Vatican City, Apr 16, 2017 / 03:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In a lengthy interview with EWTN’s German television branch, Benedict XVI’s closest aide describes how the retired pontiff is doing as he turns the milestone age of 90, giving a rare look into what life is like for the Pope Emeritus.
Archbishop Gänswein has been Benedict’s personal secretary since 2003, while the latter was still Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He has remained close at Benedict’s side throughout his papacy, resignation and his life of retirement.
In anticipation of Benedict XVI’s 90th birthday, which this year falls on Easter Sunday, April 16, Gänswein gave a lengthy interview to EWTN.TV in German, sharing insights into how the Pope Emeritus plans to celebrate his birthday and highlights and personal memories of his pontificate.
Among other things, the archbishop recalls how Benedict handled his election, the frequently negative media-firestorm that enveloped much of his pontificate, his hope for what people take from his papacy as well as how he spends his days in retirement.
Please read below for the full interview with Archbishop Gänswein, conducted by the head of EWTN.TV Martin Rothweiler, and translated from the original German by EWTN’s Silvia Kritzenberger:
EWTN.TV: The question everyone’s interested in is, of course: How is Pope Benedict? The Psalm says: “Our lives last seventy years or, if we are strong, eighty years.” That happens to be psalm 90. And now on the 16th of April, Pope Benedict will celebrate his 90th birthday! How is he?
Gänswein: Yes, indeed, on Easter Sunday he will turn 90! Considering his age, he is remarkably well. He is also in good spirits, very clear in his head and still has a good sense of humor. What bothers him are his legs, so he uses a walker for help, and he gets along very well. And this walker guarantees him freedom of movement and autonomy. So, for a 90-year old, he is doing pretty well – even though, from time to time, he complains of this or that minor ailment.
EWTN.TV: How will he celebrate his birthday?
Gänswein: On Easter Sunday, priority will of course be given to liturgy. On Easter Monday, in the afternoon, we will hold a small celebration. He wanted something not too exhausting, appropriate to his strengths. He didn’t want to have a big celebration. That was never an option for him. A small delegation from Bavaria will come, the Mountain troops will come… The Bavarian Prime Minister will come to the monastery, and there we will hold a small birthday party in true Bavarian style!
EWTN.TV: Have you any idea if Pope Francis will come to see him?
Gänswein: That is quite likely. He will surely do so.
EWTN.TV: No one knows Pope Benedict better than you – apart from his brother Georg Ratzinger. How did you get to know Pope Benedict?
Gänswein: Actually, through literature. Back in the day, when I was just about to finish gymnasium, my parish priest gave me Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity, urging me: “You absolutely have to read this! That’s the future!” I said: “Okay, but have you read it?” “No,” he replied, “but you have to read it!” And I did. Later, when I started to study theology in Freiburg, and then in Rome, and then again back in Freiburg, I had practically read everything the then-professor and cardinal had written. But it was only 21, or maybe 22 years ago, that I finally met him in person here in Rome, when I was asked to become a collaborator of the Roman Curia … More concretely, I met him in the Teutonic College, that is, in the chapel, where Cardinal Ratzinger used to celebrate Mass for the German pilgrims every Thursday, joining us for breakfast. That was how the first personal contact with Cardinal Ratzinger came about, and since then we never lost that contact.
EWTN.TV: At some point, he decided to call you to his side. Why did his choice fall on you?
Gänswein: Well, you must know that I didn’t come directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; my first employment was at the Congregation for Divine Worship. But when, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a German priest left after a certain period of time in order to go back to Germany, Ratzinger asked me to come. “I think you are suitable for the post, and I would like you to come,” he said to me. “If you agree, I would like to speak with the respective authorities.” And he did. That was how it came about that, in 1996, I entered the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a post I held until 2003. Afterwards, he made me his Personal Secretary – which I still am, to this very day.
EWTN.TV: What was your first impression of him? What did you think when he called you to work closely with him?
Gänswein: My first thought was: Have I done something wrong? Don’t I have a clean record? So I examined my conscience, but my conscience was clear. And then he said: “No, it is something that concerns your future. Something I think might be a good task for you. Consider it carefully!” Of course, I was very pleased that he thought I was capable of working in his entourage. It is indeed a very demanding task, one that requires all your strength.
EWTN.TV: Which personality traits and characteristics did you discover in him?
Gänswein: The same I had already discovered in his writings: a sharp intellect, a clear diction. And then, in his personal relations, a great clemency, quite the contrary of what he has always been associated with and still is, of what has always been said about him, when he was described as a “Panzerkardinal” (army tank Cardinal), someone rough – which he is not. On the contrary, he is very confident when dealing with others, but also when he has to deal with problems, when he has to solve problems, and, above all, in the presentation of the faith, the defense of the faith. But what moved me most, was to see how this man managed to proclaim our faith with simple, but profound words, against all odds and despite all hostilities.
EWTN.TV: What were the main issues on his agenda when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
Gänswein: When I joined the Congregation, he was dealing with the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio, and then with Dominus Jesus, documents which date back to years when I was already part of the Congregation. Later, of course, it was also about religious dialogue – a subject he revisited and deepened also after he’d become Pope. And then the big issue of faith and reason. A whole chain of subjects, so to say, I could witness in person. And it was all highly interesting, and a great challenge, too.
EWTN.TV: It was Pope John Paul II who nominated Cardinal Ratzinger Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. What kind of relationship did they have? What kind of relationship did Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, have with the Pope who was, as we now know, a holy man?
Gänswein: Cardinal Ratzinger, that is to say, Pope Benedict, had contributed with a relatively long essay to a small, but beautiful little book that was published on the occasion of the canonization of John Paul II. An essay, in which he describes his relationship with the holy Pope John Paul II – after all, they had worked closely together for 23 years – and the great admiration he has for him. He spoke of him very often. It is of course a great gift, an immense grace, to work for so long, and so intensely, side by side with a man like John Paul II, facing also many a storm together! And the then Cardinal Ratzinger had to take many blows for John Paul II, since the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clearly cannot be everybody’s darling: He has to offer his back, so that he can take the blows that are actually meant for the Pope.
EWTN.TV: How strong was his influence on the pontificate of John Paul II?
Gänswein: I am convinced of the fact that the pontificate of John Paul II was strongly influenced and supported not only by the person of the then Prefect of the Congregation of Faith, but also by his thoughts and his actions.
EWTN.TV: Pope Benedict once said that he had learned and understood much of John Paul II when he watched him celebrate Mass; when he saw how he prayed, how very united he was with God, far beyond his philosophical and mental capacities. What do you think when you watch Pope Benedict celebrate Mass, when you might be present while he is praying?
Gänswein: In fact, that is something I see every day, but especially since the moment I became secretary to Pope Benedict. Before, I was already his secretary, but we didn’t live together. It did happen that we celebrated Mass together, of course. But from the very moment of his election, it was no longer a work communion, but also a communion of life. And the daily Mass has become part of this life, then and today. It is moving to watch Pope Benedict during Mass simply abandon himself to what is happening, even now, in his old days, with all the physical handicaps that come with it; to see how intensely he enters the depths of prayer, but also afterwards, during the thanksgiving in front of the tabernacle, in front of the Most Blessed Sacrament. As far as I am concerned, it makes me enter the depths of prayer. That is highly motivating, and I am very thankful that I was given the chance to have an experience like this.
EWTN.TV: 2005 is the year that marked the end of the long and public suffering and death of John Paul II. How does Pope Benedict XVI remember this moment today? After all, with his resignation, he has chosen to let his own pontificate end in a different way…How does he remember the suffering and the death of John Paul II?
