thing from Vatican Radio is below! The Holy Father is funny too!


BOMBSHELL MONEY QUOTE FROM HIS HOLINESS, POPE BENEDICT XVI, TAUGHT JUST TODAY!:
“The world interpreted the Council through the eyes of the media instead of seeing the true Council of the Fathers and their key vision of faith”. “The journalists’ interpretation of the Council was political”, he continued, and as a result Council was often trivialised with disastrous consequences for the Church: “Seminaries were closed, convents were closed…the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council”.
However concluded Pope Benedict, with a smile of hope for his priests “50 years later, the strength of the real Council has been revealed. Our task for the Year of Faith is to bring the real Second Vatican Council to life.”

THE FOLLOWING IS A SYNOPSIS BUT READ A FULLER COMMENTARY FROM VATICAN RADIO BY PRESSING THIS SENTENCE. I WILL HIGHLIGHT WHAT IS TRULY ASTOUNDING.

From His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, May 14, 2013, the Feast of Saint Valentine:

"It is a special and providential gift - began the Pope - that, before leaving the Petrine ministry, I can once again meet my clergy, the clergy of Rome. It' s always a great joy to see how the Church lives, and how in Rome, the Church is alive: there are pastors who in the spirit of the supreme Shepherd, guide the flock of Christ". "It is a truly Catholic and universal clergy, - he added - and is part of the essence of the Church of Rome itself, to reflect the universality, the catholicity of all nations, of all races, of all cultures”.

“At the same time I am very grateful to the Cardinal Vicar who is helping to reawaken, to rediscover the vocations in Rome itself, because if on the one hand Rome is the city of universality, it must be also a city with its own strong, robust faith, from which vocations are also born. And I am convinced that with the help of the Lord we can find the vocations He Himself gifts us, guide them, help them to develop and thus help the work in the vineyard of the Lord. "

"Today - continued the Pope - you have confessed the Creed before the Tomb of St. Peter: in the Year of the Faith, I see this as a very appropriate, perhaps even necessary, act, that the clergy of Rome meet at the Tomb of the Apostle of which the Lord said, 'to you I entrust my Church. Upon you I build my Church’. Before the Lord, together with Peter, you have confessed: 'you are Christ, the Son of the living God.' Thus the Church grows: together with Peter, confessing Christ, following Christ. And we do this always. I am very grateful for your prayers that I have felt - as I said Wednesday - almost physically. Though I am now retiring to a life of prayer, I will always be close to all you and I am sure all of you will be close to me, even though I remain hidden to the world. "

"For today, given the conditions of my age - he said - I could not prepare a great, real address, as one might expect, but rather I thought of chatting about the Second Vatican Council, as I saw it".

The Pope began with an anecdote: "In 1959 I was appointed professor at the University of Bonn, which is attended by students, seminarians of the diocese of Cologne and other surrounding dioceses. So, I came into contact with the Cardinal of Cologne, Cardinal Frings. Cardinal Siri of Genoa, - I think it was in 1961 - had organized a series of conferences with several cardinals in Europe, and the Council had invited the archbishop of Cologne to hold a conference, entitled: "The Council and the world of modern thought." The Cardinal invited me - the youngest of the professors - to write a project; he liked the project and proposed this text, as I had written it to the public, in Genoa".

"Shortly after - he continued - Pope John invited him to come [to Rome –ed] and he was afraid he had perhaps said maybe something incorrect, false and that he had been asked to come for a reprimand, perhaps even to deprive him of his red hat ... (priests laughing) Yes ... when his secretary dressed him for the audience, he said: 'Perhaps now I will be wearing this stuff for the last time... (the priests laugh). Then he went in. Pope John came towards him and hugged him, saying, 'Thank you, Your Eminence, you said things I have wanted to say, but I had not found the words to say' ... (the priests laugh, applaud) Thus, the Cardinal knew he was on the right track, and I was invited to accompany him to the Council, first as his personal advisor, then - in the first period, perhaps in November '62 – I was also appointed as an official perito [expert-ed] for the Council”.

Benedict XVI continued: "So, we went to the Council not only with joy, but with enthusiasm. The expectation was incredible. We hoped that everything would be renewed, that a new Pentecost really would come, a new era of the Church, because the Church was not robust enough at that time: the Sunday practice was still good, even vocations to the priesthood and religious life were already somewhat fewer, but still sufficient. But nevertheless, there was the feeling that the Church was going on, but getting smaller, that somehow it seemed like a reality of the past and not the bearer of the future. And now, we hoped that this relationship would be renewed, changed, that the Church would once again source of strength for today and tomorrow. "

The Pope then recalled how they saw "that the relationship between the Church and the modern period was one of some ‘contrasts’ from the outset, starting with the error in the Galileo case, "and the idea was to correct this wrong start "and to find a new relationship between the Church and the best forces in the world, "to open up the future of humanity, to open up to real progress."


The Pope recalled: "We were full of hope, enthusiasm and also of good will." "I remember - he said - the Roman Synod was considered as a negative model" - where - it is said - they read prepared texts, and the members of the Synod simply approved them, and that was how the Synod was held. The bishops agreed not to do so because they themselves were the subject of the Council. So - he continued - even Cardinal Frings, who was famous for his absolute, almost meticulous, fidelity to the Holy Father said that the Pope has summoned the bishops in an ecumenical council as a subject to renew the Church.

Benedict XVI recalled that "the first time this attitude became clear, was immediately on the first day." On the first day, the Commissions were to be elected and the lists and nominations were impartially prepared. And these lists were to be voted on. But soon the Fathers said, "No, are not simply going to vote on already made lists. We are the subject. "They had to move the elections - he added - because the Fathers themselves wanted to get to know each other a little ', they wanted to make their own lists. So it was done. "It was a revolutionary act - he said - but an act of conscience, of responsibility on the part of the Council Fathers."

So - the Pope said - a strong activity of mutual understanding began. And this - he said - was customary for the entire period of the Council: "small transversal meetings." In this way he became familiar with the great figures like Father de Lubac, Danielou, Congar, and so on. And this – he said "was an experience of the universality of the Church and of the reality of the Church, that does not merely receive imperatives from above, but grows and advances together, under the leadership - of course – of the Successor of Peter" .

He then reiterated that everyone “arrived with great expectations" because "there had never been a Council of this size," but not everyone knew how to make it work. The French, German, Belgian, Dutch episcopates, the so-called " Rhineland Alliance”, had the most clearly defined intentions." And in the first part of the Council - he said - it was they who suggested the road ahead, then it’s activities rapidly expanded and soon all participated in the "creativity of the Council."

The French and the Germans - he observed - had many interests in common, even with quite different nuances. Their initial intention - seemingly simple - "was the reform of the liturgy, which had begun with Pius XII," which had already reformed Holy Week; their second intention was ecclesiology; their third the Word of God, Revelation, and then also ecumenism. The French, much more than the Germans - he noted - still had the problem of dealing with the situation of the relationship between the Church and the world.

