Ecclesia Militans

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 

Topic: What has Changed in Rome?

Post Info
Veteran Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 43
Date:
What has Changed in Rome?
Permalink  
 

It has become something virtually in the realm of doctrine that Pope Benedict XVI is somehow truly traditional and that he wishes to restore the Church in some fashion consonant with Tradition? Is this true? What exactly has changed in Rome? He is and has always been fervent in his love for Vatican II, he holds just as firmly to the new dogmas of Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and Collegiality. Has he changed since the time of John-Paul II? At that time Archbishop Lefebvre was strongly opposed to him, and certainly put him in the list of those who make up an apostate Rome. Is there one Conciliar "dogma" that he now opposes?



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:
Permalink  
 

As far as the Pope is concerned the only thing to change is his age,he is still as progressive as he allways was. In Rome there seems to be a number of lower ranking prelates that are waking up to the disaster around them but unfortunatley they are too few and too low in rank to affect any change.



__________________
Veritas
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 9
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think the Pope would be seen very differently if he were not now in the habit of wearing Baroque vestments and a fur-trimmed cape (no doubt this has a technical name that can be found on the "vestment sites" that have sprung up since Summorum Pontificum!). But I've seen no signs of change in any  other respect, except for the worse. The Pope hasn't even said the traditional Mass in public, so I cannot imagine what Bishop Fellay is seeing when he claims that Rome is now friendly towards tradition. All he can quote is SP and the removal of (some of) the excommunications.

But both of these directly concern the SSPX, as the "freeing of the Mass" was one of their conditions. "Paris is worth a Mass." Perhaps for Rome an SSPX under control and "tamed" is worth a Motu Proprio, which, as they could easily foresee, would make very little difference in the Church in general, but might well impress the SSPX, perhaps removing their justification for claiming a state of emergency (cf. the Redemptorists, who used exactly that argument for giving up the fight).

Once the Society is "inside", I wonder if, after a couple of years perhaps, further restrictions will be introduced for them and the Ecclesia Dei groups. It may only be a remnant SSPX still "outside" (if it's big enough) that will give Rome an incentive to allow those "inside" to continue.       



__________________

Immaculate Heart of Mary be my refuge and my strength.

Veteran Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 43
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree with you. He appears more conservative looking, without having the substance. it is his doctrinal infection with modernism which is the problem underlying him with the addition of having a more developed taste in vestments, etc. I think he appreciates the Old Rite in the sense that it is more "cosmic" in its dimensions, as he might put it.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 9
Date:
Permalink  
 

He will also be the last Pope to have had a traditional Catholic upbringing (in 1930's and 40's Bavaria) and a pre-Vatican II seminary training (however mixed with Modernism it was). So he has led a traditional Catholic life and knows what it means. The next Pope won't even have had those advantages.



-- Edited by Gabriel on Tuesday 19th of June 2012 08:11:20 PM

__________________

Immaculate Heart of Mary be my refuge and my strength.

Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 9
Date:
Permalink  
 

Nothing has really changed about Rome. John Vennari did a good job explaining why a few weeks ago.

Bishop Fellay wrote in 2003 that he would need more definite signs of change in Rome before a "reconciliation" could occur. Nine years later, is Rome really that much different?



__________________
Veteran Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 43
Date:
Permalink  
 

Is it any different might even be more precise? But things might be coming to an end regarding the agreement. We must pray for the General Chapter.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 9
Date:
Permalink  
 
Father Dominic wrote:

Is it any different might even be more precise? But things might be coming to an end regarding the agreement. We must pray for the General Chapter.


 Yes, is it ANY different is a more precise question. Thanks for the correction.



__________________
Newbie
Status: Offline
Posts: 3
Date:
Permalink  
 
I think from his most recent writings that he has changed somewhat. I don't think he is any longer the coat and tie Father Ratzinger. Although still espousing some forms of modernism he is no longer as he was before. I believe he has seen the damage caused by all the post VII phenomenon but can't come to grips with the fact that "his" council caused the problem.