Gänswein: I remember very clearly what he said to me when he made me his secretary. He said: “We two are interim arrangements. I will soon retire, and you will accompany me until that moment comes.” That was in 2003. Time passed by…and then came 2005. The interim arrangement lasts and lasts. And he was really looking forward to having some time off in order to be able to finish writing his book about Jesus. But then things turned out differently. And, well, I think that after the death of Pope John Paul II he had other plans, hoping that the new Pope would let him take his leave, entering his well-deserved retirement. But once again, things turned out differently: he became Pope himself, and the Lord took him up on his promise once again. He had plans, but there was another who had different plans for him.
EWTN.TV: Did he expect – or fear – that in any way?
Gänswein: He certainly did not expect it – but, at a certain point, he might have feared it. In this context, I always remember his first press conference (as Pope), where he described the 19th of April, the day of his election when, in the late afternoon, the ballot was so clear that it became obvious that he would be elected. Well, the image he used, the one of the guillotine, was a very strong one, and full of tension. And later, in Munich, referring to the image of the bear of St. Corbinian, he said that the bear was actually supposed to accompany the then-bishop Corbinian to Rome, and then return to where he had come from, whereas he, unlike the bear in the legend, couldn’t go back, but has remained in Rome to this very day.
EWTN.TV: How was your first encounter, after he had become Pope? What did he say to you?
Gänswein: We had our first encounter in the Sistine Chapel, right under the Last Judgement. The cardinals had approached him and sworn obedience to him. And since I had been allowed to be present at the Conclave – Ratzinger, being the Deacon of the Cardinals, had the right to take a priest with him, and his choice had fallen on me – I was the last in the queue. There were others before me, I was the last. And in this very moment…I remember it so well…I can still see him, for the first time all dressed in white: white pileolus, white cassock, white hair – and all white in the face! Practically a whole small cloud of white…He sat there, and in this moment I granted the Holy Father my unconditional availability, promising him that I would always gladly do whatever he might ask of me; that he would always be able to count on me, that I would back him, and that I would gladly do so.
EWTN.TV: What were the joys of this pontificate? Usually, the burden of the Petrine ministry is what first comes to mind. But are there also moments, events, when you could feel the joy Pope Benedict experienced in carrying out his ministry?
Gänswein: There were, without any doubt, moments in which he felt utter joy, and also manifested it. I think, for example, of various encounters, not only during his travels. Encounters with the Successor of Peter are always special encounters; even here, during the General Audiences or the Private Audiences – and, in another, very special way, when he acts as officiant, that is, during the celebration of the Holy Mass or other liturgical celebrations. There were indeed moments full of joy, fulfilled with joy. And afterwards, he never failed to remark on it. It made him really happy.
EWTN.TV: Are there any events you remember particularly well, especially in connection with Pope Benedict’s visits to Germany, which we all remember vividly, for example the first World Youth Day?
Gänswein: Yes, well, the first encounter hadn’t been brought about by Pope Benedict himself, but by John Paul II. And so, in 2005, as we all know, it was Benedict’s turn to travel to Cologne. It was surely something great, something really moving. It was the first time in his life he met such an immense crowd of young people, who were all waiting for him! How will it go? Will the ice break, will the ice melt? Or will it take some time? And how will we get along with one another? But there was no ice at all! It simply worked, right from the start! And I think, he himself was more surprised by it than the young people he met.
EWTN.TV: What are the key messages of his Pontificate? His first encyclical letter was Deus Caritas est, “God Is Love.” The second one was dedicated to hope; his third encyclical, the one on faith, was passed on to his successor who completed it. Don’t you think that especially Deus Caritas est, so full of tenderness and poetic language, was something many didn’t expect?
Gänswein: Yes, one has to say, he published three encyclical letters. And we must not omit Caritas in veritate, which is very important. In fact, the one about the third theological virtue, faith, fides, was then published under his successor: Lumen fidei. But these four encyclicals clearly contain a fundamental message that has moved him his whole life long; a message he wanted to bequeath to men, to the Church.
Another constant of Pope Benedict is a very important word, a very important element: joy, “la gioia,” in Italian. He always spoke of the joy of faith, not of the burden, the hardship, the weight of faith, but of the joy that comes with it. And he said that this joy is an important fruit of faith – and also the one thing that gives men wings; that this is how faith gives human life wings: wings which, otherwise without faith, man would never have.
Another important thing for him is – obviously – liturgy, that is to say the direct encounter with God. Liturgy does not represent something theatrical – it means to be called into a relationship with the living God. And then, in theology, we have the person of Jesus Christ: not a historical “something,” a historical person long lost in the past. No, through the scriptures and liturgy, Jesus Christ comes into this world, here and now, and above all: he also comes into my own life. These are the pearls Pope Benedict has bestowed upon us. And we should treat these pearls very carefully, just as we do with precious jewelry.
EWTN.TV: This joy of faith is something Benedict never lost, despite often even heavy media criticism. He never really was the media’s darling, at least not as far as the German media are concerned. How did he account for that?
Gänswein: Well, I have to say, to me that is still a mystery. Whoever defends the truth of faith – to say it with Saint Paul – be it convenient or not, cannot always trigger joy. That is clear. Some essential things just aren’t for sale, and then there’s always a hail of criticism. But he has never answered to provocation, nor let himself be intimidated by criticism. Wherever the substance of the faith is at stake, he had no doubts, and always reacted explicitly, without any inner conflict whatsoever.
On other points, I have to say, there was a mixture of incomprehension, and also aggression, aggressiveness, that became like a clustered ball that consistently hit at the person of the Pope. The incomprehension of many, and especially the media, is still a mystery to me, something I have to take note of, but cannot sort out. I simply have no answer to it.
EWTN.TV: Pope Benedict was never shy about talking to journalists. In the introduction you wrote to the book Über den Wolken mit Papst Benedikt XVI. (Above the Clouds with Pope Benedict XVI), published to mark his 90th birthday – above the clouds, because it contains interviews often given during Papal flights – you state that these conversations reveal his particular cordiality, his often not understood or underestimated humanity…
Gänswein: Pope Benedict has never shunned away from personal contact with the media, with the journalists. And one great gift was that everything he says is well-worded, ready for printing. He was never shy about answering questions, even questions that were embarrassing – well, not embarrassing, but difficult. And that made it even more incomprehensible that it was exactly this corner from where the arrows came, where the fire was set – and for no clear reason at all. He, too, took notice of it. Of course, there were also things which offended, hurt him. Especially when it was clear to see that there was no reason at all, when you couldn’t help asking yourself: why this snappish remark, this acrimonious presentation? Things like that would hurt anyone, that’s only normal. But, on the other side, we also know that our measure is not the applause we get; our measure is inner righteousness, the example of the Gospel. That thought has always comforted him; it was the line of reasoning he has always pursued, until the end.
EWTN.TV: But was he also aware of the value of the media in the process of evangelization? After all, he has awarded the Medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice to Mother Angelica, founder of our television network, which means he must really appreciate her! How did he judge the role of the media in the concrete work of evangelization?
Gänswein: The media are an important means; a means that will become ever more important, especially in our time. He has never failed to recognize the value of the media, of the work done by the media and those who are behind it. Because media work is done by people, not by “something.” Behind every camera, every written word, every book, there is a person, there are people he appreciated, whose work he appreciated, regardless of what sometimes had been used or said against him.
EWTN.TV: One cannot think of Pope Benedict without rekindling the memory of his resignation. That is not about to change, and will continue to be a subject that stirs people’s interest. So I would like to ask you again: Did you see it coming? Was it clear to him that he would go down that road one day?
Gänswein: Well, as far as I’m concerned, I didn’t see it coming. If and since when he started to nurture this thought, is something I don’t know. The only thing I know is that he told me about it when the decision was already made. But I definitely didn’t see it coming – and that made the shock for me even greater.
EWTN.TV: In his latest memoirs – I refer to the interview-book Last conversations with Peter Seewald – Benedict XVI makes it very clear that external pressure or adversities would never have made him resign. So this cannot have been the case…
Gänswein: That’s right.