Referring to the reform of the liturgy, the Pope recalled that "after the First World War, a liturgical movement had grown in Western Central Europe," as "the rediscovery of the richness and depth of the liturgy," which hitherto was almost locked within the priest’s Roman Missal, while the people prayed with their prayer books "that were made according to the heart of the people", so that "the task was to translate the high content, the language of the classical liturgy, into more moving words, that were closer to the heart of the people. But they were almost two parallel liturgies: the priest with the altar servers, who celebrated the Mass according to the Missal and the lay people who prayed the Mass with their prayer books”. " Now - he continued - "The beauty, the depth, the Missal’s wealth of human and spiritual history " was rediscovered as well as the need more than one representative of the people, a small altar boy, to respond "Et cum spiritu your" etc. , to allow for "a real dialogue between priest and people," so that the liturgy of the altar and the liturgy of the people really were "one single liturgy, one active participation": "and so it was that the liturgy was rediscovered, renewed."

The Pope said he saw the fact that the Council started with the liturgy as a very positive sign, because in this way "the primacy of God” was self evident”. Some – he noted - criticized the Council because it spoke about many things, but not about God: instead, it spoke of God and its first act was to speak of God and open to the entire holy people the possibility of worshiping God, in the common celebration of the liturgy of the Body and Blood of Christ. In this sense - he observed - beyond the practical factors that advised against immediately starting with controversial issues, it was actually "an act of Providence" that the Council began with the liturgy, God, Adoration.

The Holy Father then recalled the essential ideas of the Council: especially the paschal mystery as a centre of Christian existence, and therefore of Christian life, as expressed in Easter and Sunday, which is always the day of the Resurrection, "over and over again we begin our time with the Resurrection, with an encounter with the Risen One. " In this sense - he observed - it is unfortunate that today, Sunday has been transformed into the end of the week, while it is the first day, it is the beginning: "inwardly we must bear in mind this is the beginning, the beginning of Creation, the beginning of the re-creation of the Church, our encounter with the Creator and with the Risen Christ. " The Pope stressed the importance of this dual content of Sunday: it is the first day, that is the feast of the Creation, as we believe in God the Creator, and encounter with the Risen One who renews Creation: "its real purpose is to create a world which is a response to God's love. "

The Council also pondered the principals of the intelligibility of the Liturgy - instead of being locked up in an unknown language, which was no longer spoken - and active participation. "Unfortunately – he said - these principles were also poorly understood." In fact, intelligibility does not mean "banalizing" because the great texts of the liturgy - even in the spoken languages ​​ - are not easily intelligible, "they require an ongoing formation of the Christian, so that he may grow and enter deeper into the depths of the mystery, and thus comprehend". And also concerning the Word of God - he asked - who can honestly say they understand the texts of Scripture, simply because they are in their own language? "Only a permanent formation of the heart and mind can actually create intelligibility and participation which is more than one external activity, which is an entering of the person, of his or her being into communion with the Church and thus in fellowship with Christ."

The Pope then addressed the second issue: the Church. He recalled that the First Vatican Council was interrupted by the Franco-Prussian War and so had emphasized only the doctrine on primacy, which was described as "thanks to God at that historical moment", and "it was very much needed for the Church in the time that followed”. But - he said - "it was just one element in a broader ecclesiology", already in preparation. So a a fragment remained from the Council. So from the beginning - he said – the intention was to realise a more complete ecclesiology at a later. Here, too, - he said - the conditions seemed very good, because after the First World War, the sense of Church was reborn in a new way. A sense of the Church began to reawaken in people’s souls and the Protestant bishop spoke of the "century of the Church." What was especially rediscovered from Vatican I, was the concept of the mystical body of Christ, the aim was to speak about and understand the Church not as an organization, something structural, legal, institutional, which it also is, but as an organism, a vital reality that enters my soul, so that I myself, with my own soul as a believer, am a constructive element of the Church as such. In this sense, Pius XII wrote the encyclical Mistici Corporis Christi, as a step towards a completion of the ecclesiology of Vatican I.

I would say the theological discussion of the 30s-40s, even 20s, was completely under the sign of the word " Mitici Corporis." It was a discovery that created so much joy in this time and in this context the formula arose "We are the Church, the Church is not a structure, something ... we Christians, together, we are all the living body of the Church" . And of course this is true in the sense that we, the true ‘we’ of believers, along with the ‘I’ of Christ, the Church. Eachone of us, not we, a group that claims to be the Church. No: this "we are Church" requires my inclusion in the great "we" of believers of all times and places.

So, the first idea: complete the ecclesiology in theological way, but progressing in a structural manner, that is alongside the succession of Peter, his unique function, to even better define the function of the bishops of the Episcopal body. To do this, the word "collegiality" was found, which provoked great, intense and even – I would say – exaggerated discussions. But it was the word, it might have been another one, but this was needed to express that the bishops, together, are the continuation of the twelve, the body of the Apostles. We said: only one bishop, that of Rome, is the successor of one particular apostle Peter. All others become successors of the apostles entering the body that continues the body of the apostles. And just so the body of bishops, the college, is the continuation of the body of the twelve, so it is necessary, it has its function, its rights and duties.

"It appeared to many - the Pope said - as a struggle for power, and maybe someone did think about power, but basically it was not about power, but the complementarity of the factors and the completeness of the body of the Church with the bishops, the successors the apostles as bearers, and each of them is a pillar of the Church together with this great body”.

These - he continued - were the two fundamental elements in the search for a comprehensive theological vision of ecclesiology, meanwhile, after the '40s, in the '50s, a little 'criticism of the concept of the Body of Christ had already been born: mystic - someone said - is too exclusive and risk overshadowing the concept of the people of God. And the Council - he observed - rightly, accepted this fact, which in the Fathers is considered an expression of the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. We pagans, we are not in and of ourselves the people of God, but we become the children of Abraham and therefore the people of God, by entering into communion with Christ who is the only seed of Abraham. And entering into communion with Him, being one with Him, we too are people of God. That is, the concept of "people of God" implies continuity of the Testaments, continuity of God's history in the world, with men, but also implies a Christological element. Only through Christology do we become the people of God, and the two concepts are combined. And the Council - said the Pope - decided to create a Trinitarian construction of ecclesiology: the people of God-the-Father-Body of Christ- Temple of the Holy Spirit.

But only after the Council - he continued – was an element that had been somewhat hidden, brought to light, even as early as the Council itself, that is, the link between the people of God, the Body of Christ, and their communion with Christ, in the Eucharistic union. "Here we become the body of Christ, that is, the relationship between the people of God and the Body of Christ creates a new reality, that is, the communion." And the Council - he continued - led to the concept of communion as a central concept. I would say philologically that it had not yet fully matured in the Council, but it is the result of the Council that the concept of communion becomes more and more an expression of the sense of the Church, communion in different dimensions, communion with the Triune God, who Himself is communion between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, sacramental communion, concrete communion in the Episcopate and in the life of the Church.


The problem of Revelation provoked even greater discussion: at issue was the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and above all this interested exegetes of a greater freedom, who felt somewhat – shall we say - in a situation of negativity before Protestants, who were making great discoveries, while Catholics felt a little '"handicapped" by the need to submit themselves to Magisterium. There was therefore a very concrete issue at stake: how free are exegetes? How does one read Scriptures well? What is meant by tradition? It was a pluri-dimensional battle that I can not outline now, but certainly what is important thing is that Scripture is the Word of God and the Church is subject to the Scriptures, obeys the Word of God and is not above Scripture. Yet, Scripture is Scripture only because there is the living Church, its living subject, without the living subject of the Church Scripture is only a book, open to different interpretations but which does not give any final clarity.