__________________
Veteran Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 43
Date:
Permalink  
 

You are far more optimistic than I. I read his two volumes of Jesus of Nazareth and found them full of error, and indeed of heresy. His encyclicals bear little relation to the Catholic Faith, and many of his papal pronouncements bear the same modernism, including quotes from Chardin.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 9
Date:
Permalink  
 
StJustin wrote:

I think from his most recent writings that he has changed somewhat. I don't think he is any longer the coat and tie Father Ratzinger. Although still espousing some forms of modernism he is no longer as he was before. I believe he has seen the damage caused by all the post VII phenomenon but can't come to grips with the fact that "his" council caused the problem.


 Fr Dominic hit the nail on the head. Benedict XVI gave a very New Age sermon in 2009, here is the worst part of it:

 

"The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host."



__________________
Veteran Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 43
Date:
Permalink  
 

Now, that certainly is from de Chardin.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Date:
Permalink  
 

 I think the only thing that has changed in Rome is the tactics. They still are full force with the false theology that formed the current crisis. They still won't admit that the problems stem from modernism. They still won't admit that vatican ii was filled with liberal theology. The only difference I see is a change in tactics because the Tridentine Mass and Traditional Catholic communities would not die in the great suppression.

 The new tactic in my opinion is assimilation. The vatican plans on a synthesis between the new rite and the Tridentine rite, effectively killing it. Once it is dead then progression can begin again, full steam. The Pope said himself in his book, "  WE MUST BE ON GUARD AGAINST MINUMIZING THESE MOVEMENTS WITH OUT A DOUBT THEY REPRESENT A SECTARIAN ZEALOTRY THAT IS THE ANTITHISIS OF CATHOLICITY. So we are the antithesis, yeah we heard this before, but a truth+lie=lie.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:
Permalink  
 
Well said Supplex,well said.

__________________
Veritas
Newbie
Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Date:
Permalink  
 
Father Dominic wrote:

You are far more optimistic than I. I read his two volumes of Jesus of Nazareth and found them full of error, and indeed of heresy. His encyclicals bear little relation to the Catholic Faith, and many of his papal pronouncements bear the same modernism, including quotes from Chardin.


 Father Dominic, I have not read "Jesus of Nazareth"; I'm curious about the errors and heresy (material? or formal, so as to be deposed ipso facto?).  Could you explain or define them?  Thank you.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Permalink  
 
I wouldn't say that Pope Benedict is a traditional Catholic, but I agree with Michael Davies's assessment when the Pope was still Cardinal that he is a friend to tradition. The Pope often does things things that are supportive of tradtional Catholicism., such as issue Summorum Pontificum.

__________________
Veteran Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 43
Date:
Permalink  
 

The question of Summorum Pontificum is a good case in point. The drive of that document overthrows Tradition altogether since it rests on the most modernist of foundations. While it is true that the Pope says that the old rite was never abrogated, it restricts it use so that the SSPX are not covered in the permission. The real error in it, though is the absurd claim that there is only one rite, and that the old and new are just two forms of the same thing. This is a vicious attack on the traditionalist position, for we say and have always said that this new rite is not the same, that it is contrary to the Church's dogmatic teaching on the nature of the Mass as defined by Trent, and that no priest then may say it morally since it is not truly Catholic. This Pope believes entirely in the modern thing, and though he is liberal enough to allow both rites, even here he has made it known that in the future there is only room for one rite, and this is not the traditional rite we have received, but a hybrid thing. Remember the Archbishop called the new rite a "bastard rite" because it is the progeny of both the Church and modernism.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 9
Date:
Permalink  
 
Jaynek wrote:

I wouldn't say that Pope Benedict is a traditional Catholic, but I agree with Michael Davies's assessment when the Pope was still Cardinal that he is a friend to tradition. The Pope often does things things that are supportive of tradtional Catholicism., such as issue Summorum Pontificum.