EWTN.TV: …So this is the final word that puts an end to the discussion on possible motives…
Gänswein: In another book – the penultimate project carried out with Peter Seewald in Castel Gandolfo – he had already answered the question whether or not a Pope could resign, in the affirmative. I don’t know in how far he had, already then, considered resignation, stepping back from his office, an option for himself. When you start to have thoughts like that, you do it for a reason. And he has named these reasons very openly…and very honestly, too, one has to say: the waning of his forces, spiritual and physical. The Church needs a strong navigator, and he didn’t have the feeling that he could be that strong navigator. That’s why he wanted to put the faculty bestowed upon him by Jesus back into His hands, so that the College of Cardinals could elect his successor. So obviously, the pontificate of Benedict XVI will also go down in history because of his resignation, that is clear, inevitable…
EWTN.TV: I found it really moving to watch him deliver his last speech to the priests of the diocese of Rome, the one on the Second Vatican Council. In that moment, I couldn’t help asking myself: Why does this man resign? There was clearly a spiritual force! It was an extemporaneous speech in which he exposed one more time his whole legacy, so to say, on the Second Vatican Council, expressing his wish it might one day be fulfilled…
Gänswein: In fact, that was in the Audience Hall. There was this traditional encounter, established many years ago, where the Pope, every Thursday after Ash Wednesday, met with the clergy of Rome, the clergy of his diocese. There were questions and answers, or even other forms of encounter. And in 2013, he was asked to talk about the Second Vatican Council, which he did. He delivered an extemporaneous speech in which he described, one more time and from his point of view, the whole situation and development of the Council, giving also his evaluation. It is something that will remain; something very important for the comprehension of the Second Vatican Council and Ratzinger’s interpretation of it. As far as I know, up to this day there is no other theologian who has defended the documents of the Second Vatican Council on so many levels, and so intensely and cogently as he did. And that is very important also for the inner life of the Church and the people of God!
EWTN.TV: And I think it is safe to say that he contributed to the shaping of the Council…
Gänswein: In fact, being the consultor, the advisor of Cardinal Frings, he did have a part in it. Many of the theological contributions of the Cardinal of Cologne had actually been written by Professor Ratzinger. There are lots of documents where you can clearly see that. And there are also dissertations on this subject which investigate into the possible influence of the then-Professor Ratzinger.
EWTN.TV: Let’s come back to the moment of his resignation, the very last hours. Whoever watched it on TV, was surely moved to see the helicopter departing for Castel Gandolfo. You, too, were visibly moved…And then, the final moment, when the doors in Castel Gandolfo closed. That was the moment when I – and I guess, many others – thought that we might never see Pope Benedict again. But then things turned out quite differently…
Gänswein: Yes, indeed, the farewell: the transfer to the heliport, the flight in the helicopter over the city of Rome to Castel Gandolfo, the arrival at the Papal Villa. And indeed, at 8 p.m. the closing of the doors. Before, Pope Benedict had delivered a short speech from the balcony, his farewell speech. And then? Well, the works in the monastery Mater Ecclesiae hadn’t been finished yet, so the question was: where could he stay? And the decision was quickly taken: the best option would be Castel Gandolfo. There he will have everything he needs, since no one knows how long the works will last; so he can stay there as long as necessary.
And so two months later, he returned to Rome, and has been living in the monastery Mater Ecclesiae ever since. He himself had said that he would withdraw, going up to the mountain in order to pray. He didn’t mean a withdrawal into private life, but into a life of prayer, meditation and contemplation, in order to serve the Church and his successor. His successor often told him that he shouldn’t hide. He invites him often to important public liturgies, consistories like – I remember it well – the inauguration ceremony of the Holy Year on the 8th of December 2015.
He is present, even when no one sees him. But often he has been seen. He simply wants to be present, as much as possible, while remaining all the same invisible.
EWTN.TV: Many people wish to meet him, and he allows them to. Does he enjoy these encounters? I myself had the chance of a brief encounter with him. There are still many people who ask to see him.
Gänswein: Yes, there are many people who ask to meet him; and many are sad when this is not possible. But those who come, are all very happy, very glad. And the same goes for him. Every encounter is also a sign of affection, a sign, so to say, of approval. And human encounters always do us good.
EWTN.TV: Do some of these people also ask him for advice?
Gänswein: Definitely. I’m convinced of that. I’m never there, though; these encounters are private. Of course, he sometimes talks about it, we talk about those visits. There are indeed people who seek his advice on personal matters. And I’m convinced that the advice they receive is indeed good…
EWTN.TV: Does he still receive many letters? Who writes to him?
Gänswein: People he has known in the past. And also people I don’t know, and he doesn’t know, but who have clearly re-discovered him through literature. They express their gratitude, their happiness, but also their worries: people from all around the world. The people who write to him are very different; they do not belong to the same category, no: it’s people of different ages, of different positions, from all walks of life, a complete mixture.
EWTN.TV: We have talked about “seeking advice:” Pope Francis, who is of a certain age himself, has always said that we should ask our grandparents for advice. Has Pope Francis ever asked Benedict for advice? What kind of relationship do they have?
Gänswein: Yes, indeed, in one of his interviews, Pope Francis is said to be happy about having a grandfather like Benedict – a “wise” grandfather: an adjective not to be omitted! And I am convinced that, as far as this is concerned, one thing or another will come up, or come out, from their contacts and encounters.
EWTN.TV: Your relationship with Benedict is a very close, very personal one. I don’t know if it would be appropriate to talk about a relationship between father and son. Have you ever talked with him about your future?
Gänswein: No.
EWTN.TV: It is known that you would love to engage in pastoral care, that you already do engage in pastoral care.
Gänswein: It was always like that: we didn’t talk about it. Only the very moment he said that he would resign, he asked me to accept the office I still hold. It was his decision, and he hadn’t talked with me about it beforehand. I was very skeptical, and remarked: “Holy Father, that might not be my thing. But if you think it is right for me, I will gladly and obediently accept it.” And he replied: “I do think so, and I ask you to accept.” That was the only time we talked about me and my future career.
EWTN.TV: What are the subjects you talk about? What are the issues that concern him in our world full of crises; what worries him about the situation of the Church?
Gänswein: Well, of course, Pope Benedict takes an interest in what happens in this world, in the Church. Every day, as the conclusion to the day, we watch the news on Italian TV. And he reads the newspapers, the Vatican press review. That is a large range of information. Often we also talk about actual issues that concern our world, about the latest developments here in the Vatican, and beyond the Vatican, or simply common memories regarding things happened in the past.
EWTN.TV: Is he very worried about the Church?
Gänswein: Of course, he has noted that the faith, the substance of the faith, is about to crumble, above all in his homeland, and that inevitably worries, troubles him. But he is not the kind of man – he never was and never will be – who will have the joy taken away from him! On the contrary: he brings his worries to his prayers, hoping that his prayers will help to put things right.
EWTN.TV: He brings them to his prayers and surely also to Holy Mass. On Sundays, he delivers homilies, and is also keeping notes. What happens to these notes?
Gänswein: Well, it is true that Pope Benedict comments on the Gospel. He does so every Sunday, and most of the time only in the presence of the (consecrated laywomen of) “Memores Domini” and myself. Sometimes there might also be a visitor, or – should I not be there – a fellow priest who will then concelebrate. His homilies are always extemporaneous. It is true, he has a sermon notebook, and he takes notes. And I have been asking myself the same question: what happens to these notes? Of course we will keep a record of them. I would like to ask him one day if he could take a look at the notes we have, in order to approve them. I don’t know, though, if that day will ever come.