Here, the battle - as I said - was difficult and the intervention of Pope Paul VI was decisive. This intervention shows all the delicacy of the Father, his responsibility for the outcome of the Council, but also his great respect for the Council. The idea had emerged that Scripture is complete, everything can be found therein, so there was no need for tradition, and that Magisterium has nothing to say to us. Then the Pope sent the Council, I believe, 14 formulas of a sentence to be included in the text on Revelation and gave us, gave the Fathers the freedom to choose one of 14 (formulas), but said: "One has to be chosen to complete the text". I remember, more or less, [Latin] that the formula spoke of the Churches’ certainty of the faith is not based solely on a book, but needs the illuminated subject of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. Only in this way can Scripture speak and bring to bear all of its authority. We chose this phrase in the Doctrinal Commission, one of the 14 formulas, it is crucial, I think, to show the indispensability, the necessity of the Church, and to understand what tradition means, the living body in which the Word lives from the beginning and from which it receives its light, in which it was born. Because the simple fact of the Canon is an ecclesial fact: these writings are Scripture is the result of the illumination of the Church that found this canon of Scripture within herself, she found, she did not make, but found. Only and ever in this communion of the living Church can one really understand, read the Scriptures as the Word of God, as the Word that guides us in life and in death.

As I said, this was a difficult discussion, but thanks to the Pope and thanks - let's say - to the light of the Holy Spirit who was present at the Council, a document that is one of the most beautiful and also innovative whole Council was created, which demands further study, because even today the exegesis tends to read Scripture outside of the Church, outside of faith, only in the so-called spirit of the historical-critical method, an important method but never able to give solutions as a final certainty only if we believe that these are not human words: they are the words of God, and only if the living subject to which God has spoken, to which God speaks is alive, can we correctly interpret Sacred Scripture. And there is still much to be done, as I said in the preface of my book on Jesus, to arrive at a reading of Scripture that is really in the spirit of the Council. Here the application of the Council is not yet complete, it has yet to be accomplished.

Finally, ecumenism. I do not want to enter into these problems, but it was obvious - especially after the passions of Christians in the time of national socialism - that Christians could find unity, at least seek unity, but also that only God can give unity. We are still on this journey.

Now, with these issues, the Rhine alliance - so to speak - had done its work: the second part of the Council is much broader. Now the themes of "the world today", "the modern era" and the Church emerged with greater urgency, and with them, the themes of responsibility for building of this world, society’s responsibility for the future of this world and eschatological hope, the ethical responsibility of Christians, where they find their guides and then religious freedom, progress and all that, and relations with other religions.

Now all the players in the Council really entered into discussions, not only the Americas-United States with a strong interest in religious freedom. In the third period they told the Pope: "We can not go home without bringing with us a declaration on religious freedom passed by the Council." The Pope, however, had firmness and decision, the patience to delay the text until the fourth period to reach a maturation and a fairly complete consensus among the Fathers of the Council. I say, not only the Americans had now entered with great force into the Council arena but also Latin America, knowing full well the misery of their people, a Catholic continent and their responsibility for the situation of the faith of these people. And Africa, Asia, also saw the need for interreligious dialogue: increased problems that we Germans - I must say - at the beginning had not seen. I cannot go into greater depth on this now. The great document "Gaudium et Spes" describes very well the problem analyzed between Christian eschatology and worldly progress, between our responsibility for the society of tomorrow and the responsibility of the Christian before eternity, and so it also renewed Christian ethics, the foundations. But unexpectedly, a document that responded in a more synthetic and concrete manner to the great challenges of the time, took shape outside of this great document, namely "Nostra Aetate". From the beginning there were our Jewish friends, who said to us Germans especially, but not only to us, that after the sad events of this century, this decade of Nazism, the Catholic Church has to say a word on the Old Testament , the Jewish people. They also said "it was clear that the Church is not responsible for the Shoah. those who have committed these crimes were Christians, for the most part, we must deepen and renew the Christian conscience, even if we know that the true believers always resisted these things”. And so, it was clear that we had to reflect on our relationship with the world of the ancient people of God. We also understood that the Arab countries - the bishops of the Arab countries - were not happy with this. They feared a glorification of the State of Israel, which they did not want to, of course. They said, "Well, a truly theological indication on the Jewish people is good, it is necessary, but if you are to speak about this, you must also speak of Islam. Only in this way can we be balanced. Islam is also a great challenge and the Church should clarify its relationship with Islam". This is something that we didn’t really understand at the time, a little, but not much. Today we know how necessary it was.

And when we started to work also on Islam, they said: "But there are also other religions of the world: all of Asia! Think about Buddhism, Hinduism ... ". And so, instead of an initial declaration originally meant only for the ancient people of God, a text on interreligious dialogue was created anticipating by thirty years what would later reveal itself in all of its intensity and importance. I can not enter into it now, but if you read the text, you see that it is very dense and prepared by people who really knew the truth and it briefly indicates, in a few words, what is essential. Thus also the foundations of a dialogue in diversity, in faith to the uniqueness of Christ, who is One. It is not possible for a believer to think that religions are all variations on a theme of "no". There is a reality of the living God who has spoken, and is a God, a God incarnate, therefore the Word of God is really the Word of God. But there is religious experience, with a certain human light of creation and therefore it is necessary and possible to enter into dialogue and thus open up to each other and open all peoples up to the peace of God, of all his children, and his entire family.

Thus, these two documents, religious freedom and "Nostra Aetate" associated with "Gaudium et Spes" are a very important trilogy, the importance of which has only been revealed over the decades, and we are still working to understand this uniqueness of the revelation of God, uniqueness of God incarnate in Christ and the multiplicity of religions with which we seek peace and also an open heart to the light of the Holy Spirit who enlightens and guides to Christ.

I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers - the true Council - but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council in and of itself, and the world perceived the Council through them, through the media. So the immediately efficiently Council that got thorough to the people, was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. And while the Council of the Fathers evolved within the faith, it was a Council of the faith that sought the intellectus, that sought to understand and try to understand the signs of God at that moment, that tried to meet the challenge of God in this time to find the words for today and tomorrow. So while the whole council - as I said - moved within the faith, as fides quaerens intellectum, the Council of journalists did not, naturally, take place within the world of faith but within the categories of the media of today, that is outside of the faith, with different hermeneutics. It was a hermeneutic of politics. The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the "people of God", the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all ... popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help. This was the case for the liturgy: there was no interest in the liturgy as an act of faith, but as a something to be made understandable, similar to a community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a trend, which was also historically based, that said: "Sacredness is a pagan thing, possibly even from the Old Testament. In the New Testament the only important thing is that Christ died outside: that is, outside the gates, that is, in the secular world". Sacredness ended up as profanity even in worship: worship is not worship but an act that brings people together, communal participation and thus participation as activity. And these translations, trivializing the idea of ​​the Council, were virulent in the practice of implementing the liturgical reform, born in a vision of the Council outside of its own key vision of faith. And it was so, also in the matter of Scripture: Scripture is a book, historical, to treat historically and nothing else, and so on.