 Once again I must agree with Fr. Dominic. Benedict XVI made it clear in his 2009 sermon - the one where he referenced De Chardin - that there is room for only one liturgy. His desire is to combine the two liturgies. I don't call that a "friend of Tradition" at all.

When John Paul II was elected, the media portrayed him as "Traditional". Oh yeah, kissing the Koran, receiving the mark of a false god on his forehead, placing a buddhist statue on the altar, calling for Protestants and Catholics to write a new Bible together... that's Traditional, right?

Benedict is hardly any different. One need only read his books to determine that he is not Traditional in the slightest, not even a friend of Tradition. If he loves the Traditional Latin Mass as much as he is portrayed to, why doesn't he celebrate it publicly? If he's such a friend of Tradition, why did he appoint Cardinal Levada as head of the Congregation for defending the Faith, after Levada's horrific past?

Let's also remember what Archbishop LeFebvre said to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988, a quote that destroys the argument that ABL would side with Bishop Fellay if he were alive today:

"Eminence, even if you give us everything – a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries –we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society." - Archbishop LeFebvre



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Date:
Permalink  
 
Father Dominic wrote:

The question of Summorum Pontificum is a good case in point. The drive of that document overthrows Tradition altogether since it rests on the most modernist of foundations. While it is true that the Pope says that the old rite was never abrogated, it restricts it use so that the SSPX are not covered in the permission. The real error in it, though is the absurd claim that there is only one rite, and that the old and new are just two forms of the same thing. This is a vicious attack on the traditionalist position, for we say and have always said that this new rite is not the same, that it is contrary to the Church's dogmatic teaching on the nature of the Mass as defined by Trent, and that no priest then may say it morally since it is not truly Catholic. This Pope believes entirely in the modern thing, and though he is liberal enough to allow both rites, even here he has made it known that in the future there is only room for one rite, and this is not the traditional rite we have received, but a hybrid thing. Remember the Archbishop called the new rite a "bastard rite" because it is the progeny of both the Church and modernism.


 I hope to have my article finished next week on this matter. I am taking all the different qoutes from the Pope and let him say just what his plans are. This will be very similar to the one that was done for Archbishop Lefebvre showing how he would be against a deal, only I did not write that, I believe it was an IA forum member. The one I am writing will be from the perspective of Benedict XVI, of his views of traditionalist and what he plans for the traditionalist movement.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Permalink  
 
Father Dominic wrote:

The question of Summorum Pontificum is a good case in point. The drive of that document overthrows Tradition altogether since it rests on the most modernist of foundations. While it is true that the Pope says that the old rite was never abrogated, it restricts it use so that the SSPX are not covered in the permission. The real error in it, though is the absurd claim that there is only one rite, and that the old and new are just two forms of the same thing. This is a vicious attack on the traditionalist position, for we say and have always said that this new rite is not the same, that it is contrary to the Church's dogmatic teaching on the nature of the Mass as defined by Trent, and that no priest then may say it morally since it is not truly Catholic. This Pope believes entirely in the modern thing, and though he is liberal enough to allow both rites, even here he has made it known that in the future there is only room for one rite, and this is not the traditional rite we have received, but a hybrid thing. Remember the Archbishop called the new rite a "bastard rite" because it is the progeny of both the Church and modernism.


 I agree that this "two forms of one rite" terminology  does not make much sense to me and I would like to see the Novus Ordo abrogated.  However, I cannot understand how a Mass promulgated by a Pope could be "not truly Catholic". 

Could you please give me references to the Pope saying that he intends to make a hybrid Mass and get rid of the TLM.  I would like to see his exact words.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Permalink  
 
SpiritusSanctus wrote:
Once again I must agree with Fr. Dominic. Benedict XVI made it clear in his 2009 sermon - the one where he referenced De Chardin - that there is room for only one liturgy. His desire is to combine the two liturgies. I don't call that a "friend of Tradition" at all.