EWTN.TV: Pope Benedict is undoubtedly one of the greatest theologians…as far as of our century is concerned, he surely is! He has been referred to as the “Mozart of theology.” In your introduction to the already mentioned book Über den Wolken mit Papst Benedikt XVI (Above the Clouds with Pope Benedict XVI) you wrote: “Pope Benedict XVI is a Doctor of the Church. And he has been my teacher up to this day.” What have you learned from him, maybe even in the last weeks?
Gänswein: As I already said, my theological thinking started with the reading of Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity. The theological teacher who accompanied my theological studies, and the time that followed, has always been the theologian Ratzinger, and still is. Being given the chance to meet him in person, to learn from his personal example, is of course an additional gift, something unexpected, and I am very grateful for that. I know it is a grace – a grace for which I will thank the Lord every single day.
EWTN.TV: So what could be, in your opinion, the lesson Pope Benedict would like us to learn from his pontificate?
Gänswein: His great concern was that the faith could evaporate. And it is surely his greatest wish that every man be in direct relationship with God, the Lord, with Christ, and that we might dedicate to this relationship our time, strength and affection. Whoever does that, will prove the same sentiment Benedict has in mind when he talks about “joy.” I think the greatest gift would be, if men allowed his proposal or what moved him, to become part of their lives.
EWTN.TV: Our wish to you: could you please assure Pope Benedict also in the name of our viewers, of our thankfulness, our sentiments of appreciation, and convey him our heartfelt best wishes for his 90th birthday! And thank you so much for this conversation!
Gänswein: Thank you. I will gladly convey your wishes, and thank you for having me!
[…]
Those who speak of a reverent Novus Ordo Mass would do well to remember that the modernists don’t want a reverent Mass of any kind. To them, the Ad Populum, communion in the hand, clown shows, pantomimes and other shenanigans are features of the new mass, not flaws.
The modernists will come for all reverent Novus Ordo masses as well as the TLM.
indeed. If a reverent NO was possible Sir George wouldn’t have to point to an obscure Mass said for Pell. The norm is most definitely not reverent. Just visit the average church. The presider infects his own personality… to his congregants, not towards the east.
There is no comparison between the NO v. TLM. None.
Yes, I shouldn’t need to go to Australia in order to witness the NO celebrated with dignity and sanctity.
Thanks to Mr Weigal for this astute analysis. Just one observation from the peanut gallary on his qualifying statement: “In an irony that seems to escape them…” Hmm. The so-called irony does not “escape” the progressives’ awareness. I believe that they are fully aware of the irony, but that they simpy do not care about it or about their hypocracy, or outright contraditory beliefs. They are men whose interests are not about truth—divine or natural– or logical consistency, but about political maneuvering and the projection of power. A brief study of the progressives behavior, including the marxists and the communists, shows their obsession for gaining and maintaining power at any cost. They will go about destroying their enemies with no regard to the divine or natural law, or simple human civility. For the progressive, irony hardly counts as a speed bump.
Agreed that the TLM should not be suppressed. But, it would seem that the number of TLM worshippers who reject Vatican II and believe the Novus Ordo Mass is illicit is really quite large, perhaps the majority. Listen to videos by Michael Lofton and many other former Rad Trads. It is eye opening.
Hello John, I was a faithful and ardent weekly (if not more) attendee of the NO Mass virtually all my life. By the time I was a mere toddler of 2 years, the TLM was considered verboden! Last Lent I decided to do a deep dive into V2 and discovered Michael Davies. His 4 part series on the history of the counsel and the chicanery that gave rise to the more suspect elements of the counsel set me on a faith journey. To make a rather long and compelling story tolerable, I’ll cut to the chase. At this point, I cannot in good conscience ever again set foot in a NO Parish Sanctuary. Quite simply, I cannot bear the thought of treading on Our Lord’s precious body, given to us so vulnerably for our salvation. I would HATE to be that soul Our Blessed Mother wept over at La Salette when she indicated that “filthy feet would soon tread on the holy body of her Son.” I have literally SEEN THIS and other just as distressing HAPPENINGS at the NO Mass. I NEVER have to fear this when I walk into a chapel where Our Lord is given ONLY on the tongue and to those that kneel. Respectfully, it’s a matter of proper worship, proper comportment in the face of so great a sacrifice. Licit, yes. The NO Mass is licit AND valid. For that matter, the marriage of Tom Brady and Gisele Budgen was licit and valid; but, who really wants a marriage like the one that they had? All the best to you for a blessed and nourishing Lenten season!
Joan,
I appreciate this information. Links and/or names of “other former Rad Trads” would be very helpful.
“Ultramontanism”? I thought the original Montanists were a charismatic schism that occurred outside the Church in the post-Apostolic era?
Mark,
Two different things. Montanism was a 2nd-century heresy, in modernday Turkey, which claimed a new revelation under a free-spirited Holy Spirit. The counterpoint Ultamontanism (“beyond the mountains,” meaning the Alps) ripened in the 19th Century and held that the pope was entitled to rule on all things, secular as well as religious, and was opposed by the Montanists who opted for near-total secularization.
The definition of papal infallibility (First Vatican Council, 1870) transcended both factions, but was not simply an average of the two; it clearly proclaimed the authority of the papacy under precisely defined conditions (matters of faith and morals, formally taught, etc.). More than political, but less that caesaropapism.
To look for Montanists today, good hunting might be to consider the schismatic/heretical German Synodal Way which is quite eager to proclaim that the Holy Spirit is now ready to displace the perennial, one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and human sexual morality, with a construct that is said to be “Catholic but in a new way.”
So, those illiterati who have not even read the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council are now dividing into Germania’s Montanism and, as Weigel points out, the Ultramontanism also advancing under cover of “synodality.”
Meanwhile, Eucharistic coherence–the center and summit of the sacramental Church–struggles forward in the shadows of both.
“Montanism” comes from the name of its founder, Montanus, while “Ultramontanism” comes from the exaggeration of papal authority “beyond the mountain,” meaning the Alps. Ironically, one of the strongest of the early ultramontanes, de Lamennais, labeled the first modernist by Charles Périn of the Louvain, over-exaggerated papal power in his “theory of certitude” and when the popes rejected his theory, repudiated his priesthood and renounced Christianity, forming his own “Religion of Humanity” with himself as infallible head. There is no direct connection between Montanism and Ultramontanism.
This is correct.
“Wouldn’t “the supreme authority of the Church” better direct its corporate attention to the catastrophic collapse of Mass attendance throughout the Western world?”
The current, precise location of the supreme authority of the Catholic Church is contested by some. Of these some, there are heretical sedevacantists. But others aren’t heretical.
However, this point is well taken.
One doctrine of the Catholic faith it is that under pain of mortal sin a Catholic must attend mass every Sunday. Granted, this does include the realistic possibility of attending mass.
For a long time, I understand that there were no priests in Japan. Thus, obviously, Catholics in Japan couldn’t attend The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
It is the fact that people aren’t taught the faith which is the main issue. Orthodoxy will beget an increase in Mass attendance. I know for a fact that it definitely has an effect on vocations. And a great part of this will involve moving away from the “church of nice.”
There are books which point towards this path.
“Exodus : why Americans are fleeing liberal churches for conservative Christianity”
“Why conservative churches are growing : a study in sociology of religion with a new preface for the Rose edition”
A reverent celebration, even of the new mass, is under attack as guidelines have been published forbidding ad orientem service/ sacrifice. So the idea that one can find a middle ground between the TLM and the oddities and novelties of the new mass are quickly fading. What will likely be left STANDING may be the defiant and insular SSPX. Certainly, the urgency of the crisis in the church no one can deny and so long as it continues, even deepens, the SSPX presses onward. Currently, they are the 5th largest order in the church. Their new and glorious cathedral structure, built in the old style, draws inspiration and awe. If you have not seen it, Google “the new immaculate” in St. Mary’s, Kansas. Although it has been a global effort, it is amazing that members have managed to pay over $32,000,000.00 in the course of 3-4 years, during economic stresses and covid cacophony to get it constructed. It will be dedicated early this May. It’s sheer beauty and impressive size reminds one of the (not so distant) glorious past. In contrast, take a quick look at the cathedral of Our Lady in Los Angeles or the newly constructed abomination in Abu Dhabi. Where would you rather worship? What kind of worship do you really think those environs inspire?
My experience growing up in the 1950’s, as well as studying the history of the Catholic Church in the United States, indicates that the Bishops pre-Vatican II wielded just as much authority (or more) than the post Vatican II Bishops, and certainly more than today, as indicated in this article.
The problem with the vagueness and the “read anything you want into it” aspect of much of the Vatican II documents is illustrated in Mr. Weigel’s own quote from Lumen Gentium – “[The bishops] exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits…”
So, our Bishops are currently being regulated by the supreme authority of the Church.
George Weigel offers such comfort for the typical Catholic across America, longing for reverence and orthodoxy on Sundays, by informing him that there are examples of such in Sydney, Australia or Greenville, South Carolina! I guess the liturgical collapse that followed Vatican II is just an illusion, or a vast conspiracy theory.
I assist at the Novus Ordo Mass every time that I cannot attend the TLM. But I do not like it. I do not like the use of women and girls at the altar. I do not like shaking hands just before Communion. I do not like the Protestant songs and the Protestant subtext of the NO. After many years of thought on the subject, I have concluded that Vatican II is indeed a modernization of Church doctrine and practice, which means it is a capitulation to the Globalist/neo-pagan agenda. This agenda makes traditional-minded Catholics the enemy, the insurrectionists, the potential terrorists in Christianity who must be not only be oppressed by Vatican decrees but also by the FBI and other agencies hostile to the Gospel. I don’t like it.
I too want to be a “Vatican 2/Novus Ordo” man, I just don’t know which version of the liturgy/Vatican 2 I’m called to embrace. Do I embrace Benedict’s liturgical vision or Cardinal Roche’s? Which edition of the post-Vatican 2 catechism do I follow? Is it JP2’s understanding of the Council or Francis’. Once the real Vatican 2/Novus Ordo stands up I’ll be more than happy to try and embrace it.
It is interesting to note that one of the most radical of the early unltramontanes, de Lamennais with his “theory of certitude” that greatly exaggerated papal infallibility, is also considered “the first modernist” by Charles Périn, who first used defined modernism in its Catholic sense. De Lamennais eventually repudiated his priesthood, rejected Christianity, and founded his own “Religion of Humanity” with himself as infallible head.
In considering the premise/notion of “papal infallibility” today; perhaps the time has come to dispense with the concept once and for all?
Only Jesus was/is qualified to give us perfect guidance.
Blessings
“Dispense!” Thus speaketh guest-commenter Brother Brian, infallibly! As he wipes his feet on the pages of CWR hospitality.
But wait, there’s more: “only Jesus…” This must a scriptural?
As where Christ himself and the Father send the Holy Spirit: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (Jn 14:26, Acts 2).
And, not yet with anything in writing (the New Testament!), Christ sends the early-Church (!) apostles, already: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them…” (Matt 28:19-20).
It’s almost as if the Church—from Day One—exists, and is indwelled by the Holy Spirit!
And, that the Church enjoys and is accountable to a gifted charism which, under very precisely defined conditions, does not exclude the teaching authority of the Christ-appointed St. Peter and his successors–that is, not to invent new truths, but (as Cardinal John Henry Newman explains) to preserve intact the Deposit of Faith…
Newman explains that the effect of the definition is “not to enfeeble the freedom or vigour of human thought in religious speculation, but to resist and control its extravagance.” Extravagance as in 30,000 different and infallible sola scriptura sects and neighborhood groups, and counting?
Yours truly apologizes for a seemingly robotic citation of three scriptural passages, but what a witnessing Scripture (written by the Church!) has to say seems germane to the controverted point proposed for papal dispensation!
Not at all “robotic”, instead honouring God by quoting Him. Allow me to commend you for presenting scripture, yet you prefer brickbats as opposed to a genuine compliment. To each his own!
I am a guest on the pages of CWR and appreciate the kindness extended. While I take up the banner of justified criticism, others are considerably more acidic in their denunciation of wrongdoing! The barbed tongue of frustration with the supposed leaders is understood. Do we not have some of the same scoundrels in protestant denominations? Impropriety in the church is to be rebuked and the Bible is the best source for addressing the matter. If it is not, bring your best case to the bar of public opinion for examination.
“The deposit of faith” is the voice of God put on paper, yes God breathed for our comfort and edification.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Romans 5:19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
Your post/s take the idea of passive/aggressive behavior to entirely new levels. While noting correctly that you are a guest on this site (as are we all), expressing kind appreciation for that fact, you then offer a presumptuous and uninformed judgment against Catholic doctrine, here regarding papal infallibility! YOUR CRITICISM IS ‘JUSTIFIED’ ONLY ON THE BASIS OF FALSE BELIEF.
If you were truly informed and understood the Catholic doctrine on papal infallibility, RC Church indefectibility, and irreformable RC Church teaching, we here would perhaps be more amenable to your little cherry-picked scripture verse-flags which have nothing to do with the RCC faith and practice currently under scope. Your posts incline us to judge that they are motivated by error and uninformed pride made more egregious coming from a SEPARATED SISTER in the Christian tradition. Then you claim to wish us well. No. We most respectfully and more charitably disagree.
We are frustrated that you keep mistaking us as Christians made in the image and likeness of YOUR idea of Christianity. We are NOT INTERESTED. If you would learn about what you presume to judge, our welcome mat could be laid down. Not all doormats express welcome sentiments.
NB: Are you familiar with Uriah Heap?
While we’re at it, three other points of clarification:
(1) the “deposit of faith” is not “the voice of God put on paper;” the deposit of faith is the witnessing offered by both written Scripture and the living Tradition to the facto of the Incarnation: “the Word made flesh” (again, not “the word made book” which is a sola Scriptura notion, both Protestant and in a more exaggerated way, Islamic).
(2) On such matters as these, on what basis are we, all of us, to assume as you seem to assume, the infallibility of the “bar of public opinion?” Public opinion? Surely you do not believe that!
(3) Try not to conflate Catholic discourse over off-the-cuff remarks, the different stature of formal encyclicals, and the non-identical and more limited stature of precisely-defined papal infallibility: “Papa’s encyclicals and off the cuff remarks are met with a barrage of criticism by faithful Catholics who love the church.” Three different things which, if mentioned in the form of a less flippant question (“barrage?”), might merit a more complete answer.
Notwithstanding so much being said here, your uncomplicated commitment to the person of Jesus Christ, as you understand Him, does add to these pages.
CATHOLIC ALERT: Once again “gracing” the comboxes of CWR with full approval of CWR editors/moderators is yet another Protestant attack on Catholic Teaching and Practice by the oleaginous Brian Young.
This time, Mr. Young is more direct in his attack on Papal Infallibility and providing an inane Protestant rationale to really call for the Papacy itself to be abolished despite it being established for all time by Jesus Christ.
But Mr. Young sets forth his heretical Protestant beliefs with a “smiling pen,” so such vile attacks on the Catholic Faith are welcome in the pages of CWR, which is just sad.
Kudos to Peter Beaulieu for also recognizing and exposing the poison of Mr. Young’s ongoing attempts to undermine the Catholic Faith in a Catholic journal.
Dear DocVerit:
Please allow yours truly to clarify. Misunderstandings are part of life and men who put Christ as our saviour and guide will try to resolve differences.
CWR is not afraid to to air varying perspectives.The editors are strong in their Catholic faith and revere the courage and power of Jesus Christ. They are not nervous of another POV because the Catholic Church is built on the solid ground of conviction.
The liberal press of today is averse to truth, whereas CWR celebrates it. It welcomes respectful dialogue because of the tradition of the church and its standing in the world.
“Papal Infallibility”! Papa’s encyclicals and off the cuff remarks are met with a barrage of criticism by faithful Catholics who love the church. CWR is a place to let off steam and to learn. Jesus Christ is infallible and all who follow His teachings can speak with authority.
You have attacked the person and not the argument . A factual rebuttal from church tradition and dogma where offered, will benefit all.
Nowhere have I attempted “to undermine the Catholic Faith in a Catholic journal”. Instead, I have come along side to strengthen her with Scripture which (by the way) was codified by the Church of Rome.
Prayers and blessings to all that celebrate the life and legacy of Jesus Christ.
Brian Young
Dear Meiron:
Allow a response if you will That you take issue with my POV, is to be respected, however an offhand retort to scripture serves no one well. Scripture speaks to your points and far better to hear what God says on a matter instead of the meager attempts of yours truly.
How do you read the following verses?
2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
1 Timothy 4:13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
1 Corinthians 13:7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
In the exaltation of Jesus Christ,
Brian Young
You will continue to think that Catholicism rests on a few cherry-picked scriptures. Think of it as Protestantism like Rip van Winkle. Your Protestant ancestors in faith have missed or dismiss 1500 years of the best thinkers of Catholicism. I owe you no interpretation of some verses relevant and related only in your mind. My ancestors gave me to consider scripture verses in their entirety with the assistance, direction, reason, and guided interpretation into doctrine and dogma in God’s one church. You may not want to believe or consider that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the organization He founded and the person of primacy He chose to represent Him.
You remind me of a neighbor. When my family underwent some struggles which became somewhat public, that neighbor presumed to know exactly what my family needed. All in the name of ‘good intentioned charity,’ that person offered unwanted and nettlesome interference, all of which served only that one person’s purpose. That one person went on to divorce and worse. My family, through God’s and the Church’s help, has gone on to thrive.
Good day.
Again, you are willing to “dispense” with everything without questioning or even noticing your own assumptions. Now we endure you regal anointing the CWR editors as “not nervous of another POV because the Catholic Church is built on the solid ground of conviction.” “Solid ground of conviction?” This is the Protestant premise. Subjective conviction, alone…
The Catholic premise and foundation, namely the person and words of Christ as witnessed in the Scriptures (catalogued, and first written by the Church!), is this: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matt 16:18). Yes to personal faith, but also a personal commission and a specifically personal accountability; and therefore an institutional (!) Church with faith (the Faith)–AND neither without the other…
As you continue to pontificate with one-legged certitude—now posturing behind your tutorial that there is a disagreement—has been clear enough to all to see for these most recent five centuries in the much longer history of a mutilated Church. That as an interloper, you continue to airbrush your sola Scriptura premise (and graffiti citations) as the dispensing trump card is also clear to all—that is, all except one at the CWR site.
Having a two-way conversation with you is like trying to read braille through a mattress.
WARNING to all faithful Catholic CWR Readers:
More heresies presented by Protestant Brian Young in his ongoing efforts to undermine the teachings of Christ’s One True Church in his comments:
First Heresy:
Young: “Jesus Christ is infallible and all who follow His teachings can speak with authority.”
Jesus Christ is indeed infallible, but the Protestant heresy claims that anyone who follows Jesus Christ can speak with authority. However, as Jesus Himself established the Church, the only legitimate authority on earth commissioned by Him is the Leadership of the Catholic Church: Pope, Bishops, and Priests. Nobody outside the Catholic Church can speak with legitimate authority. Like many Protestants, Mr. Young defies our Lord Jesus Christ by proudly asserting that he and many others have an authority that Jesus Christ has not granted to them.
Second Heresy Presented by Mr. Young: Mr. Young rejects Papal Infallibility, and he malevolently suggests that Catholics give up this definitive doctrine. No true friend of Catholicism would ever encourage Catholics to sin gravely by rejecting a solemnly defined doctrine, but that is precisely what Mr. Young has done.
Third Heresy Presented by Mr. Young:
Young: “Nowhere have I attempted ‘to undermine the Catholic Faith in a Catholic journal’. Instead, I have come along side to strengthen her with Scripture which (by the way) was codified by the Church of Rome.”
In no way, shape, or form can Mr. Young strengthen the Catholic Church with his heretical beliefs and quoting from a flawed version of the bible (English Standard Version is what he has used often) that is not approved by the Catholic Church. As such, the seriously flawed bible that Mr. Young quotes from was not “codified” by the Catholic Church as he wrongly sets forth to continue his undermining efforts.
Moreover, as the Venerable Bishop Sheen beautifully stated many years ago: ‘The Church Does Not Come Out of the Bible; the Bible Comes Out of the Church.’
This very important insight completely devastates Protestant heresies centered around the false teaching of sola scriptura. Indeed, even if there was no word of Scripture extant, we would still have the One True Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ came to earth to redeem us and set up his One True Church. He did not come here to set up a bunch of heretical bible societies like the many Protestant churches and other groups who reject Christ’s One True Church and its leadership on Earth.
By the bye, as I mentioned to faithful Catholic Meiron a few weeks back, Mr. Young actually recommended “for Catholics” the despicable New International Version (NIV) of the bible. The NIV has significantly retranslated many parts of the Scriptures to purposely change wording from anything that supports our Catholic beliefs and makes them appear more Protestant, and in many cases the changes are laughably blatant. What does this utterly reprehensible recommendation actually reveal, at least in part, of some of the motivation of Mr. Nice Guy?
In closing, I express many thanks and appreciation to fellow Catholic CWR commentors Meiron and Peter Beaulieu for also seeing through and insightfully exposing the many heretical views of Brian Young that he continues to spew in his ongoing efforts to undermine the faith of all Catholics who read CWR.
Brian,
In one of your comments you say:
“Instead, I have come along side to strengthen her with Scripture which (by the way) was codified by the Church of Rome.”
When the early Church codified the Scripture, as you say it did, it designated writings to include and it specifically denied other writings from being included. When the Church made those decisions were they fallible or infallible? When you quote Scripture you are implicitly affirming the Authority of the Church.
Pope Benedict XVI in a way also acted in an ultramontanist way by taking the local bishops’ prerogative through a blanket authorization for any priest who so wants to celebrate the old mass without his bishop’s permission through Summorum Pontificum. While well meaning in purpose to bring back the SSPX and other boundary schismatic radtrads back to the mainstream of the church, it instead widened the gap of the division between those who accept and those who reject the Vatican II liturgical reforms. Pope Francis as universal pastor is simply mending this divide which was enhanced by that liturgical-theological gymnastics performed by the late Pope to please the rejectionists.
That wouldn’t have been necessary, though, if so many bishops had not stonewalled requests for the TLM and were not so bitterly hostile to anything even remotely traditional. John Cardinal Cody in Chicago, for example, prohibited celebration of the NO in Latin, something he had no canonical authority to do. In my own experience, I have usually been refused with a brusque “no” when I have requested that the Roman Canon in English – repeat, IN ENGLISH – be used in the celebration of the NO, which I attend weekly except 2-3 times annually when I can go to the TLM. The reason for the refusal to use the Roman Canon, you see, is that it’s “too pre VII.” So while the NO can indeed be celebrated with great reverence, practically speaking it almost never is. What is one to do?
Lee, it’s not correct to say the Novus Ordo Mass as currently practiced is an acceptance of ” the liturgical reforms of Vatican ll”. See Fr. Fessio, The Mass of Vatican ll.
Also, Pope Benedict was being the opposite of an ultramontanist. He said there was no authority to abrogate the TLM, His Motu Proprio was necessary to correct the doltish bishops who were not aware of that.
Agreed that the TLM should be allowed and not suppressed. But, the number of TLM attendees who reject Vatican II and consider the Novus Ordo Mass as illicit is very large, not just a small minority. This can be verified by former Rad Trads such as Michael Lofton and many others on line, who emphasize this point. Check them out!
I’m not sure Michael Lofton was around the TLM long enough to last through a haircut (when he had hair). But he has his grift now, and long may he run with it.
But maybe the question is: “What counts as rejecting Vatican II and the liceity of the Novus Ordo?” Because in all honesty, I just don’t see it in any of the TLM’s around DC. Maybe at the SSPX chapel (I have never been there), and certainly at the independent chapel at St Athanasius, but I simply have not run into it at any of the TLM’s authorized by the dioceses around here.
It’s possible to think that the modern rite is entirely valid, licit, and legitimate (and indeed, it is all of these things), and also that it’s impoverished in the spirituality and theological depth it conveys through its normative texts and rubrics.
Correction. The radtrads is just tiny minority but it just happens to be loud to create the false impression that it is big. In fact it is just loud here in the U.S. and a bit of Western Europe like France. The rest of the Catholic world has grown with and gets nourished with the Vatican II Mass and the Churches are growing on grace and members. The numbers speak for themselves. Before Traditionis Custodes when the old pre-Vatican II Mass was still tolerated, it was held in only 1,700 out of the world’s total of 225,000 parishes. In the U.S., it was only celebrated in 700 out of the total 17,000 parishes.
Thank you, George.
I do not attend the TLM but know faithful Catholics who do. At a time of greatly declining Mass attendance, the push to greatly restrict or outright eliminate this faithful form of liturgy suggests to me something fundamentally wrong within the Vatican.
https://fatima.org/news-views/vatican-ii-a-carefully-orchestrated-plan-for-change/
The preeminent Romano Amerio who had contributed significantly to the drafting of the original Vatican II outline cites how the legal framework of the Council was violated by this act: “This departure from the original plan” came about “by an act breaking the Council’s legal framework” so that “the Council was self-created, atypical, and unforeseen.” (Professor Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, 1985)
There is definitely something wrong with the church but mr. weigel still clings to the super council , the non-doctrinal fallible council
WE ALL NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO OUR KNEES.IT SEEMS TO ME A LOT OF PROBLEMS COULD BE SOLVED BY BRINGING BACK THE ALTAR RAIL TO THE NO MASS. IF YOU AGREE WRITE TO AB TIMOTHY BROGLIO AND B. ANDREW COZZENS WHO HAVE THE POWER TO INFLUENCE THE USCCB 3 YEAR EUCHARISTIC EVANGELISTIC AGENDA.
What in the world. There is an 87% difference in content between the 1962 Missal and 1970 Missal! How are we still talking about a “reverent” Novus Ordo? How can such smart people keep missing this essential data point. This is truly mind-numbing…
You don’t get your “reverent” NO Mass–which really just means an aesthetically palatable Mass–without the existence and celebration of the 62 Roman Missal!
well said Fr. C
I had to chuckle here when Sir George says: “Wouldn’t “the supreme authority of the Church” better direct its corporate attention to the catastrophic collapse of Mass attendance throughout the Western world?”
Any chance the council (this super council as i think he thinks) and it’s invention of a new mass having anything to do with the tremendous loss of faith? Weigel speaks of irony… and he misses his own point, entirely.
Even a reverent NO Mass has problems. The liturgy is a cathecism, so when they gutted the old mass of anything remotely catholic to please Protestants, one wanders what cathecises most Catholics are learning every Sunday
Perhaps it is that the few Catholics who reject Vatican Council II in its entirety are the only Catholics (save academics and theologians) who even know anything about the Vatican Council II documents.
The overwhelming majority of Novus Ordo-attending Catholics (I am one), I am convinced, know nothing about these documents. Again, I invite readers to randomly poll exiting Sunday Mass attendees and ask them to tell you any three salient teachings of Vatican Council II. If anyone were to do this, it would show clearly that the Vatican’s suppressing the EF on the basis of their adherents’ rejection of VII is risible (at best). Why? Because the vast majority of NO Catholics themselves cannot possibly accept Vatican II because they couldn’t tell you anything substantive that the Council taught. How can you accept a teaching when you cannot even say what the teaching is?
To which, Deacon Edward, I’d add that, after 60 years, we are still unable to agree on the “authentic” understanding of VII is. Paul VI’s view of the Council was certainly not the same as that of Benedict XVI. Reading the actual documents, as some of us have done, doesn’t seem to resolve this dilemma.
Only a few days ago, Larry Chapp recommended Weigel’s book on VCII. Chapp posits, as does Weigel, that VCII has value in correcting troublesome teaching which preceded it. [See the long and winding articles at gaudiumetspes22.com/topics/defense-of-vatican-ii on truth and error.]
IF one value attributed to VCII is its correction of past teaching, then how can one defend that VCII ought not itself be reformed, revised, or corrected in some or many aspects?
Next, what is it about VCII that propelled Paul VI and now Francis and his papal posse to suppress a type of ‘ressourcement’ liturgy as not worthy of the Church post VCII?
WHAT, SPECIFICALLY, is it about VCII that allows Francis and his henchmen to instrumentalize it, to abuse the faithful in its ‘pastoral’ name? If teaching is open to correction, then a pope should also be. A lie is a lie no matter who tells it.
In response to this and several of the most recent entries, yours truly proposes a view, “specifically,” on the harmonized awkwardness tucked away in parts of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council…
FIRST, those who see the whole glass half full (Weigel) are those who think the hole in the hull of the Barque of Peter is above the waterline, rather than below the waterline. The Documents were written by committees…But, to be valued is the orientation of the Church to dig deeply (ressourcement) and only then to engage the modern world (aggiornamento) or what’s left of it.
Benedict, for example, does not differ from Paul VI in the conviction that Dei Verbum was correct to return directly to Christ rather than simply to former documents on Vatican letterhead. (He openly explains that he and Cardinal Frings did fail to anticipate the fallout from shelving draft texts expected to be rubber stamped.)
SECOND, Sacrosanctum Concilium is only one of the four Constitutions and, yes surely, has been violated—due to a complete lack of governance as mandated by the Council. Yours truly recalls a formal statement by Pope Paul VI that the disastrous NO Mass experience of the 1970s (…) was still “valid” (!), but only if Bugnini’s ambiguities were interpreted and intended by the priest in the orthodox manner.
THIRD, Lumen Gentium (Chapter 3) completes that truncated work of Vatican I (not adjourned, but “suspended” under military assault in 1870) by rounding out the combined role of the papacy and the bishops in a “hierarchical communion.” A text which was clarified against ambiguity by the added Explanatory Note (curiously buried at the end) added by Pope Paul VI and drafted by the International Theological Commission.
FOURTH, now Dei Verbum and Gaudium et Spes, and the question of “what allows Francis and his henchmen…?”
Even in the solid Dei Verbum, Pope Paul VI still inserted nineteen succinct “interventions” to clarify ambiguities or omissions, e.g., supplying explicit reference to both Christ’s words AND his works (as in the historicity of miracles and the fact of the Resurrection). The moral paradigm shift today has been, yes, to affirm doctrinal truths, but to quarantine moral aberrations as exemptions (while burying Veritatis Splendor, 1993). The synodalist Cardinal Hollerich signals going further—to overturn the Catechism which is a “fruit of the Council” (1992/1994/1997).
In Gaudium et Spes we find a muted and narrowly-contexted correction (?) to the lower-ranking Declaration on Religious Freedom (GS n.79: “…the Council wishes to recall first of all the permanent binding force of universal natural law and its all-embracing principles. Man’s conscience itself gives ever more emphatic voice to these principles.” (The abusive phrase “freedom of conscience” does not even appear, anywhere, in the lesser Declaration.) But, a second and offsetting sentence, among others, exploited by termites, is this Tielhardian poetry: “Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one” (GS n. 5).
In SUMMATION, the thrust of the Council and the Documents is a worthy one, but abused and overshadowed especially in later liturgies, and otherwise capable of textual abuse or breezy replacement.
The multi-committee drafting of the Documents sometimes reads like shadow boxing where the progressives signal something, and then it is counterbalanced or even corrected by something else, sometimes even in a different document. No deletions!—fraternal collegiality! This strategy for both retaining identity and dealing with modernity lends itself to manipulation—the “spirit of the Council!” The termites were forced to wait 35 years to undo the reclamation work advanced by St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. The Tielhardian mindset has come back up to the surface (like the swarming hecedia beetle—which lies dormant underground but only for 17 years!).
The process IS the message! Exploitable “synodality,” where from the start the bishops as successors of the Apostles are reduced “primarily as facilitators.” Instead, as Benedict said of Councils (and synods!), in the 1985 “Ratzinger Report”: “Councils are what the Church DOES, not what the Church IS.”
Thank you, Peter, for sharing your understanding. The Church is in trouble, and as we go from bad to worse, causes for blame will continue to be placed in many a wrong place, I think.
I find Ratzinger’s quote problematic. Can a person give what he doesn’t have? Can a vicious man act in a holy manner? The Church has Jesus Christ at its head and at core, yet popes and priests and laity act as if He isn’t really there.
So far as Weigel’s blunderbuss is concerned, I suppose he’s never heard that guns don’t kill. People do.
Here’s Ephesians 6:12 as a bullet point for today:
For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Lenten blessings to you, Peter.
“I deplore, the blunderbuss anti-Vatican II polemic of a marginal minority of liturgical traditionalists, who foolishly handed a loaded gun to their Roman enemies.”
According to George W., our mess is due to that ‘marginal minority of liturgical traditionalists’ handing a loaded gun to their Roman enemies!!! Right. Load it onto the scapegoat of liturgical traditionalists! Load it on. They beg you to give more. Anyone else? Load it on. Lay on the blame.
If George doesn’t feel better now, he will, I trust, lay it on more thick next time. His is a runaway train, I think.
Dear Peter B and Meiron;
Though we have differences, have I not used these verses as a guide in speaking to you?
Colossians 3:12-13 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
On the other hand, if I have not been a respectful respondent to you both, please forgive me.
In Christ’s name,
Brian
Accepted, readily. But it’s not about disrespect, nor only me and Meiron…
What you very recently explain as “coming alongside” puts a whole new face on things. Welcome to the spirited dialogues. But, in retrospect, also appreciate that what has been intended as “coming alongside” (your words) with a broadside of random citations, on the receiving end has every appearance of a drive-by shooting.
But, looking together now to the future, when you formulate your thoughts about the Church, it would be helpful to phrase some of them as questions seeking understanding. Thank you, here, for your sincerity and for citing my favorite line from St. Peter (historically the first of 266 popes, yes, many of whom were scoundrels).
That we interact from time to time gives insight and perspective. To sketch out our ideas and to be a blessing to other readers, is hopefully the aim! You have a circle of supporters, as is to be expected.
What then is the goal of yours truly?
In trying times the follower of jesus Christ is uplifted by His tidings. Numerous readers on CWR have replied to say the Lord’s word is a blessing to them. It is worth the effort despite some comments where they would prefer not to have their allergy inflamed by the sandpaper of God’s advice. As ridiculous as it sounds, it is born out time and again.
We seem to talk over each others head too often. You have your constituents whereas some benefit from scriptural references pasted from my chair. In essence, it is to others that we speak and one of the reasons that causes CWR to be an interesting oasis!
Again, braille through a mattress…Now we are deflected into a reductionist tutorial about “constituents” and “a circle of supporters”–and an “allergy” assigned by yourself to others who or so obtuse as to suggest that there might be something more, something outside the rote quoting “abrasive” (you say), scriptural passages. Three points:
FIRST, what if “the Church” established by Christ is something other than a Protestant-style constituency reciting the Scriptures, written by–and part of the Tradition of–the Church begun before the 16th century?
A Eucharistic and biblical assembly rather than only a biblical congregation founded by whomever? Mine is not an effort to co-opt you, only to propose real recognition of ideas and realities outside the sola Scriptura approach. Talking past each other? No question at this end about the witnessing offered in the Scriptures–and the inspired (not dictated) writers from whom we even have the Scriptures. No question here about finding Christ through the Scripture—your valued contribution.
SECOND. so, how about also engaging in discussion on origins, or something, anything, in addition to a biblical quote-file? I notice in my Lutheran versions of the Bible that the New Testament Gospels and Letters, etc. are not accompanied by any introductory essay on their writers and history. A curious omission…more curious than the limitation of the biblical books to 66 rather than the original 72. About which…
THIRD, yours truly is not a scripture scholar, but—for purposes of engagement—the shorter list of books is easily explained without abrasion by the fact that for the Old Testament Luther worked from the original Hebrew rather than the Greek Septuagint (compiled and translated under Ptolemy, c. 250 B.C). Significantly, the latter version accepted revelation as continuing into the early Jewish diaspora, that is, not limited to Palestine, nor the Hebrew language, nor a narrower slice of Jewish history. This difference is simply an interesting fact of history, because the historical Incarnation (and all of Revelation) was/is not narrowly tribal. The Catholic Vulgate (72 books) is based on St. Jerome’s translation in 382-405 A.D., using both the Hebrew and the Septuagint. (The term Vulgate indicates the more common language Latin, a vernacular pre-dating Luther’s much later translation from Latin to a new German vernacular by more than a thousand years).
When the Church decided upon the Old Testament books and its own New Testament writings, in the early 5th century, she also authoritatively (!) rejected a wide spread of proposed Gnostic writings. She retained the Septuagint, unlike the much later Lutheran translation of 1522 which simply was based on the Old Testament Hebrew (and the New Testament Greek).
“ET INTRO IDO AD ALTARE DEI”.I LEARNED THESE WORDS AS A FIFTH GRADE ALTAR BOY SEVENTY SIX YEARS AGO.SOMETHING SACRED AND PROFOUND HAPPENS AT THAT ALTAR WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE.
I may be wrong, but those words are not spoken at any Novus Ordo Mass. The do remain part of the TLM liturgy. Is it because we prefer the church furniture which holds the sacred vessels to be more like a Last Supper table where one reclines and dines rather than an altar where a sacrificial oblation-offering is made to assuage guilt?
It is a special honour to give service as an alter boy (server). The feeling of being close to God is something well remembered.
@Mark Beaulieu:
Thank you for your query. There are people considerably more qualified to address your point. I referred to the the 66 books of Scripture that are accepted today. When the Catholic Bible was revised, the “Deuterocanonical” books were dropped (there may be one that was kept though) as not being inspired by the Holy Spirit. A Catholic reader would be a more able source to explain why they were first included and subsequently deleted as not divinely revealed.
It has been may years since reading Deuterocanonical Books, however they brought nothing new and in some cases were contradictory to the widely accepted 66 books that make up the bible (as I recall).
When the Church is guided by the canon of scripture, the “Authority of the Church” is according to Christ.
My apologies for not being a better guide in the matter, however maybe someone will stop by with a more complete understanding.
God bless you,
Brian Young
In all matters the Lord is a proper guide. He loves us enough to lay down His life to redeem us. We look to Him as a fitting mentor.
Romans 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
1 Peter 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
Ephesians 4:1-I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, …
We Catholics have a proverb about one’s breadth of study and depth of knowledge of the Bible and where that leads them: “Weak Catholics become Protestants/Evangelicals; Strong Protestants/Evangelicals become Catholics.”
What God says on a matter is decisive. We ask Him what is the road to salvation!
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Romans 10:9-10 Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
2 Timothy 1:9 Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
Jesus and our belief and trust in him is the narrow gate. Yet, to be fair have I omitted something?