And we know that this Council of the media was accessible to all. So, dominant, more efficient, this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed liturgy trivialized ... and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real strength of the Council was present and slowly it has emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that 50 years after the Council, we see how this Virtual Council is breaking down, getting lost and the true Council is emerging with all its spiritual strength. And it is our task, in this Year of Faith, starting from this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council with the power of the Holy Spirit is realized and Church is really renewed. We hope that the Lord will help us. I, retired in prayer, will always be with you, and together we will move ahead with the Lord in certainty. The Lord is victorious. Thank you.

Benedict XVI
Meeting with Roman Clergy
February 14, 2013

BOMBSHELL, BREAKING NEWS! AND BOMBSHELL ASH WEDNESDAY HOMILY! POPE BENEDICT XVI IS A MASON! HE IS A MASTER BRICK LAYER, BRICK BY BRICK!

POPE BENEDICT'S "NOT-SO-VEILED" PROPHETIC WORDS TO THE CARDINAL-ELECTORS AT HIS FINAL PUBLIC MASS ON ASH WEDNESDAY. IN THIS LIGHT, THE ENTIRE HOMILY IS A BOMBSHELL THAT DOES NOT EXPLODE THE HOLY FATHER'S MASONRY BUT SHORES IT UP IN THE LAST DAYS OF HIS PAPACY!

The homily the Holy Father gave for Ash Wednesday was a world-wide, eye-opening message to the Church and the cardinal-electors for the next Successor of Saint Peter. If you thought this pope would not still to try to influence the future of the Church while he is still the Successor of Saint Peter, think again. Will he do so, even implicitly, after he is no longer the Successor of St. Peter? You can bet your life on it. A Pope Emeritus who may well be a living saint, still living in the Vatican? Hello!

At any rate, I will highlight in bold what I think are direct words not only to the Catholic faithful and the "world" as St. John's Gospel uses the word, but more importantly to the cardinal-electors who certainly are being influenced even now by the living pope and later by the pope-emeritus! Yes, Pope Benedict is a mason, but not in the anti-Catholic usage of the word!

The Holy Father's last public homily at Mass as pope, from Ash Wednesday:

Venerable Brothers,
Dear Brothers and Sisters!

Today, Ash Wednesday, we begin a new Lenten journey, a journey that extends over forty days and leads us towards the joy of Easter, to victory of Life over death. Following the ancient Roman tradition of Lenten stations, we are gathered for the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The tradition says that the first statio took place in the Basilica of Saint Sabina on the Aventine Hill. Circumstances suggested we gather in St. Peter's Basilica. Tonight there are many of us gathered around the tomb of the Apostle Peter, to also ask him to pray for the path of the Church going forward at this particular moment in time, to renew our faith in the Supreme Pastor, Christ the Lord. For me it is also a good opportunity to thank everyone, especially the faithful of the Diocese of Rome, as I prepare to conclude the Petrine ministry, and I ask you for a special remembrance in your prayer.

The readings that have just been proclaimed offer us ideas which, by the grace of God, we are called to transform into a concrete attitude and behaviour during Lent. First of all the Church proposes the powerful appeal which the prophet Joel addresses to the people of Israel, "Thus says the Lord, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning" (2.12). Please note the phrase "with all your heart," which means from the very core of our thoughts and feelings, from the roots of our decisions, choices and actions, with a gesture of total and radical freedom. But is this return to God possible? Yes, because there is a force that does not reside in our hearts, but that emanates from the heart of God and the power of His mercy. The prophet says: "return to the Lord, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and relenting in punishment" (v. 13). It is possible to return to the Lord, it is a 'grace', because it is the work of God and the fruit of faith that we entrust to His mercy. But this return to God becomes a reality in our lives only when the grace of God penetrates and moves our innermost core, gifting us the power that "rends the heart". Once again the prophet proclaims these words from God: "Rend your hearts and not your garments" (v. 13). Today, in fact, many are ready to "rend their garments" over scandals and injustices – which are of course caused by others - but few seem willing to act according to their own "heart", their own conscience and their own intentions, by allowing the Lord transform, renew and convert them.

This "return to me with all your heart," then, is a reminder that not only involves the individual but the entire community. Again we heard in the first reading: "Blow the horn in Zion! Proclaim a fast, call an assembly! Gather the people, sanctify the congregation; Assemble the elderly; gather the children, even infants nursing at the breast; Let the bridegroom leave his room, and the bride her bridal tent (vv.15-16). The community dimension is an essential element in faith and Christian life. Christ came "to gather the children of God who are scattered into one" (Jn 11:52). The "we" of the Church is the community in which Jesus brings us together (cf. Jn 12:32), faith is necessarily ecclesial. And it is important to remember and to live this during Lent: each person must be aware that the penitential journey cannot be faced alone, but together with many brothers and sisters in the Church.


MY COMMENT AND THIS IS THE BOMBSHELL TO THE CARDINAL-ELECTORS!:Finally, the prophet focuses on the prayers of priests, who, with tears in their eyes, turn to God, saying: " Between the porch and the altar let the priests weep, let the ministers of the LORD weep and say: “Spare your people, Lord! Do not let your heritage become a disgrace, a byword among the nations! Why should they say among the peoples, ‘Where is their God?’"(V.17). This prayer leads us to reflect on the importance of witnessing to faith and Christian life, for each of us and our community, so that we can reveal the face of the Church and how this face is, at times, disfigured. I am thinking in particular of the sins against the unity of the Church, of the divisions in the body of the Church. Living Lent in a more intense and evident ecclesial communion, overcoming individualism and rivalry is a humble and precious sign for those who have distanced themselves from the faith or who are indifferent.

"Well, now is the favourable time, this is the day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:2). The words of the Apostle Paul to the Christians of Corinth resonate for us with an urgency that does not permit absences or inertia. The term "now" is repeated and can not be missed, it is offered to us as a unique opportunity. And the Apostle's gaze focuses on sharing with which Christ chose to characterize his life, taking on everything human to the point of taking on all of man’s sins. The words of St. Paul are very strong: "God made him sin for our sake." Jesus, the innocent, the Holy One, "He who knew no sin" (2 Cor 5:21), bears the burden of sin sharing the outcome of death, and death of the Cross with humanity. The reconciliation we are offered came at a very high price, that of the Cross raised on Golgotha, on which the Son of God made man was hung. In this, in God’s immersion in human suffering and the abyss of evil, is the root of our justification. The "return to God with all your heart" in our Lenten journey passes through the Cross, in following Christ on the road to Calvary, to the total gift of self. It is a journey on which each and every day we learn to leave behind our selfishness and our being closed in on ourselves, to make room for God who opens and transforms our hearts. And as St. Paul reminds us, the proclamation of the Cross resonates within us thanks to the preaching of the Word, of which the Apostle himself is an ambassador. It is a call to us so that this Lenten journey be characterized by a more careful and assiduous listening to the Word of God, the light that illuminates our steps.

In the Gospel passage according of Matthew, to whom belongs to the so-called Sermon on the Mount, Jesus refers to three fundamental practices required by the Mosaic Law: almsgiving, prayer and fasting. These are also traditional indications on the Lenten journey to respond to the invitation to "return to God with all your heart."

MY COMMENTS: THE FINAL BOMBSHELL OF A HOMILY THAT IS A BOMBSHELL: But he points out that both the quality and the truth of our relationship with God is what qualifies the authenticity of every religious act. For this reason he denounces religious hypocrisy, a behaviour that seeks applause and approval. The true disciple does not serve himself or the "public", but his Lord, in simplicity and generosity: "And your Father who sees everything in secret will reward you" (Mt 6,4.6.18). Our fitness will always be more effective the less we seek our own glory and the more we are aware that the reward of the righteous is God Himself, to be united to Him, here, on a journey of faith, and at the end of life, in the peace light of coming face to face with Him forever (cf. 1 Cor 13:12).

Dear brothers and sisters, we begin our Lenten journey with trust and joy. May the invitation to conversion , to "return to God with all our heart", resonate strongly in us, accepting His grace that makes us new men and women, with the surprising news that is participating in the very life of Jesus. May none of us, therefore, be deaf to this appeal, also addressed in the austere rite, so simple and yet so beautiful, of the imposition of ashes, which we will shortly carry out. May the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church and model of every true disciple of the Lord accompany us in this time. Amen!

IT IS LIKE A FUNERAL FOR A POPE WHILE HE IS ALIVE AND POPE PIUS XIII?

Perhaps it is a form of grief or mourning, but I am finding the last days of this papacy to be the most depressing thing I've witnessed in Rome and it is surreal. Because it is still so fresh, it is like the death watch with my mother that lasted about three weeks, with ups and downs. It is a different kind of grief than if the Holy Father had actually died. Mourning a "dying" pope and giving him a Requiem prior to his death with a new kind of "May the Angels Lead You into Paradise" and a new kind of rolling "bier":

And could this be Pope Pius XIII? He looks a bit like Pius XII doesn't he? He has good qualification too! Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, Archbishop of Genoa (Italy),

(From ABC News)Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco, 70, Italy

The Archbishop of Genoa has a "reputation for intellectual heft."

Bagnasco, two-time president of the Italian Bishops Conference, has a history of taking a strong stance on church doctrine.

In 2007, he was the subject of death threats after he led a campaign against proposed Italian legislation to grant some legal rights to unmarried couples, including people in same-sex relationships.

Italians form the largest voting block in the College of Cardinals, with 25 percent of the seats, and could help propel Bagnasco into the papacy.

My Comments: The "world" as St. John's Gospel understands it does not want a Catholic pope. The criteria they use are the "world's" criteria as St. John's Gospel understand "world." In this context, "world" is not of God, it is of powers and principalities.

So what kind of pope does the "world" want?

They want a pope who does not uphold "Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law." So the man they want is one who is in favor of being pro-choice and pro-artificial contraception; pro-same sex marriage, and pro-women "priests."

Will we get a pope the "world" wants? Stay tuned!

REFORM IN CONTINUITY, MUSIC OF THE MASS

Bishop Alexander Sample's pastoral letter on Music in the liturgy! Kudos to the Bishop for his reform in continuity insights into music in the Mass--it is here to stay no matter who is in charge!

Pastoral Letter: Rejoice In The Lord Always by

HEARING THIS IN ITALIAN MAKES IT ALL THE MORE MOVING FOR ME; IT IS SO SAD!

This happened earlier this morning at the papal Wednesday audience. The second video says it all!

REMEMBER YOU ARE DUST AND UNTO DUST YOU SHALL RETURN

This may well be what the next Holy Father may model for us and promote untiringly for the reform of the liturgy in continuity and ever faithful to Vatican II and Almighty God, we can hope and pray:


Yes, traditionalists who love the 1962 missal are somewhat concerned about the disposition of the next Holy Father toward their legitimate desire to be able to celebrate this Mass and freely so. And yes, since Summorum Pontificum, the celebration of this Mass has spread to many places, but still remains a small minority. In the post below we can compared the number of parishes worldwide in terms of percentage which celebrate the EF Mass on a regular basis to the percentage of current Cardinals eligible for the papacy in terms of percentage. It is more than likely the same or the Cardinal's percentage may be higher!

So what is the true legacy of Pope Benedict XVI when it comes to the reform of the Mass in continuity?

First of all, we must keep in mind that the Holy Father since becoming pope has never celebrated the EF publicly. Has he done so privately with a small group? I do not know.

Secondly, what he has modeled is fidelity to Sacrosanctum Concilium in how the Ordinary form of the Mass is to be celebrated. It is here that I think we have a higher percentage of cardinals, much higher in fact, who are on board with Pope Benedict's vision of the post Vatican II Mass--reform in continuity. This will continue I believe.

So even if the next pope does not encourage the EF, he more than likely won't discourage it either. The status quo will remain.

For those who think the 1962 missal will become the norm once again, that is a pipe dream, but I won't make predictions about the mind of God.

What we can hope for from a goodly number of candidates for the papacy is the on-going reform in continuity that will lead to another Roman Missal with the suppression of the current two except by way of indult.

I think the two things that may change will be the revision of the Penitential Act to be more like the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and probably based on the 1965 missal, with the proper placement or traditional placement of the Kyrie which is always sung or said even for funerals and nuptial Masses as it is intrinsic to the order of Mass and by itself, freestanding, is not penitential, and a return to the traditional offertory prayers. I don't see anything else more radical apart from the tweaking of the calendar which the Anglican Usage already has done in a wonderful way and encouragement of ad orientem or the codifying of the traditional altar arrangement even when facing the sacred assembly.

I think the propers of the Mass will be mandated once again. Of course I don't believe the revised lectionary will be suppressed ever, but the Gradual will be a legitimate substitution for the Responsorial Psalm.

I truly believe the Mass that the Chant Music Association of America had here in January is what the Mass of the future will look and sound like even if completely in the vernacular. I don't think we'll every go back to a completely mandated Latin Mass, although Latin will always be an option for any Mass in the Church.

So the propers as well as the other parts of the Mass could be in English or Latin depending on local decisions of pastors.

But this is what I foresee in the future for most parishes and this is the direction of the Liturgy the new Holy Father will certainly kick up a notch, God willing as evidenced by the above CMAA video above.

And remember, if we don't get what we want, we must accept what the Lord gives us including the Holy Cross. Remember you are dust and unto dust you will return. The same is true also of the earthly liturgy!

Everything and everyone one is passing away. Remember you are dust and unto dust you shall return!

CARDINALS WHO HAVE OFFERED THE 1962 MISSAL OF THE ONE ROMAN RITE

No matter who is elected pope, I do not think anything that Pope Benedict has brought about or allowed, especially through papal decree, such as Summorum Pontificum will be undone.

So if a pope is elected who has never celebrated the 1962 missal since SP was issued I don't think there is any cause for alarm. Keep in mind the vast majority of cardinals have not chosen to do so. But neither has Pope Benedict as pope.

The following are the cardinals who have celebrated both forms of the one Roman Rite when this became the norm for the Universal Church:

Raymond Cardinal Burke
Carlo Cardinal Caffarra
Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera
Velasio Cardinal De Paolis
John Cardinal Tong Hon
Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez
George Cardinal Pell
Albert Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith
Jean-Pierre Cardinal Ricard
Franc Cardinal Rodé
André Cardinal Vingt-Trois

MY THREE CHOICES FOR THE NEXT POPE, NOT THAT I AM CLAIRVOYANT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, OR MAYBE?

Watch More News Videos at ABC
|
Technology News
|
Celebrity News

MY NUMBER ONE CHOICE:

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI:

He has much experience and would serve as an interim pope. It would be a delicious turn of events and put us back at square one and the traditional manner in which popes live out their office. He could take on the new name in continuity: Pope John Paul Benedict I

MY NUMBER TWO CHOICE:

Angelo Cardinal Scola:

Since I am half Italian, I certainly would offer up Angelo Cardinal Scola. The photo below is enough qualification to make him a successor to Pope Benedict, the cope, the German look, the Italian heart:

MY NUMBER THREE CHOICE:

Marc Cardinal Ouellet

Since I am half Canadian, I would also offer up Marc Cardinal Ouellet. While a Canadian and thus appealing to the United Kingdom and America, he is also from Quebec and would appeal to the French. He is universal. He likes Roman Chasubles!

Save this abdication video, it is historic, to say the least! Watch the more muted shock of the papal MC, Msgr. Marini and the more visible shock of the bishop to his left!

SADNESS, EXCITMENT AND ANXIETY: CHARTING A NEW COURSE WITH A NEW POPE AND A POPE EMERITUS

But first for a little levity, because you can't make this stuff up! Yes, lightening actually struck St. Peter's hours after the Holy Father told the world what he was giving up for Lent!

And yes, this is an actual image, no kidding, of lightening striking St. Peter's after the Holy Father's bombshell!

Now that I've had 24 hours to meditate on the Holy Father's bombshell, I have a great sense of sadness for him and our Church. I think Cardinal Dolan summed it up well when he described his own feelings on this like watching a parent who is growing old coming to the realization that the end is near and the vigor and vibrancy that once was is no longer, both psychically and mentally, and there will be no recovery of these things on this side of life. The pilgrimage is coming to an end.

My mom was one month shy of her 93 birthday when she died this past September 18th. But I entered into a depression of sorts just watching her very slow physical and mental decline these past five years, although she fared much better than most her age and was pretty independent until her last three weeks. So much was taken from her, her independence, her ability to take care of her financial concerns, to cook, to drive and to remember as well as and more alarming, a developing gullibility. I feared that she would be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people either coming to the door or on the phone as she trusted everyone and believed what everyone said to her. I cannot tell you how many times I had to have charges taken off her charge card, because someone called, she engaged them in conversation and was taken by the sales pitch. But the thing that was really hard was being with her and realizing how much she slept.

For many, not all, these things happen. Usually though most don't realize that is happening. The Holy Father has cut things off at the pass and has acted wisely, although there is a part of me that would have wanted him to be like Pope John Paul II, to hang on to the very bitter end.

But our Holy Father has always told us that he is no John Paul II. God bless Pope Benedict who will now be a pioneer of what the ministry of a pope-emeritus will be. That's kind of exciting isn't it! What do we call him? He'll always be Pope Benedict or simply Benedict! (Add the numbers if you wish.)

But who will be the Holy Father's successor and what influence whether actual or simply being around, will Pope Benedict have on the selection process and the actual ministry of his successor. This is uncharted territory! Raymond Aaroyo of EWTN thinks the Holy Father will be consulted by other cardinals and will be influential. I hope he will be influential too and that the cardinals will take into account the Holy Father's hopes for his successor. That eases my anxiety a great deal!

Anxiety abounds and this too is a rupture with our tradition of selecting new popes. There should be no anxiety. But because we now live in a Church that is divided by two or more models of what the Church should be and in all areas of the Church beginning with Liturgy, but extending even to the faith and morals of the Church, who the next pope will be creates anxiety in the various camps of the Church. That is sad and indicates how the implementation of Vatican II veered way, way off track. That should not have happened and it should not be the new normal.

Let us pray that this will no longer be the case as the Church continues down the road to re-consolidate and become more unified and single minded in living as Christ's Church!

This is what I don't want:

1. The cult of the personality, no matter the theological disposition. What I have admired in Pope Benedict is that he has always pointed to Christ and not himself, nor has he made himself a media darling or super star.

2. A progressive that is progressive in liturgy. Let's have more of "the reform of the reform of the Liturgy" and kick it up a notch.

3. A pope that only celebrates the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

But at this point in my priesthood as I realize that I'm in the last 10 to 15 years of active ministry before I retired to do what His Holiness Pope Benedict will do (if I live so long, God willing) is that I put it into the hands of God and His Holy Church and trust that whoever it is, it will serve the overall design and destiny of God. Be not afraid!

I have one final hope and prayer. Wouldn't it be cool if the Holy Father's last Mass as the reigning Pope is in the Extraordinary Form! Wow! What a message that would send!

And if not as reigning Pope, wouldn't it be great to have photos of him celebrating the EF as Pope Emeritus!

We could see the PE celebrating the EF!

PRAYERS FOR OUR CURRENT HOLY FATHER; PRAYERS FOR OUR FUTURE HOLY FATHER, WHOM THE HOLY SPIIRIT HAS ALREADY ANOINTED, CHOSEN AND IS FORTIFYING

From the marvelous new English translation of the Roman Missal:

For the Pope:

O God, who chose your servant, Pope Benedict in succession to the Apostle Peter as shepherd of the whole flock, look favorably on the supplications of your people and grant that, as Vicar of Christ on earth, he may confirm his brethren and that the whole Church may be in communion with him. Through our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the Election of the Pope:

O God, eternal shepherd, who govern your flock with unfailing care, grant in your boundless fatherly love a pastor for your Church who will please you by his holiness and to us show watchful care. Through our Lord Jesus Christ.

HISTORY MAKING BOMBSHELL!!!!! YES, UNLESS ANYONE DOUBT MY CLAIRVOYANCE, I ASKED OUR GUEST PRIEST JUST YESTERDAY, LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO, WHO WOULD BE POPE BENEDICT'S SUCESSOR! HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO RESIGN!

Pray for the pope and his successor! Pope Benedict XVI to resign!

Perhaps this was a function of my clairvoyance, but yesterday we took our visiting Dominican priest, Fr. Serge Prospt, who is in our parish for a pre-Lenten mission to dinner at Carrabas. During the course of the meal, I asked Fr. Serge what his thoughts were on Pope Benedict's successor! Yes, I asked him that less than 24 hours ago.

He said, he certainly had no insights, but that the next successor would continue the reform in continuity.

The future of the Church is in the handS of younger priests and bishops who are not formed by the breach in continuity that so many dying progressives think is the future of the Church, in fact the progressive agenda had caused religious orders to decline, convents and monasteries to close as well as seminaries and parishes.

The only parts of the Church that are growing, including dioceses and religious orders and seminaries are the reform in continuity movement.

We will see the next pope rigorously continuing the reform in continuity!

Finally, as many of you know, I have been described as "ultramontane" and yes I see in the Holy Father, and no matter who that person is, the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We don't look to blogs for our unity in fact, they may in fact be the source of disunity, except my own of course.

We don't look to our favorite bishop, unless he is in complete union with the Holy Father for our source of unity. We don't look to neo-schismatic groups or those on the brink of such. We don't look to our favorite theologian living or deceased. We look to the living successor of Saint Peter. We look to the Vicar of Christ. We look to Jesus Christ the invisible Head of the Church, with His vicar as the visible head.

We also submit to the supreme magisterium of the Holy Church in all areas of faith, morals, discipline and canon law. It is that simple. To do otherwise makes us more Eastern Orthodox and thus schismatic or more Protestant and thus heretical!

Yes, Pope Benedict, although youthful in his reform in continuity and thus ushering
in the younger, more faithful clergy and thus theologians and bishops is of my mother's generation and of the generation that did so much damage to the Church by forcing the wrong "spirit" of renewal after Vatican II. The good, the bad and the ugly of that generation is going, going and soon to be gone.

No matter what, in the areas of faith, morals, discipline and canon law, I'm with the Pope through thick and thin. To whom else shall we go?

Keep in mind that the next conclave will take place during the Holy Season of Lent that starts this Wednesday, Ash Wednesday and we will have a new pope by Easter to carry on the Year of Faith.

So my clairvoyance brings me to Fr. Divo Barsotti (1914-2006)the brilliant and esteemed mystic and spiritual master - who in 1971 was called to preach the Lenten exercises to the pope and to the Roman curia - expressed strong criticisms of Vatican Council II. My clairvoyance tells me that the Cardinals meeting in conclave to elect the new pope will reflect on Fr. Barsotti's grave concerns announced in 1971 and elect a successor to Saint Peter who will be most mindful of Fr. Barsotti's prophetic words that must be applied to our current situation to return strength and vigor to the Church now under the attacks of the devil from within her own ranks and from outside by atheistic secularists in government and business, seats of powers and principalities.

THIS IS FATHER BARSOTTI'S 1971 PROPHECY WHICH THE CARDINALS WILL TAKE TO HEART AS THEY ELECT A VIGOROUS DEFENDER OF THE FAITH IN THE FACE OF ALL THE DIABOLIC ATTACKS ON THE CHURCH WHICH HAS BEEN WEAKENED BY THE WRONG IMPLEMENTATION OF VATICAN II:

"I am perplexed with regard to the Council: the plethora of documents, their length, often their language, these frightened me. They are documents that bear witness to a purely human assurance more than two a simple firmness of faith. But above all I am outraged by the behavior of the theologians.”

"The Council is the supreme exercise of the magisterium, and is justified only by a supreme necessity. Could not the fearful gravity of the present situation of the Church stem precisely from the foolishness of having wanted to provoke and tempt the Lord? Was there the desire, perhaps, to constrain God to speak when there was not this supreme necessity? Is that the way it is? In order to justify a Council that presumed to renew all things, it had to be affirmed that everything was going poorly, something that is done constantly, if not by the episcopate then by the theologians.”

"Nothing seems to me more grave, contrary to the holiness of God, than the presumption of clerics who believe, with a pride that is purely diabolical, that they can manipulate the truth, who presume to renew the Church and to save the world without renewing themselves. In all the history of the Church nothing is comparable to the latest Council, at which the Catholic episcopate believed that it could renew all things by obeying nothing other than its own pride, without the effort of holiness, in such open opposition to the law of the gospel that it requires us to believe how the humanity of Christ was the instrument of the omnipotence of the love that saves, in his death.”

Pope Benedict will become the Bishop Emeritus of Rome. What shall he be called? That is the question! Pope Emeritus? Cardinal Ratzinger? Oh my?

I have noticed that the Holy Father has lost considerable weight and is walking with difficulty. He may well have prostate cancer (just my conjecture, but my father died of it). It got into my father's bones and eventually made him a quadriplegic before it killed him at the age of 77. The Holy Father is 85 soon to be 86.

DOGMATIZING THE PASTORAL APPROACH TO THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND DOGMATIZING EVEN THE "THINKING OUT LOUD" OF BISHOPS AND THEOLOGIANS THAT WERE THEN WRITTEN DOWN AND GIVING UNDUE IMPORTANCE TO THESE WRITTEN MUSING TO INTERPRET A PASTORAL COUNCIL

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PASTORAL THEOLOGY GETS DOGMATIZED BY PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGIANS WHO DO SO IN A PRE-VATICAN II SORT OF WAY:

THIS IS THE BOMBSHELL OF THE CHIESA ARTICLE I POST BELOW MY COMMENTS THAT FOLLOW THIS QUOTE:

- the first, advanced in December of 2011 by the bishop of Astana in Kazakistan, Athanasius Schneider, is the publication on the part of the pope of a sort of new "Syllabus,” which would strike with anathemas all of the "modern-day errors";

- The second, already proposed by the theologian Brunero Gherardini to the supreme magisterium of the Church, is a “revision of the conciliar and magisterial documents of the last half century,” to be done “in the light of Tradition.”


MY COMMENTS FIRST: Are we heading toward Vatican III? The First Vatican Council met and dispersed and focused primarily on the ministry of the papacy and in a dogmatic way. The Second Vatican Council had a leisurely sojourn and presented its formulations on the complete vision of the Church not so much in a dogmatic way, although previous dogmas were indeed confirmed, but more so in a pastoral way especially as it regards ecclesiology, collegiality, single source of Revelation, ecumenism.

But because of the pastoral nature of the Council in so many areas and applying the Second Vatican Council early on (for the first 40 years or so) in a Pre-Vatican II way, especially the imposition of its pastoral sensibilities, we have seen a great polarization in the Church. Pope Benedict has begun the reform of the manner in which the reform of the Council was imposed on the Church in the 1960's and 70's especially as progressive theologians who inspired bishops to imposed in a pre-Vatican II sort a way the pastoral provisions of the Council in a dogmatized format. Pope Benedict's "reform in continuity" pleases no one except those of us in the middle who know we cannot abandon the Second Vatican Council but we can abandon the dogmatism of pastoral theology imposed on the Church in a pre-Vatican II sort of way.

Indeed the Council brought about a new way of "being Church" more pastoral and less dogmatic. But this in and of itself is not dogmatic and open to change and quite possibly by Vatican III! or the exercise of the papal magisterium in the extraordinary form.

Depending on one's perspective this is either the genius of the council or its downfall that must be changed (and could be quite easily since it isn't dogmatic in the first place):..."The scholars of progressive orientation recognize in pastoral language [of Vatican II] a decisive and distinctive innovation of the last Council. This is what has been maintained recently, for example, by the Jesuit John O'Malley in his widely-read book "What Happened at Vatican II."..."This original sin is claimed to be the abandoning of dogmatic language - proper to all of the previous councils, with the affirmation of the truth and the condemnation of errors - and its replacement with a vague new “pastoral” language."

Time will tell if the pastoral approach of the Council will be placed into its proper place, not dogmatized, but a relic of the 1960's to be abandoned as we face the godless secularism of society today and governments that are not pastoral but will impose on the Church their secular dogmatic views. Can a pastoral approach stand up to the dictatorship of secular relativism that is actually the dogmatic religion of Atheism???

And can progressives, who are more clerical and dogmatic in non-dogmatic things as they imposed their view on the Church in a pre-Vatican II sort of way, be trusted to be at the helm of the Church in this time of crisis?


The Article below (with my emphasis in bold) is copied from the blog, CHIESA, WHICH YOU CAN VIEW HERE.

The Impossible "Road Map" of Peace with the Lefebvrists

A leading representative of the traditionalist camp lays down the conditions for healing the schism. There are four of them, but three appear impracticable. Fr. Divo Barsotti's criticisms of Vatican Council II

by Sandro Magister

ROME, February 9, 2013 – In a new book sent to the printing press in recent days, Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli - philosopher, theologian, and beloved disciple of one of the greatest traditionalist Catholic thinkers of the twentieth century, the Swiss Romano Amerio (1905-1997) - cites three passages taken from the unpublished diaries of Fr. Divo Barsotti (1914-2006).

In them, this brilliant and esteemed mystic and spiritual master - who in 1971 was called to preach the Lenten exercises to the pope and to the Roman curia - expressed strong criticisms of Vatican Council II.

Fr. Barsotti wrote (in 1971):

"I am perplexed with regard to the Council: the plethora of documents, their length, often their language, these frightened me. They are documents that bear witness to a purely human assurance more than two a simple firmness of faith. But above all I am outraged by the behavior of the theologians.”

"The Council is the supreme exercise of the magisterium, and is justified only by a supreme necessity. Could not the fearful gravity of the present situation of the Church stem precisely from the foolishness of having wanted to provoke and tempt the Lord? Was there the desire, perhaps, to constrain God to speak when there was not this supreme necessity? Is that the way it is? In order to justify a Council that presumed to renew all things, it had to be affirmed that everything was going poorly, something that is done constantly, if not by the episcopate then by the theologians.”

"Nothing seems to me more grave, contrary to the holiness of God, than the presumption of clerics who believe, with a pride that is purely diabolical, that they can manipulate the truth, who presume to renew the Church and to save the world without renewing themselves. In all the history of the Church nothing is comparable to the latest Council, at which the Catholic episcopate believed that it could renew all things by obeying nothing other than its own pride, without the effort of holiness, in such open opposition to the law of the gospel that it requires us to believe how the humanity of Christ was the instrument of the omnipotence of the love that saves, in his death.”

These words of Fr. Divo Barsotti are striking in two respects.

First of all, these criticisms come from a person of profound theological vision, with the reputation of sanctity, most obedient to the Church.

And in the second place, the criticisms are not aimed against the deviations following the Council, but against the Council in itself.

They are the same two impressions that can be gathered from reading the new book by Radaelli, entitled: “The tomorrow - terrible or radiant? - of dogma.”

*

In Radaelli's view, the current crisis of the Church is not the result of a mistaken application of the Council, but of an original sin committed by the Council itself.

This original sin is claimed to be the abandoning of dogmatic language - proper to all of the previous councils, with the affirmation of the truth and the condemnation of errors - and its replacement with a vague new “pastoral” language.

It must be said - and Radaelli points this out - that even the scholars of progressive orientation recognize in pastoral language a decisive and distinctive innovation of the last Council. This is what has been maintained recently, for example, by the Jesuit John O'Malley in his widely-read book "What Happened at Vatican II."

But while for O'Malley and the progressives the new language adopted by the Council is judged in an entirely positive light, for Radaelli, for Roberto de Mattei, and for other representatives of traditionalist thought - as for Romano Amerio before them - pastoral language is stigmatized as the root of all evil.

According to them, in fact, the Council presumed - wrongfully - that the obedience due to the dogmatic teaching of the Church also applied to pastoral language, thus elevating to unquestionable “superdogmas" affirmations and arguments devoid of a real dogmatic foundation, about which instead it is said to be legitimate and obligatory to advance criticisms and reservations.

From the two opposed languages, dogmatic and pastoral, Radaelli sees the emergence and separation "almost of two Churches.”

In the first, that of the most consistent traditionalists, he also includes the Lefebvrists, fully “Catholic by doctrine and by rite” and “obedient to dogma,” even if they are disobedient to the pope to the point of having been excommunicated for 25 years. It is the Church that, precisely because of its fidelity to dogma, “rejects Vatican II as an assembly in total rupture with Tradition.”

He assigns to the second Church all of the others, meaning almost all of the bishops, priests, and faithful, including the current pope. It is the Church that has renounced dogmatic language and “is in everything the daughter of Vatican II, proclaiming it - even from the highest throne, but without ever setting out proof of this - in total continuity with the preconciliar Church, albeit within the setting of a certain reform.”

How does Radaelli see the healing of this opposition? In his judgment, “it is not the model of Church obedient to dogma that must once again submit to the pope,” but “it is rather the model obedient to the pope that must once again submit to dogma.”

In other words:

"It is not Ecône [editor's note: the community of the Lefebvrists] that must submit to Rome, but Rome to Heaven: every difficulty between Ecône and Rome will be resolved only after the return of the Church to the dogmatic language that is proper to it.”

In order for this goal to be reached, Radaelli presupposes two things:

- that Rome would guarantee to the Lefebvrists the right to celebrate the Mass and the sacraments exclusively according to the rite of St. Pius V;

- and that the obedience required for Vatican II would be brought back within the limits of its “false-pastoral” language, and therefore be subject to criticisms and reservations.

[MY COMMENT: THIS IS THE BOMBSHELL OF THIS ARTICLE AND IS DOABLE!]But before this culmination - Radaelli adds - two other requests would have to be granted:

- the first, advanced in December of 2011 by the bishop of Astana in Kazakistan, Athanasius Schneider, is the publication on the part of the pope of a sort of new "Syllabus,” which would strike with anathemas all of the "modern-day errors";

- The second, already proposed by the theologian Brunero Gherardini to the supreme magisterium of the Church, is a “revision of the conciliar and magisterial documents of the last half century,” to be done “in the light of Tradition.”

*

With the matter put this way, it is to be thought that the reconciliation between the Lefebvrists and the Church of Rome is anything other than easy and near at hand. As proven by the stall in the negotiations between the two sides, which has now lasted for many months.

But even with the traditionalists who have remained in communion with the Church - from Radaelli to de Mattei to Gherardini - the rift is getting wider. They no longer conceal their disappointment with the pontificate of Benedict XVI, in which they had initially placed some hopes. In their judgment, only a decisive return of the magisterium of the pope and the bishops to dogmatic pronouncements can bring the Church back to the right path, with the resulting correction of all of the errors propagated by the pastoral language of the Council.

Errors that Radaelli lists on a page of his book as follows, calling them “real and proper heresies”:

“Ecclesiology, collegiality, single source of Revelation, ecumenism, syncretism, irenicism (especially toward Protestantism, Islamism, and Judaism), the modification of the 'doctrine of replacement' of the Synagogue with the Church into the 'doctrine of the two parallel salvations,' anthropocentrism, loss of the last things (and of both limbo and hell), of proper theodicy (leading to much atheism as a 'flight from a bad Father'), of the meaning of sin and grace, liturgical de-dogmatization, aniconology, subversion of religious freedom, in addition to the 'dislocation of the divine Monotriad' by which freedom dethrones the truth.”

Radaelli concludes his book with an appeal to “lay down weapons” addressed both to the “innovating brethren” and to the “traditionalist brethren” (as he prefers to call them, instead of “traditionalists”).

But in a nutshell he seems to identify the hoped-for pacification with an all-encompassing victory for the Lefebvrists and for those who, like them, see themselves as the last and sole defenders of dogma.

____________


The book:

Enrico Maria Radaelli, "Il domani - terribile o radioso? - del dogma", Edizione Aurea Domus, 2013, pp. 278, euro 35.00.

The book opens with a preface by the English philosopher Roger Scruton and with three commentaries: by Mario Olivero, bishop of Albenga-Imperia, by the theologian Brunero Gherardini; and by Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario Palmaro.

It is not on sale in all bookstores. But it can be ordered directly from the website of its author:

> Aurea Domus