 I looked up that sermon and read it.  While I too have misgivings about him quoting de Chardin, Pope Benedict was not saying anything to do with combining the two liturgies.  He was talking about liturgy in an abstract and figurative way.  He was saying that the whole world should become permeated with God like a liturgy. This is his comment: "The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy."

 




-- Edited by Jaynek on Tuesday 26th of June 2012 02:51:11 PM

__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 9
Date:
Permalink  
 

Jaynek, you left out this part, and it is the most important part there is in his sermon:

"This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host."

"Cosmic" and "cosmos" are New Age terms, not to mention that de Chardin was a New Ager. So he wants to achieve a New Age liturgy, basically (as if the NO isn't New Age enough). It's so obvious that he is infected with modernism.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Permalink  
 
SpiritusSanctus wrote:

Jaynek, you left out this part, and it is the most important part there is in his sermon:

"This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host."

"Cosmic" and "cosmos" are New Age terms, not to mention that de Chardin was a New Ager. So he wants to achieve a New Age liturgy, basically (as if the NO isn't New Age enough). It's so obvious that he is infected with modernism.


 Yes, it is a cause for concern that he is referring to de Chardin.  However you have misunderstood what it means.  He is not talking about the liturgy in a literal way.  It is a poetic way to say that we should consecrate the entire universe to Christ.  It has nothing to do with the rite of Mass.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 9
Date:
Permalink  
 
Jaynek wrote:
SpiritusSanctus wrote:

Jaynek, you left out this part, and it is the most important part there is in his sermon:

"This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host."

"Cosmic" and "cosmos" are New Age terms, not to mention that de Chardin was a New Ager. So he wants to achieve a New Age liturgy, basically (as if the NO isn't New Age enough). It's so obvious that he is infected with modernism.


 Yes, it is a cause for concern that he is referring to de Chardin.  However you have misunderstood what it means.  He is not talking about the liturgy in a literal way.  It is a poetic way to say that we should consecrate the entire universe to Christ.  It has nothing to do with the rite of Mass.


 It has everything to do with the Mass. That is what "liturgy" means.

Nowhere in his sermon did he say anything about Consecrating the universe to Christ. New Agers like Benedict and de Chardin often speak in deep, poetic terms to disguise what they really mean. Just like Novus Ordos that are celebrated with reverence to disguise the NO's true hideous nature, the deepness of Benedict's statement is meant to seem beautiful when it really is evil. Furthermore, quoting de Chardin is more than a "cause for concern". When you have the Vicar of Christ quoting a man like that, you know something is horribly wrong.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Permalink  
 
SS, I really think that you have misunderstood this passage, but I am not sure there is anything to be gained by discussing this point further. I wish you the best.

__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 7
Date:
Permalink  
 
The current Pope espouses ecumenism. This is what I have seen of "ecumenism." My Protestant friends (I am a convert) have a "Bible Study" every Friday morning. They like to tell me how certain Catholics attend. I tell them those Catholics should go to confession. I tell my firends that I understand their goal of turning Catholics away from the Faith. But of course, they would never embrace the sacrament of confession, Devotion to Our Lady, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or any other Catholic dogma. In fact, their foreign "missions" are focused on one overarching goal: eliminate the Catholic Church in South America and throughout the world. And they are making stupendous progress, as every study of faith demonstrates.

And thus, it seems to me, the goal of the Vatican authorities is similar to my Protestant friends. Rome wants to create a "synthesis" of all "denominations" that can be nominally "loyal" to Rome. What they don't seem to see is that our Protestant friends have no such intention, especially as they see they are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the Faithful.

__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:
Permalink  
 
Lepantorevisited wrote:

The current Pope espouses ecumenism. This is what I have seen of "ecumenism." My Protestant friends (I am a convert) have a "Bible Study" every Friday morning. They like to tell me how certain Catholics attend. I tell them those Catholics should go to confession. I tell my firends that I understand their goal of turning Catholics away from the Faith. But of course, they would never embrace the sacrament of confession, Devotion to Our Lady, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or any other Catholic dogma. In fact, their foreign "missions" are focused on one overarching goal: eliminate the Catholic Church in South America and throughout the world. And they are making stupendous progress, as every study of faith demonstrates.

And thus, it seems to me, the goal of the Vatican authorities is similar to my Protestant friends. Rome wants to create a "synthesis" of all "denominations" that can be nominally "loyal" to Rome. What they don't seem to see is that our Protestant friends have no such intention, especially as they see they are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the Faithful.


 Which was the real purpose of the masonic VCII.



__________________
Veritas
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 6
Date:
Permalink  
 
Supplex wrote:
Father Dominic wrote:

The question of Summorum Pontificum is a good case in point. The drive of that document overthrows Tradition altogether since it rests on the most modernist of foundations. While it is true that the Pope says that the old rite was never abrogated, it restricts it use so that the SSPX are not covered in the permission. The real error in it, though is the absurd claim that there is only one rite, and that the old and new are just two forms of the same thing. This is a vicious attack on the traditionalist position, for we say and have always said that this new rite is not the same, that it is contrary to the Church's dogmatic teaching on the nature of the Mass as defined by Trent, and that no priest then may say it morally since it is not truly Catholic. This Pope believes entirely in the modern thing, and though he is liberal enough to allow both rites, even here he has made it known that in the future there is only room for one rite, and this is not the traditional rite we have received, but a hybrid thing. Remember the Archbishop called the new rite a "bastard rite" because it is the progeny of both the Church and modernism.


 I hope to have my article finished next week on this matter. I am taking all the different qoutes from the Pope and let him say just what his plans are. This will be very similar to the one that was done for Archbishop Lefebvre showing how he would be against a deal, only I did not write that, I believe it was an IA forum member. The one I am writing will be from the perspective of Benedict XVI, of his views of traditionalist and what he plans for the traditionalist movement.


 http://extraecclesiamnullasalus.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/speech-of-quotes/



__________________
Veteran Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 43
Date:
Permalink  
 
Supplex wrote:
Supplex wrote:
Father Dominic wrote:

The question of Summorum Pontificum is a good case in point. The drive of that document overthrows Tradition altogether since it rests on the most modernist of foundations. While it is true that the Pope says that the old rite was never abrogated, it restricts it use so that the SSPX are not covered in the permission. The real error in it, though is the absurd claim that there is only one rite, and that the old and new are just two forms of the same thing. This is a vicious attack on the traditionalist position, for we say and have always said that this new rite is not the same, that it is contrary to the Church's dogmatic teaching on the nature of the Mass as defined by Trent, and that no priest then may say it morally since it is not truly Catholic. This Pope believes entirely in the modern thing, and though he is liberal enough to allow both rites, even here he has made it known that in the future there is only room for one rite, and this is not the traditional rite we have received, but a hybrid thing. Remember the Archbishop called the new rite a "bastard rite" because it is the progeny of both the Church and modernism.


 I hope to have my article finished next week on this matter. I am taking all the different qoutes from the Pope and let him say just what his plans are. This will be very similar to the one that was done for Archbishop Lefebvre showing how he would be against a deal, only I did not write that, I believe it was an IA forum member. The one I am writing will be from the perspective of Benedict XVI, of his views of traditionalist and what he plans for the traditionalist movement.


 http://extraecclesiamnullasalus.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/speech-of-quotes/


 That sounds like a good idea. You should not have a problem finding things. That is the interesting aspect of this whole thing. It is not a question of not being able to find out what the Pope thinks. He has written or spoken much on many things.



__________________
Member
Status: Offline
Posts: 7
Date:
Permalink  
 
In a 1978 book entitled "What Else Would You Like to Know About the Catholic Church," written by a Father Ryan, I think for newcomer and others with questions, he says that the unlike other councils, which were called to attack heresies, the Second Vatican Council was "called to attack the Church herself," to bring her into the modern world, and free her of intellectual "embarrassments", like the Index of Forbidden Books. That "spirit" he describes still seems to exist in Rome.

__________________
 
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard