This is the document released today by the Vatican with clear unequivocal statements on the doctrine of the Church about the Catholic Church as the 'one true Church of Christ' and how other Christian churches stand in relation to it.

It is, of course, posted in NEWS ABOUT THE CHURCH, but I am posting it here, as well, without the footnotes, because I see it as yet another way in which Pope Benedict XVI is systematically going about to take down the web of inaccuracies and often willful misinterpretation of Vatican-II documents, just as he did with the Motu Proprio on the matter of liturgical reform.

He made his intention very clear in the December 22, 2005, address to the Roman Curia about interpreting Vatican-II as a continuity and evolution of Church doctrine and tradition, not as the rupture with the past advocated and often put into practice by the exponents of the much-abused expression 'spirit of Vatican II'.

Not surprisingly, that 'hermeneutic of discontinuity' led to a relativistic view of religions in the name of 'ecumenism' and 'inter-religious dialog' - a view Pope Benedict XVI referred to in Assisi recently as 'religious indifferentism.' This relativist view of religions directly contradicts the doctrine of the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church' professed in the Nicene Creed.

The CDF statement today re-states this doctrine unequivocally. It's not saying anything new, but given how the MSM tend to use Catholic statements about the Church's unchanging dogma and doctrine into as fuel to stoke the fires of resentment and hostility among non-Catholic Christians, this may well bring on the firestorm that DOMINE IESUS did in 2000. It's a similar re-statement of the basic tenet of the faith.


CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS
REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

Introduction

The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiology.

The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS

First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council(1). Paul VI affirmed it (2) and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation" (3). The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention (4).

Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community" (5), that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.(6)

"This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic [...]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him" (7).

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium subsistence means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church (8), in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. (9)

Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.10

Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?

Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity" (11).

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church" (12).

Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all  because of the apostolic succession  the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds" (13), they merit the title of "particular or local Churches" (14), and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches (15).

"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature" (16). However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches (17).

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history(18).

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery (19) cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense (20).

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

The Pope may be on vacation, but with the epochal moves and decisions he made in the last two weeks, he has left the world heaping servings to digest - which will take far more than the next three weeks to do!

Here's Fr. Neuhaus's very on-the-mark commentary on the Mass MP:

The Pope's Liturgical Liberalism
By Richard John Neuhaus
First Things
Monday, July 9, 2007

One of the more deft moves in Benedict'S apostolic letter motu proprio, titled Summorum Pontificum, is in referring to the 1962 form of the Roman Rite as the Mass of Blessed John XXIII. It is not the Tridentine Mass or the Mass of Pius V but the Mass of John XXIII. It is the form of the Mass that was celebrated daily at the Second Vatican Council.

Benedict notes that, over the many centuries of the Roman Rite, popes have from time to time made modest changes. Pius V did so in 1570, John XXIII did so in 1962, and Paul VI did so in 1970, the last producing what is called the Novus Ordo. Benedict notes that John Paul II also made small but important emendations regarding references to the Jews in the Good Friday Liturgy. (More on that below.)

By associating the Latin Mass that is now universally approved with John XXIII, Benedict steals a card from the deck of liberals and progressives, for whom John XXIII is always “good Pope John,” in contrast to his successors. But this is much more than a deft rhetorical move.

Summorum Pontificum is a thoroughly liberal document in substance and spirit, remembering that liberal means, as once was more commonly understood, generosity of spirit.

In his letter to the bishops, Benedict is directing them to be generous in embracing the fullness of the Catholic tradition and responding to the desires of the Catholic faithful. This is proposed in contrast to the rigidity, bordering sometimes on tyranny, of a liturgical guild that mistakenly thought that the Second Vatican Council gave them a mandate to impose their ideas of liturgical reform on the entire Church.

Benedict writes of the Mass of 1962 and that of 1970: "It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were 'two Rites' Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite."

This is of a piece with Benedict's longstanding campaign against the idea that there is a 'pre-Vatican II Church' and a 'post-Vatican II Church'. There is one Catholic Church, Benedict insists, and its liturgy is the Roman Rite.

I discuss Benedict's understanding of continuity in the December 2006 issue of First Things in connection with Klaus Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, for which then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote an introduction. There were many things done in the name of liturgical reform for which the claim was made that such changes were mandated by the council. Excluding the Mass in Latin was one of them.

Benedict writes: "As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted".

In other words, were it not for the presumption of some liturgical reformers, there would have been no need for this apostolic letter.

For decades following the council, experimentation was in, tradition was out, and the Catholic faithful were subjected to a long period of what is politely called liturgical destabilization - and not only liturgical destabilization - which alienated many. The pope is, with great care, trying to remedy that destabilization without causing additional destabilization.

As he notes in his letter, there is a close connection between lex credendi and lex orandi — between the way of faith and the way of worship.

Of the problem to be remedied, he writes: "This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church"

The letter underscores that the desire for the Latin rite of John XXIII is not only on the part of nostalgic old folks. There is, he says, a notable desire on the part of young people to experience the richness of the Church's ways of worship, a richness of which they were deprived but are now encountering with a sense of fresh discovery. The bishops, he says, should respond positively to this discovery in a spirit of pastoral generosity.

The purpose of the pope in issuing this pastoral letter will come as no surprise to those familiar with Cardinal Ratzinger's writing on liturgy over the years.

He says again: "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

Part of the purpose of the letter, as Benedict says, is to ease the way toward reconciliation with the Lefebvrists of the Society of St. Pius X. He recognizes that their schism involves deeper theological questions, including the recognition of the authority of the Second Vatican Council, but this is one step toward healing the wound of schism.

One consequence of Summorum Pontificum will almost certainly be the more widespread use of the Missal of 1962. And perhaps of the Missal of 1970 in Latin rather than the vernacular, which has always been permitted.

I do not expect that there will be a great or immediate increase in the number of parishes celebrating Mass in the 1962 form. Most bishops and priests say there is no great demand for it, although that could now change. Moreover, most priests and bishops do not have the language skills for it, although some may start digging around for those Latin textbooks from college and seminary days.

What it seems to me that Benedict has most importantly done with this apostolic letter is to strengthen the continuity of the Catholic tradition in matters pertaining to lex orandi, as John Paul II's hermeneutic of the Second Vatican Council strengthened that continuity in matters pertaining to lex credendi.

As a result, the weary language about a pre-Vatican II Church and a post-Vatican II Church is increasingly antiquated, although there are still those of an older generation who believe the council was a call for revolution and who will continue to use that language. But these twenty-eight years of pontifical leadership have made it obvious to all but the willfully obtuse that there is, in lex credendi and lex orandi, one Catholic Church.

In keeping with the spirit of pastoral generosity and sensitivity that marks this document, Benedict recognizes that in the one Church there will always be poblems. Three years after the implementation of Summorum Pontificum this September, he says, there will be a study of the successes and difficulties encountered in putting it into effect.

There is no suggestion that these provisions might be rescinded at that time. Any modifications required will have as their purpose the effective implementation of the apostolic letter.

With the possible exception of those who are incorrigibly nostalgic for the good old days of the revolution that was not to be, I believe that the pope’s initiative will be recognized for what it is - a generous and hopeful proposal for a future in which Catholics are freed to celebrate the rich variety of the tradition that is theirs.

Benedict expresses the hope that even those who decline to use the Missal of John XXIII will be encouraged to celebrate the Novus Ordo of 1970 with the reverence and solemnity that befits the ineffable mystery of the Mass. We can only pray that his hope will be vindicated.

********

And now to the aforementioned piece of nastiness.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) immediately issued a blistering statement claiming that a prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the Latin Mass is "a theological setback in the religious life of Catholics and a body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations, after 40 years of progress between the Church and the Jewish people."

Abraham Foxman, national director of ADL said: "We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday Mass, that it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted. This is a theological setback in the religious life of Catholics and a body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations. It is the wrong decision at the wrong time. It appears the Vatican has chosen to satisfy a right-wing faction in the Church that rejects change and reconciliation."

That statement is a mix of ignorance and bellicosity, a combination that is, unfortunately, not infrequent in ADL alarums.

In the 1570 form of the Roman Rite for Good Friday there was this: 'Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis'(Let us pray for the perfidious Jews).

On the first Good Friday after his election to the papacy in 1959, Pope John XXIII eliminated the adjective 'perfidious' from the prayer.

That same year, he also eliminated from the rite of baptism the phrase used for Jewish catechumens: "Horresce Judaicam perfidiam, respue Hebraicam superstitionem" (Disavow Jewish unbelieving, deny Hebrew superstition). Also eliminated were similar formulas for those converting from idolatry, Islam, or a heretical sect.

The Roman Missal modified by Pope Paul VI in 1969, and put into effect in 1970, has this formulation: "Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant."

The following prayer is this: "Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption."

Of course some Jews may be offended at the suggestion that the fullness of redemption is found in Jesus Christ, but their problem is with Christianity as such. They certainly are not interested in respectful dialogue between Jews who adhere to Judaism and Christians who adhere to Christianity.

As I say, the ADL reaction is a mix of bellicosity and ignorance.

The 1962 Missal does not say what Mr. Foxman says it says.

And, if he had read Benedict’s apostolic letter before attacking it, he would know that it explicitly says that the Missal of 1970 will be used exclusively in the Triduum of Holy Week, which of course includes Good Friday.

An apology is in order but I fear it is not to be expected from an organization that is prone to making reckless and publicity-grabbing statements. It is a sadness.
==================================================================

I just wish Fr. Neuhaus had also denounced those in the MSM like the Reuters reporters [to take this most recent case] who have willingly and willfully fomented the histrionic 'outrage' of the Foxmans of the world - alike, they are deliberately playing blind to objective fact to score cheap points against the Catholic Church.

Here it comes, the first blaze in the firestorm! Of course, Reuters is first to ignite the flame....And I just finished writng a comment about how Reuters had been typical of MSM's wilful blindness to look at objective fact in fomenting and playing up the totally unwarranted Jewish outrage over the MP! [I was commenting on Fr. Neuhaus's strong statements about the Jewish ADL's Foxman who shoots first without ever asking - but the whole post is frozen, so meanwhile let me post this first].



Vatican says other Christian churches 'wounded'
By Phil Stewart



VATICAN CITY, July 10(Reuters) - The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ.

A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in the Protestant denominations - a view likely to further complicate relations with Protestants.

"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said.

The Vatican text, which restates the controversial document Dominus Iesus issued by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000, said the Church wanted to stress this point because some Catholic theologians continued to misunderstand it.

Ratzinger was elected Pope in April 2005. The document is his second strong reaffirmation of Catholic tradition in four days, following a decree on Saturday restoring the old Latin Mass alongside the modern liturgy.

The document stressed that dialogue with other Christians remained "one of the priorities of the Catholic Church."

The document, issued by Benedict's successor in doctrinal matters, Cardinal William Levada, complemented the Latin Mass decree in aiming to correct what it called "erroneous or ambiguous" interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which took place from 1962 to 1965. [Oh thanks, you got that right!]

Church modernizers interpreted the Council as a break from the past while conservatives, like Benedict, see it in continuity with 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.

The document said the Council's opening to other faiths recognized there were "many elements of sanctification and truth" in other Christian denominations, but stressed only Catholicism had all the elements to be Christ's Church fully.

The text refers to "ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation," a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans.

Father Augustine Di Noia, Under-Secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.

"The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment," Di Noia told Vatican radio.

"But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be."

====================================================================

Just to put things in perspective:

The Great Schism was in 1054 - when the Eastern Church broke off from Rome.

The Protestant Reformation began with Martin Luther's activities in 1517 and concluded with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 - an attempt to reform the Catholic Church that led instead to the fracturing of Christendom.

Now, how can any Church founded 1500 years after Christ pretend to be the 'one true Church' and why should they be offended if the Catholic Church restates what has always been its doctrine?

===================================================================

Pope: Other Christians not true churches
By NICOLE WINFIELD




LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy, July 10 (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

In the latest document  formulated as five questions and answers  the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II's ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy's Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," the document said. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession  the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.

The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.

"I don't know what motivated it at this time," she said. "But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics."

The document said Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope  a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said.

"This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an 'internal constitutive principle' of the very existence of a particular church," the commentary said.

Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.

"However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith," the commentary said.

The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul  a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation. [DUH! And I thought she 'got it', from her statement in Paragraph 2 of her report - see above!]

===================================================================

There oughta be a law requiring that - if they can't be orthodox Catholics who 'think with the Church' - then newsmen reporting on the Vatican should at least acquaint themselves well with what the Catholic Church is all about. That way, they will not be prone to raising unwarranted polemics everytime the Church re-states her doctrine....The reporter's duty is to report fact, and if opinion is reported, the opposite side should be expressed as well.


P.S. I've seen two references so far to 'a 16-page document issued today' but the daily BOLLETTINO from the Vatican only contains the 'statement' itself. On the CDF site under 'Dichiarazioni dottrinali' - there's where one sees an"'ARTICOLO DI COMMENTO AI 'RESPONSA'" , but ONLY IN ITALIAN. And it's not 15 pages or anywhere near that - its 4-1/4 pages of text on a WORD printout and a page and a half of references. Don't have time to read it just yet.


Here's the AFP story:



Vatican reiterates hardline
on primacy of Catholic Church


The Vatican set itself on a collision course with other Christian faiths Tuesday, reaffirming the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church in a corrective document designed to clear up recent "erroneous" doctrine.

The document's central claim that the Catholic Church is "the one true Church of Christ", is likely to revive a debate which has dogged the Vatican's dealings with other Christian faiths for decades.

Other Christian faiths "lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church," it said.

The 16-page text - released by the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ratified by the pope - "constitutes a clear reaffirmation of Catholic doctrine on the Church," according to an attached commentary.

Basically a restatement of bedrock Vatican doctrine [BTW, not 'Vatican doctrine' - the Vatican is not a religion! - it's CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, thank you] , its release was prompted "because some contemporary theological research has been erroneous or ambiguous," the commentary said.

====================================================================

So if it's a 'restatement of bedrock...doctrine', how is the Church 'setting itself for a collision course'???? The metaphor's is all wrong, to begin with, because the one and only course has been the Church's - and then, in 1054, the Orthodox veered off, and in the 16th-17th centuries, the Protestants went and started their own paths - and have continued to diverge increasingly among gthemselves since then. The ecumenical movement was never intended to homogenize all existing Christian 'confessions' into a consensus one-size-fits-all artificial faith - the idea is to bring them all back to the one true faith.


Meanwhile, here is how Catholic News Service reported the CDF statement:


Vatican congregation reaffirms truth,
oneness of Catholic Church
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY, July 10 (CNS) -- In a brief document, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church, even if elements of truth can be found in separated Churches and communities.

Touching an ecumenical sore point, the document said some of the separated Christian communities, such as Protestant communities, should not properly be called "Churches" according to Catholic doctrine because of major differences over the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist.

The Vatican released the text July 10. Titled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," it was signed by U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and approved by Pope Benedict XVI before publication.

In a cover letter, Cardinal Levada asked the world's bishops to do all they can to promote and present the document to the wider public.

The text was the latest chapter in a long-simmering discussion on what the Second Vatican Council intended when it stated that the Church founded by Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church," but that elements of "sanctification and truth" are found outside the Catholic Church's visible confines.

The related discussion over the term "Churches" surfaced publicly in 2000, when the doctrinal congregation - then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict - said the term "sister Churches" was being misused in ecumenical dialogue.

In a format of five questions and answers, the new document stated that Vatican II did not change Catholic doctrine on the Church. It said use of the phrase "subsists in" was intended to show that all the elements instituted by Christ endure in the Catholic Church.

The sanctifying elements that exist outside the structure of the Catholic Church can be used as instruments of salvation, but their value derives from the "fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church," it said, quoting from Vatican II's "Decree on Ecumenism."

The text said the Second Vatican Council used the term "Church" in reference to Orthodox Churches because, although separated from the Catholic Church, they have preserved apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Nevertheless, they "lack something in their condition as particular Churches" because they are not in union with the Pope, it said.

The Christian communities born out of the Reformation, on the other hand, do not enjoy apostolic succession - the unbroken succession of bishops going back to St. Peter - and therefore "cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense," it said.

In his cover letter, Cardinal Levada said the document came in response to critical reactions to the teaching of Dominus Iesus, another doctrinal congregation document of 2000, which said the Catholic Church was necessary for salvation, and to ongoing confusion over interpretations of the phrase "subsists in."

An authoritative commentary published July 10 in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said the congregation had acted to protect the unity and uniqueness of the Church. The document, the commentary said, took aim at the notion that the "Church of Christ" was "the sum total of the Churches or the ecclesial communities" or that it exists only as a future goal.

"If this were the case, the Church of Christ would not any longer exist in history, or would exist only in some ideal form emerging either through some future convergence or through the reunification of the diverse sister churches," it said.

What Vatican II intended was to recognize ecclesial elements in non-Catholic communities, it said.

"It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a 'Churchless void,'" it said.

The council's wording does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard itself as the one true Church of Christ but that it recognizes that true ecclesial realities exist beyond its own visible boundaries, it said.

Regarding the doctrinal congregation's insistence that communities originating from the Reformation are not Churches, the article said: "Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress in the communities concerned and even among some Catholics, it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them, given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."

The commentary said that, at first glance, Catholic ecumenism might seem somewhat paradoxical, because it holds that the Catholic Church has the "fullness" of the means for salvation, but recognizes the value of elements in other Churches.

The Catholic Church's teaching, it said, is that the fullness of the Church "already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners."

U.S. Dominican Father J. Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary of the doctrinal congregation, said the document does not call into question Pope Benedict's pledge to work for ecumenical progress.

"The Church is not backtracking on its ecumenical commitment. But ... it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity," he told Vatican Radio.

Father Di Noia said the document touches on a very important experiential point: that when people go into a Catholic Church and participate in Mass, the sacraments and everything else that goes on there, they will find "everything that Christ intended the Church to be."

Gianni Baget Bozzo offers a theological context to the Mass MP that very much ties in with the CDF reaffirmation of the literal uniqueness of the Church.

A Church that does not compromise
By Gianni Baget Bozzo


The decision of the Pope to recognize the Mass of Pius V [more correctly, the Mass of John XXIII] as the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, which exists in its ordinary form as the Mass of Paul VI, is, of course, being debated.

A widespread opinion in the Church at all levels has held that Vatican-II was a radical reinterpretation of Catholic doctrine, that had been re-thought as a compromise with modernity. Or what Jacques Maritain called 'genuflecting to the world.'

In that view, the Church is seen as immanent in history, something that must re-invent itself according to the times, and therefore historically diverse through the ages. That the essence of the Church is in space and time, and therefore, it should change according to space and time.

This all happened when 'inculturation' was a buzz word, according to which it is possible for the Church to make itself present within any culture in a way that was homogeneous to such culture.

Ratzinger instead thinks of the Church within the theology of the Church Fathers as a 'communion with divine life', according to the Second Letter of Peter, and therefore, the bearer of a doctrinal identity expressed at all times and in all places as a function of the revelation whereby God made man a participant in his uncreated mystery. An identity that is beyond time and place.

If Ratzinger ended up dedicating his life to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith against his own personal wishes, it is because he understood that the Church and the Papacy subsist within the unity of such a doctrine beyond time and place (meta-temporal and meta-spatial].

The Church is a reality that is both divine and human, participating through the Holy Spirit in the mystery of Christ. And so, this does not allow its transcription into any and all cultures without taking away the primacy of Rome. Peter's primacy exists only if there is a truth beyond time and place, of which the primary expression is in the continuity of the Catholic liturgy.

Doctrinal unity is expressed in liturgical unity. Or lex orandi, lex credendi. One prays as one believes. Therefore to think that a liturgy that served the Church for centuries could be annulled by a new one was only possible within the context of 'inculturating' the Church in Western modernity, largely an influence of that great modern myth that was Marxism.

It wasn't by chance that Ratzinger opposed liberation theology, which based itself on 'inculturating' the Church of Latin America.

But if traditional liturgy is repealed and prohibited de facto, then it becomes inevitable that the primacy of Rome is also disputed because it does not conform to the culture of the modern age. Paul VI and John Paul II defended the Church from the doctrine of inculturation that was particularly promoted by the Jesuits.

But at the same time, John Paul II left open the possibility of this thesis of inculturation, with its many political and mediatic consequences, starting from anti-West ideology and pacifism at all costs.

Pope Benedict has therefore posed a fundamental issue to the bishops of the world: the papacy can continue to exist only if the language of the Church communicates God absolutely, and not as a cultural adaptation to history and to geography.

This is the context within which the Pope frames the liturgical issue: traditional liturgy cannot simply be annulled without rupturing the very continuity of the Church within and beyond space and time, therefore, its oneness with the Holy Spirit in the mystery of Christ.

There is far more than just consideration for the Lefebvrians in the principle of identity between the traditional liturgy and Paul VI's reform. The Pope intends that the old rites may be used not only for the Mass (John Paul's indult Ecclesia Dei allowed bishops to decide at their discretion only about the Mass) but for all the sacraments in the communities that choose to use them.

This would indeed affirm the identity of the Church in its liturgy through all the ages and in all places. Certainly, this would give rise to difficulties not because of using the old Mass in itself, but because Benedict's reform highlights that the primacy of Rome is unquestioned only if the Church speaks a language founded on divine revelation and not on the vagaries of human history.

The particular application in liturgy of the motu proprio has a universal significance because it upholds the universality of the Church and the function of the papacy as a guarantee of the institution's communion with the divine mystery.

Il Giornale, 10 luglio 2007

From Sandro Magister, I was hoping for a more contextual appreciation or critique of the CDF statement, not just this routine prediction of the disputes it will stir up all over.


Summer Assignment:
Restudy the Doctrine of the Church

This is what is prescribed by a new document from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.
The Orthodox and Protestants are cautioned:
the Catholic Church is the only one in which subsist the "essential constitutive elements"
of the Church intended by Christ.
Expect turbulence in the ecumenical dialogue.

by Sandro Magister



ROMA, July 10, 2007 - Benedict XVI departed yesterday for his vacation in the Alps, leaving an assignment for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith: the task of refreshing for the bishops, faithful, and above all the theologians, some of the controversial points of the doctrine on the Church, in order to avert 'errors and ambiguities'.

The congregation carried out this assignment with the document published today. [Full English text posted a few posts above on this page]

The document is formulated in five questions and answers. The first three restate that the Catholic Church "governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" is the only one that is fully identified with the Church instituted on earth by Jesus Christ.

The fourth and fifth answers explain to what extent the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Protestant 'ecclesial communities' lack - the latter more so than the former - the 'essential constitutive elements' of the Church intended by Christ.

Over the past few decades, rivers of ink have flowed over these topics touched upon by Vatican Council II. The congregation for the doctrine of the faith notes this in an article of commentary released together with today's document.

But it is unlikely that the document will end the debate within and outside of the Church. It's enough to remember the polemics that followed a previous document released by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith with the same intention of clarifying an essential point of Church teaching, the declaration Dominus Iesus in 2000.

The controversy will impact, above all, the ecumenical dialogue among Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. The congregation for the doctrine of the faith is aware of this, and says so in writing.

But it also writes - fully reflecting the thought of Benedict XVI - that "if such dialogue is to be truly constructive it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith."

[Magister then posts the text of the statement, but does not yet have a translation of the commentary that accompanies it.]

====================================================================

I think there's a semantic assumption - very wrong - that the purpose of inter-religious dialog is to get everyone to agree on everything. It's a contradiction in terms. The participants would have to be weak of faith to concede anything.

The purpose of inter-religious dialog is not at all to proselytize each other. If anything, it is to agree to disagree, but amicably and reasonably and peacefully, to listen to what the other side has to say so that one gets to know and maybe understand an alien point of view better. So, to stand up for one's faith - which will necessarily contradict other faiths one way or the other - should not be cause for offense; it is a condition for dialog.

Catholics are not 'offended' - it's nothing personal - because the Jews, for instance, do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and even less, the Son of God. Or that Muslims deny his divinity. Or that Buddhists think he was just another great man like Siddartha was.

Silly us - we pray instead that they`may change their minds and believe as we do! And the Jews are outraged we should even think of praying they would come to the 'fullness of redemption.'

Have Catholics ever presumed to dictate what people of other faiths should pray and how they should do it? No. We try to evangelize when we can but we don't interfere in anyone's practice of their own religion.

We do unto others what we would have them do unto us. And in return, we are always being asked not just to offer to be slapped on the other cheek as well but to make ourselves the doormat for everyone to trample on!

Here's a much more satisfactory and forcefully expressed reaction/commentary to the CDF statement written by Pietro Siffi, president of the Catholic Anti-Defamation League of Italy, for PETRUS, and translated here.



We believe in one Church only
By Pietro Siffi


When during Sunday Mass the faithful recite the Apostles Creed and say, "Credo... in unam, sanctam, cattolicam et apostolicam ecclesiam", they are solemnly affirming that the Church is one alone, that it is holy, that it is universal (catholic), and that it has maintained the apostolic succession intact.

One Church, as the Bride of Christ. One Church with one spiritual leader.

The priest asks our godparents at Baptism, "Do you believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church?"

The Bishop asks it again at Confirmation, "Do you believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church?"

And every year during the Easter vigil, the Mass celebrant asks us: "Do you believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church?"

Each time, we answer "Credo - I believe." And that statement means, "With an act of will, I submit and adhere to this truth because the Lord himself taught it and commanded his church to transmit it intact."

And now the Pope, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is really asking each of us again: "Do you believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church?"

With which he reaffirms a constant teaching, not because he is acting at his pleasure, but because he has received from Christ, through the Prince of Apostles, the mandate to rule and govern the Church by confirming it in truth.

It is what the Pope does when he reminds us of the doctrine on the Eucharist, on the Mass, on the communion of saints, on the human and divine nature of Christ. He is the shepherd, and he must tend the flock entrusted to him by the Savior.

One is rather amazed at the reactions by authoritative representatives of non-Catholic communities. What do they expect? That the Pope would say the Church of Christ is torn apart and that in order to achieve unity with other confessions, the Church of Rome is ready to compromise its basic teachings to satisfy everyone? Do they really expect the Supreme Pontiff to 'negotiate' and bargain about the Magisterium?

So, he should forget about the doctrine of 'Filioque' and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome to please the Orthodox. He would have to deny trans-substantiation, the doctrine of grace, of the Sacraments, of the Mass, of indulgences, the communion of saints, the ministerial priesthood, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibity on doctrine, Catholic interpretation of Scriptures - everything that is specifically Catholic - in order to please the Protestants and the Anglicans.

And then, so as not to offend anyone by leaving them out, ask him to forget about the Trinity and the divinity of Christ to please the Jews and the Muslims. And somehow worship Nature as the animists do.

Or alternatively, not to talk about Catholic doctrine at all, going by that mythical 'spirit of Assisi' that would have us believe all religions are equivalent, or that unity at the expense of truth is nevertheless desirable.

Let's face it. Every time the Holy Father says something that is directly a function of his ministry, he is attacked, condemned, reviled. He's OK, as long as he limits himself to greeting pilgrims in their native tongues, or when he talks about peace and solidarity. But anyone can do that. You don't have to be the Vicar or Christ to say wars are bad and that we ought to love each other.

What really angers those who are against the Church and against religion is that this 80-year-old man is loved and venerated by hundreds of millions of Catholics as their Supreme Pontiff; that when he speaks ex-cathedra of faith and morals, the Lord infallibly assures him the assistance of the Holy Spirit; that to him, as Successor of Peter, God has given the power to open or close the gates of Heaven.

That's the real 'scandal' for the arrogant and rebellious minds of our time, who claim absolute freedom to rebel against God, to trample or ignore his law, to take his name in vain.

The parable of the Good Shepherd tells us of Christ's love and concern in going out of his way to look for the lost sheep. But it also tells us objectively that the sheep is lost, it has strayed, and it should come back to the fold where all the others are gathered safely. It also teaches us that`paid help don't care about the sheep because they are not their own; only the shepherd loves his own flock and they in turn recognize his voice.

To be reminded by Benedict XVI that the Church is unique, the only Church of Christ, unleashes the spirit of rebellion that has led schismatics and heretics of every age to disobey her and to leave the one flock in order to wander in the shadows.

And anyone who thinks that the Church would renounce its faith just to satisfy the spirit of the times; who chooses to believe that 2000 years of Catholicism could melt away like snow under a hot sun after 40 years of miserable doctrinal deviations, should think again. The divine element of the Church has more than demonstrated itself again and again in the past by confronting worse crises and more fearsome enemies than those who now cry outrage outside the Church and within it.

Yep! I very much like Siffi's arguing. Nice to see something strong and clear. Only one little point struck me as wrong, and that appears in his list of what Protestants in his opinion may have against the Catholic doctrine(s): he mentions inter alia the doctrine of grace as though that is not to be found in Protestantism. But it is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, doctrines in all Protestant denominations. Does it differ from that of Catholicism? Can't think it does. It is based on the gospel, St Paul and the early church fathers' theology and has always been part of all Christian traditions.

A few Orthodox and Protestant leaders will croak and snort for a short while about this document and then it will just become quiet again. Everyone knows the Catholic view about the one, true Church. It seems that only some progressive Catholics have forgotten it a bit.

=====================================================================

Trust you to catch that major slip by Siffi! That was careless of him. He's not exactly a moron - one of those European types educated at the Sorbonne and all. From his CV, he's a computer technology executive, but he recently came out with a modern edition of this book

a reissue of Ludovico Trimeloni's Compendio di Liturgia Pratica (Milano: Marietti 1829, 2007), 865 pp., which according to Father Z, "teaches you how to do everything liturgical... as it was in 1962... It is organized with the sort of analytical precision that was possible, perhaps, only in the mind of pre-Conciliar Roman clerics. You just don't see this degree of articulation any more. There are six pages on how to bow...There is a preface by H.E. Dario Cardinal. Castrillon Hoyos. It is dedicated to the Holy Father. Benedict XVI's Sacramentum caritatis is quoted at the beginning..."

And all this was last May. Siffi also runs a liturgical archive whose main site is in Latin, with Italian, French and English versions. And I see from the site they have updated the Trimeloni with the MP!

TERESA

Lorenzago di Cadore, July 10 lug. (Apcom) - A walk within the grounds of the Castello Mirabello, away from any curious eyes. Security has decided no excursions outside the compound will be allowed the first 72 hours.

But that's fine by him because has said he just wants to pray, meditate, read and write - and play the piano.

After a tour de force of major moves and initiatives in the past two weeks, culminating in a statement today from the CDF, Pope Benedict's three-week vacation started in utmost tranquillity.

"He had a good night's rest," said Fr. Giuseppe Bratti, who is running the press center for the Diocese of Belluno. The night was marked with rain, thunder and lightning that also brought a veil of snow on the nearby peaks of Cridola, Tudaio and Marmarole.

The townspeople were hoping he would attend an organ concert Tuesday evening at the parish church to inaugurate a recently restored 18th century organ. The concert also marks the feast of St. Benedict, and so, a name day for the Pope. But he probably won't be there.

Fr. Bratti said that on the helicopter flight from Treviso to Lorenzago, the Pope had asked the pilot to fly over the Vajont Dam, which has burst open in 1963 due to a landslide and drowned an entire village at the foot of the mountain.

Earlier yesterday, it had been feared that because of bad weather, the Pope would be unable to come to Lorenzago by chopper. But after a morning downpour, the weather cleared, and by noontime, the welcomers hasd filled up the church square, the street in front of the town hall and the main street.

They were joined by some 150 journalists and photographers, as well as some 200 policemen and gendarmes. Sharpshooters were stationed on strategic rooftops.

At noon, after the church bells rung the hour, they continued pealing in celebration, as requested by the Bishop of Belluno, Mons. Giuseppe Andrich, from all the churches of the Cadore region.

Shortly before 12:30, the Pope's helicopter landed on a tennis court. After a crewmember waved the all-clear, five children in traditional costumes walked forward with a basket of wild flowers for the Pope. So did Mons. Andrich, the president of Belluno province, and the mayor and parish priest of Lorenzago.

The moment the helicopter landed, the church bells started ringing again and went on for another half hour until the Pope had reached Castello Mirabello, where he will be occupying a villa owned by the Diocese of Treviso, and where John Paul II had stayed for six vacations.

As he stepped out of the helicopter, the Pope was greeted by a wave of chanting, "VIVA IL PAPA' and 'IL CADORE TI SALUTA'. He waved and smiled, then got into the car for the ride to Mirabello, past ranks of welcomers along the street that cuts the town in half.

Earlier, the Pope received an enthusiastic welcome from the military and their families at the Istrana airbase in Treviso, where his plane from Rome landed.

"If we had allowed the public to come, we could easily have had 20,000," said the base commandant.

The Pope's plane, a Falcon 900, landed around 11:17 a.m. Istrana was welcoming a Pope for the seventh time, Papa Ratzinger for the first time. Welcome and applause from the adults. Hugs and kisses from children. Leading the welcome was the Bishop of Treviso, Andrea Bruno Mazzocato, who would join the Pope oin the helicopter flight to Lorenzago.

Benedict signed the guest book. He received a souvenir gift of crystal and a bouquet of yellow-and-white flowers from the eight-year-old son of the base commandant.

Then he walked alongside the police trestles that kept the crowd in line. A forest of cellphone cameras were held up to record the occasion. The trestles rocked and threatened to topple as the crowd surged forward. Children called to him. Mothers held out their babies.

He lingered with an old man, then gave him a blessing. The man said later, "My wife is gravely ill, and I asked for some comfort."
Five Salesian sisters who came from out of town for this occasion were rewarded with a greeting from the Pope.

And as he got into the helicopter, someone shouted "Ciao, papa! Buone vacanze."

Just as predictable as the negative reactions on the part of non-Catholic Christians, are those of Catholic dissidents who choose to interpret everything Pope Benedict does as a return to the past, a reversal of Vatican II and a negation of its reforms. What reforms has he negated or even questioned? Name one!

What he has always questioned is the misinterpretation of Vatican-II as a 'revolution' that overturned everything that came before it. He did so as a private theologian. He did so as Prefect of the CDF - restating, clarifying and interpreting the Magisterium for everyone in the name of the Church and with the approval of the Pope he served.

He is doing so now that he is Pope. Why shouldn't the spiritual leader of the Church have the right to restate the teachings of the Church as often and as forcefully as he can? To 'make nice' to others? How is it being offensive to state the identity of the Church without equivocation?

In any case, he speaks for a Church that is at least 1054 years older than its earliest 'offshoot' and at least 1500 years older than any of the Protestant confessions. How can they deny history?

As for the usual Catholic dissidents, they will always be implacably hostile to this Pope, or to any Pope, for that matter, who will not subvert the Magisterium to accommodate anything anti-orthodox, no matter how convinced the proponents are of 'knowing better' than the Magisterium.

So I have decided it is not worthwhile to go over ground which was amply plowed over again last week after motu proprio on the Mass.

Meanwhile, here is a translation of an article written by Vittorio Messori for the Corriere della Sera today stating the obvious facts for the record.


Another step in Ratzinger's strategy
against misinterpreting Vatican-II
By Vittorio Messori


Even if journalists have provoked polemics in soliciting opinions from the representatives of other Christian confessions, it is difficult to find anything new or scandalous about the statement yesterday from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith called "Answers to questions on certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church."

Seven years ago, the same things were reaffirmed by the Church in a much lengthier document, the declaration Dominus Iesus. And I say reaffirmed, because even then, nothing new was said, simply a restatement of the constant teaching of the Magisterium, put together in a text under the principle that 'repetition helps.'

This document focuses the lens on - and magnifies - an expression used in a Vatican-II document over which, as the CDF commentary yesterday said, 'rivers of ink' have flowed.

The Vatican-II conciliar constitution Lumen gentium states that the true Church founded by Christ 'subsists in the Catholic Church.' The Council Fathers clearly did not use the verb 'est' - which simply says 'is' - but chose to use 'subsist': which, however, many theologians choose to read as an attenuation of the Roman Catholic claim to uniqueness, as though the true Church intended by Christ also 'subsists' in other communities.

This is an interpretation that the Magisterium has rejected time and again, and which is confronted again this time but more amply.

The verb 'subsists', the CDF says, was chosen not to diminish the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, but to indicate that elements of truth could be found elsewhere, while making it clear that the fullness of truth and the power of Christ reside only in the apostolic succession led by the Roman Pontiff.

It is the classic explanation, but it needs to be reasserted because some theologians have built ecumenical castles over that verb 'subsists' - and the CDF statement shows they are cardboard castles.

Similarly deja vu is the distinction between, on the one hand, the ancient Eastern communities who have the right to be called churches - even if they have split from Rome - because they have kept the apostolic succession (and so also, the priesthood, the Eucharist and other sacraments); and on the other, the groups born out of the Protestant Reformation who were not only schismatic but heretic, and can therefore be only called 'Christian ecclesiastic communities.'

This then is a document that is but another wedge in the strategy that has always been Joseph Ratzinger's: to show that Vatican-II was not a rupture with the past but an evolution and deeper reading of a faith which has remained the same, a faith that does not distinguish between a pre-Conciliar Church and a post-Conciliar Church.

Pope OKs Aparecida Document
Gives Priority to Eucharist and Formation



VATICAN CITY, JULY 11, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI authorized the publication of the document that is fruit of the 5th General Conference of the Episcopate of Latin America and the Caribbean, held last May in Brazil.

The Pope opened the conference in Aparecida during his first apostolic journey to South America.

A letter signed June 29 and authorizing the publication of "The Aparecida Document" was released today by the Vatican press office. Meanwhile, the ordinary assembly of the Latin American bishops' council is underway in Havana, Cuba, where the bishops are discussing how best to apply the conclusions of the general conference.

The Holy Father's letter to the bishops expresses his gratitude for having been at the conference, "in which I was united with you in your affection for your beloved people and in the shared concern to help them be disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that they might have life in him."

The Pontiff recalled "the spirit of communion that characterized this general conference." And he said: "I authorize the publication of the final document, asking the Lord that, in communion with the Holy See and with respect for the responsibility of every bishop in his own Church, it may be a light and a stimulus for fruitful pastoral and evangelizing work in the years to come."

Benedict XVI affirmed that the 130-page document contains "numerous pastoral indications, motivated by thoughtful reflections in light of the faith and the current social context."

"I read with particular appreciation the exhortation for priority to be given, in pastoral programs, to the Eucharist and the sanctification of the day of the Lord," he said, referring to points 251 and 252 of the document.

The Pope also underlined the importance the text gives to strengthening "the Christian formation of the faithful in general and of pastoral workers in particular."

"In this context," the Holy Father said, "I was happy to learn of the desire to create a 'continental mission,' which episcopal conferences and dioceses are all called to study and put into effect, channeling all their vital energies to this end."

===================================================================

HOW CELAM TRIED
TO PULL A FAST ONE ON THE HOLY FATHER


Thanks to Rorate caeli for this great addendum to the Vatican's release today of the Holy Father's letter authorizing publication of the final document of the Aparecida Conference (the "Fifth General Conference of the Latin American and Caribbean Bishops" (CELAM), opened by Pope Benedict on May 13, 2007).

Rorate caeli is a great site because they also access Spanish, French and Italian sources, and were probably the only major Anglophone site that followed the proceedings and documents of the Aparecida conference closely by simply going to the CELAM site, which has all the documentation in Spanish.

They note with pleasure that a paragraph they had found very troubling in the draft document has apparently been edited by the Vatican in the approved document. A look at the changes shows it may well have been the Pope himself who wrote them in.

In a very particular and specific way, this amended paragraph illustrates - as dramatically as did the Motu Proprio on the Mass and the CDF statement yesterday - that Benedict is determined to put his Pontificate on the record as reforming the 'reforms' imagined by proponents of the so-called 'spirit of Vatican-II' as the 'true' interpretation of the Council.

Here is Rorate caeli's story:


Let us recall the extremely troubling paragraph 109, which, in the final draft sent by the Bishops to Rome, was:

---

109. We regret a certain clericalism, certain intents to return to an ecclesiology and a spirituality prior to the Second Vatican Council, certain reductionist readings and applications of the Conciliar renewal, the absence of a sense of self-criticism, of an authentic obedience and of the evangelical exercise of authority, the moralisms which weaken the centrality of Jesus Christ, the infidelities to the doctrine, to morals and to communion, our feeble experiences of the preferential option for the poor, not a few secularizing falls in consecrated life, the discrimination of women and their frequent absence from pastoral organizations. As the Holy Father spoke in the Inaugural Speech of our Conference, "one can detect a certain weakening of Christian life in society overall and of participation in the life of the Catholic Church".

---

This paragraph, which has now become paragraph 100 b (Final Document in Spanish: PDF), was changed to this:

---

100. b) We regret both the intents to return to a kind of ecclesiology opposite to the renewal of the Second Vatican Council(41), and some reductionist readings and applications of the Conciliar renewal; we regret the absence of an authentic obedience and of an evangelical exercise of authority, the infidelities to the doctrine, to morals and to communion, our feeble experiences of the preferential option for the poor, not a few secularizing falls in consecrated life, influenced by a merely sociological, and not evangelical, anthropology. As the Holy Father spoke in the Inaugural Speech of our Conference, "one can detect a certain weakening of Christian life in society overall and of participation in the life of the Catholic Church".

---

The changes made by the Holy See to this previously disturbing paragraph were these:

1. The regret for "a certain clericalism" was removed.

2. The criticism of "intents to return to an ecclesiology and a spirituality prior [anteriores] to the Second Vatican Council" was substituted with a criticism of "intents to return to a kind of ecclesiology opposite to the renewal of the Second Vatican Council".

Adding to the irony of this substitution, note 41 was added: "Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia, December 22, 2005".

Yes... the Latin American Bishops' criticism of pre-Conciliar "spirituality and ecclesiology" was turned against them with the help of Benedict's epoch-making speech... and became a criticism of the Bishops' own hermeneutics of rupture and discontinuity.

3. Also removed were criticisms to "the absence of a sense of self-criticism", "the moralisms which weaken the centrality of Jesus Christ" and to "the discrimination of women and their frequent absence from pastoral organization.

4. This other great gem was added to the "regret" for the secularization of consecrated life: "influenced by a merely sociological, and not evangelical, anthropology".

Could a more scathing rebuke of the orders and societies which have been undermining the mission of the Church in Latin America be found?

In these Petrine changes, it is possible to sense the same reprimand which the Holy Father addressed to the Bishops of Brazil in the most relevant address of his journey to Latin America (and one of the most remarkable texts of his entire pontificate) - a papal reprimand which has gone unheeded, as the silent reception of Summorum Pontificum by almost all Latin American Bishops and Episcopal Conferences has made clear once again.


Here was their original June 12 note on the paragraph:

Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Aparecida Notes:
Latin American bishops
"regret intents to return to pre-Conciliar spirituality"

A very confusing paragraph of the unofficial final document of the Fifth General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate, in Aparecida, Brazil, is a good summary of all that is wrong with the Church in Latin America.

In it, we see not only a clear expression of the hermeneutic of rupture, but an honest regret that the rupture of the "Conciliar" Church with the past has not been even greater and more decisive. Naturally, in the end, they sneak in a sentence of Pope Benedict's opening address which is not in any way related to what they have just affirmed - shameless "progressive" modus operandi:

[They quote the original Paragraph 109 - as above]

Here are the exact words of the Holy Father, maliciously quoted (since the words were taken out of their exact context) by the Bishops at Aparecida:

---

In the ecclesial communities of Latin America there is a notable degree of maturity in faith among the many active lay men and women devoted to the Lord, and there are also many generous catechists, many young people, new ecclesial movements and recently established Institutes of consecrated life. Many Catholic educational, charitable or housing initiatives have proved essential. Yet it is true that one can detect a certain weakening of Christian life in society overall and of participation in the life of the Catholic Church, due to secularism, hedonism, indifferentism and proselytism by numerous sects, animist religions and new pseudo-religious phenomena.

---

In the picture, a fine example of the success
of Conciliar Renewal in Latin America.

DAY-2 IN LORENZAGO

THE POPE ON VACATION, LORENZAGO DI CADORE, JULY 9-27




From Corriere delle Alpi, today, translated:





LORENZAGO, July 11 - "Snow! How wonderful. I didn't expect that!"

Pope Benedict XVI woke up at 5:30 a.m. Tuesday to rain, thunder and lightning, as it had been all throughout his first night on vacation here.

But around 8 a.m. after breakfast, the sun was up, revealing to his delight that the evening precipitation had brought snow to the Dolomite peaks he can see from the windows of his vacation villa.

The Pope was heard playing Mozart but around 10 o'clock, when the skies cleared and the sun was out, he decided to take his first walk around the grounds of Castello Mirabello - along the paths of its extensive garden, even if some were muddy from the all-night tempest.
The temperature was autumnal in high summer.

The protocol chief for the president of the region arrived to coordinate arrangements for the Pope's Angelus. Where's the Pope?, he asked, and was surprised the Pope was out walking. He came back to the house in time for lunch.

But he was not expected to attend the concert this evening at the parish church to inaugurate a restored organ and to mark St. Benedict's feast day today. Nevertheless, the Schola Cantorum of Lorenzago and the Art Ensemble orchestra of Veneto are presenting another concert featuring Mozart next Wednesday, July 18, in honor of the Holy Father.

Last night, volunteers from nearby towns went up by helicopter to the peak of Mt. Tudaio, where there is a World War I cemetery, to turn on the lights on a huge cross that had first been erected there during John Paul II's early visits to Lorenzago. The lighted cross can be seen from the pope's vacation villa.

Actually, the beautiful day yesterday led many in Lorenzago to hope that it would induce the Pope to drive around and come down to the town. Tourists and residents - whole families, even with old people on wheelchairs, thronged the central square hoping for such a visit.



Besides the Angelus during the two Sundays he will be in Lorenzago, the Pope has no other scheduled events. But the diocese says he assured them he will meet with the diocesan priests of both Treviso and Belluno - some 600 of them, and a church in Auronzo is preparing to host the event.

Also preparing for a possible papal visit is Canale d'Agordo, John Paul I's hometown, where the late Pope's brother Edoardo has invited Benedict to the family home.

Corriere delle Alpi, 11 luglio 2007



====================================================================

PLEASE TURN TO PRECEDING PAGE FOR LATE POSTS ON 7/10 AND INITIAL POSTS TODAY.

Conversation with Prof. Jacob Neusner

Despite recent papal decree, interfaith relations will move forward, says scholar


By Judie Jacobson
Connecticut Jewish Ledger
Published: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:14 AM EDT

Jacob Neusner and Pope Benedict XVI have never actually met face-to-face. Nonetheless, the Bard College professor of religion and theology, who is considered by many to be the founding father of the academic study of Judaism, and the leader of the Catholic church formerly known as John Ratzinger, have long engaged in an intellectual Judeo-Christian dialogue that has grown into an enduring relationship based on strong mutual respect.

The theological dialogue between the two men began in 1993 with publication of Neusners provocative book, A Rabbi Talks With Jesus, in which the professor, who is also an ordained rabbi, imagines himself present as Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and explains why for good and substantial reasons based in the Torah, he would not have followed Jesus but would have remained true to Gods teaching to Moses.

After reading Neusners manuscript, Pope Benedict, who was a German Cardinal at the time, sent Neusner his compliments.

He wrote that it was the best book written within the framework of the Judeo-Christian dialogue in the past 10 years and he recommended it to his students when he taught at the Vatican, Neusner recently told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Given the popes high praise, it was not entirely surprising that he made mention of Neusners work in his own recently published book Jesus of Nazareth. It was surprising, however, that Neusners book is referred to in 18 out of the 25 pages of the book in which Pope Benedict discusses the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, after the Gospel writers and Apostle Paul, the author most quoted in the popes book is Neusner.

And so it seemed appropriate to turn to Neusner, who grew up in West Hartford and is the son of the late Ledger founder and publisher Samuel Neusner, for his take on a papal order issued on July 7 authorizing wider use of a long-marginalized Latin Mass that contains a passage calling for the conversion of Jews. The papal decree n known as a motu propio n essentially a personal decision n came after two years of deliberation and urges priests to celebrate a 1962 version of the 16th century Tridentine Mass (Latin Mass). The Mass, though not outlawed, was largely abandoned in the early 1960s as part of reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council. The Latin Mass was replaced by a newer liturgy that, among other changes, used local languages instead of Latin and edited wording that appeared offensive to Jews. Traditionalists, including the pope, wanted to bring it back.



What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful, the pope wrote in his decree.

Many Jewish groups and communal leaders, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), criticized the popes failure to expunge from the Latin Mass a prayer used in the Good Friday liturgy that reads: For the conversion of the Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness.

In Rome for meetings with Vatican officials, ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman issued a statement saying, We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday liturgy, that it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted. This is a theological setback in the religious life of Catholics and a body blow to Catholic- Jewish relations. It is the wrong decision at the wrong time.

ADL noted that in 1959, Pope John XXIII removed the term perfidious Jews from the controversial Good Friday Latin Mass. In the 1970 Missal of Paul VI, which is currently used, the prayer for the conversion of Jews was replaced by a positive prayer recognizing the Jews eternal covenant with God, a principle to which Pope John Paul II was deeply committed.

Following the July 7 decree, the Ledger asked Dr. Neusner for his thoughts on the popes decision and how it might impact the relationship between the two communities.

Q: According to newspaper reports, the decision by the pope to authorize wider us of the long-marginalized Latin Mass was nearly two years in the making. Why did it take so long?

A: The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old and makes decisions in the perspective of history. It takes a long time.

Q: Do you know or can you speculate on what the popes thinking was in authorizing use of the Latin Mass?

A: The Holy Father is restoring a rite that many Catholics treasure. But the vernacular mass will predominate.

Q: Why was the Latin Mass abandoned to begin with?

A: It was part of the up-dating of the rites and laws of the Catholic Church that Vatican II was assigned to accomplish. The details of the changes meant a greater role for the congregation in the rite, more attention to the lay participant.

Q: Do you believe Jewish groups are justified in feeling anger and/or concern over the popes decision?

A: It is not clear that that prayer is included. The Anti-Defamation League has taken responsibility to look into the matter, and I have full confidence in Abraham Foxman to represent the Jewish concerns.

Q: What would you advise the organized Jewish community to do in light of this decree? Voice their concern? Sit back and relax?

A: We should continue to say our prayer, the Aleinu, that thanks God for not having made us like the nations of the world and that has not assigned us their portion and that asks God to bring the end of days and transform all humanity into worshippers of the one true God we know in the Torah. The Catholics used to pray that we would give up our (from their perspective) unfaith and would see the light. Its a fair exchange, and God will resolve the matter in the end of days, as the Aleinu says.

Q: How do you think the decision will affect the future of Jewish-Catholic relations?

A: The two religions will continue to disagree on basic questions and will continue to seek and find ways of working together in the common goals that vastly outweigh the differences. There is no turning back.

====================================================================

I'm happy that Neusner retains the good sense that made Joseph Ratzinger appreciate him to begin with....And it's interesting to learn what the Jews pray about non-Jews! Mutatis, mutandis, it's the prayer about them they object to in our old liturgy - which was more strongly worded, alas - but I hope I can find Rabbi Neusner's e-mail and send him all the facts available about these Good Friday prayers. He trusts Foxman, he says, but I don't because Foxman has yet to show he is other than a knee-jerk paranoid who cannot be bothered to check facts.

TERESA

This is simply unbelievable, if I'm understanding this little table scene correctly. I wonder what this Pope feels when - and IF - he sees scenes like this.


===================================================================





Here's the picture Crotchet
means, from the previous page.

My comment above refers to the last post on the previous page where the girl seems to dip the eucharistic wafer in a chalice of wine. Or she may be helping herself to a wafer, I don't know.

Regarding the Pope's holiday villa and the views of the mountains: lovely! May he be revived in body and spirit.

====================================================================

The lady is also in decolletage! Of course, it's the natural consequence of the idea behind the new liturgy that ritual, i.e., external form, is meaningless, and that whatever an individual - including the priest - feels like doing is OK, even when it comes to ways of showing one's worship for God.

The idea behind the expression 'Sunday best' was replaced by bringing down everything connected with worship to the level of 'most common denominator' - what's good enough for most of the congregation should be good enough for God - i.e., plastic pitchers instead of chalices, and the like - applied to everything from dress code to music to church 'architecture'.

The Western world's patrimony of great art, music, literature and architecture would never have been possible with that attitude of trivialization and banalization - a horizontal, earthbound, quotidian perspective that completely ignores the vertical, upward-striving, God-oriented potential of the human spirit.

TERESA

Communion (?) Pic

Actually, the ladies look like they are dipping chips in dip that they have in a chalice. Who knows? Could be. Stranger things have happened at some of these "let's all play priest" Masses.


There you go! When Communion gets reduced to something as prosaic
as a chip dip - says it all!
Teresa

'To identify our differences by name should not upset anyone'


There is much Pavlovian yipping by the usual suspects - professional polemicists, institutional as well as individual - who never miss a chance to lick their chops over an old bone of contention if they so much as sniff it. They're foaming at the mouth this time that the Pope is 'spoiling the ecumenical dialog' by approving yesterday's CDF statement on the doctrine of the Church.

Radio Vatican interviewed Cardinal Walter Kasper, the man in charge of ecumenical dialog for the Church, being president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Here is a translation:

Responding to heated protests by various Protestant leaders, Kasper says that, on the contrary, the CDF statement is 'an invitation to dialog'. He said they are reacting to something which it not new at all, and which the Church has re-stated from time to time, especially since the Second Vatican Council, which set the reunification of all Christian communities as the objective Rome must work for.

"A second reading, with calm, will show that the Document does not say anything new. It does explain in synthesis the position that the Catholic Church has always taken on the issue," Kasper said. "No new situation has arisen, there is not the least objective reason for resentment or offense because of brusque treatment. Every dialog requires clarity on positional differences."

Referring to the Christian communities that arose from the Reformation onward, Kasper said:

"It was precisely our Protestant partners who recently demanded for an ecumenism with 'definite profiles'. This statement presents the Catholic profile - which are the issues, from the Catholic point of view, that divide us. This does not limit dialog but favors it.

"A careful reading of the text shows the Document does not say the Protestant churches are not churches, only that they are not Churches in the sense that the Catholic Church uses the term Church referring to itself. This is an obvious fact to anyone with an average ecumenical awareness."

"As a matter of fact, the evangelical churches don't even want to be churches in the Catholic sense. They have an idea of Church and ministry that does not correspond to our concepts. For instance, the recent evangelical document on 'Ministry and Ordination' did something similar, saying that from the Protestant point of view, Catholic understanding of 'ministry and ordination' is not the 'correct' one."

"When, following the declaration Domine Iesus, I stated that the Protestant churches are churches of a different type, that was not a contradiction of the formulation laid down by the CDF, as some evangelical quarters saw it. I wanted to articulate an appropriate interpretation which I am convinced of to this time.

"We Catholics refer to them as Protestant churches - the Evangelical Church of Germany, the Federation of the Lutheran Evangelical Churches, the Church of England, etc. So the CDF statement only emphasizes that we use the word Church to refer to the Catholic Church in a different sense. This is a service to clarity, and should lead to progress in dialog.

"But of course, in dialog, we start off with the things that unite us, which is always greater than what divides us. And one should not ignore that the declaration says that in the Protestant Churches, Jesus Christ is present for the salvation of their members.

"Taking account of the past, that positive statement is not something obvious. It includes a recognition of baptism. Even with the important differences, the Declaration contains a series of positive affirmations on the Eucharistic Supper celebrated in the Protestant Churches.

"Therefore, this is not at all a regression with regard to the ecumenical progress we have already achieved. It commits us to resolve the ecumenical challenges that still remain. To identify these differences by name should not upset anyone. After all is said and done, the CDF statement is an urgent invitation to continue the dialog peacefully."


Moscow agrees with Church clarity on its position:

Vatican's honest position
furthers dialogue - Metropolitan Kirill

Moscow, July 11, Interfax - The Russian Orthodox Church has called "honest" the position of the Vatican published in a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stating that the Catholic Church is the only Church approved by Christ.

"It is an honest statement. It is much better than the so-called 'church diplomacy'." It shows how close or, on the contrary, how divided we are," Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, who heads the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, told journalists in Moscow.

"For an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side," because "it helps understand how different we are," he said. Basically, the Vatican's current document has nothing new and is in "full conformity with the doctrine of the Catholic Church," Metropolitan Kirill said.

"The Orthodox Church is, according to Apostolic Succession, successor and heir to the old, undivided Church. Which is why everything contained in the Catholic document rightfully applies to the Orthodox Church," the Metropolitan added.

7/15/07
Patrice de Plunkett also has this additional statement on his blog, translated here:

Deacon Andreï Kouraïev, professor at the Spiritual Academy of Moscow, told the Russian media:
"As strange as it may seem, from the Orthodox point of view, this declaration by the Vatican is well-received. It expresses traditional ecclesial consciousness. We are always happy when the official position corresponds to interior beliefs. Benedict XVI will conduct a more honest dialog than his predecessors."

[NB: The Russians were not very sympathetic to John Paul II mainly because he is Polish and the other Popes before John Paul did not really have a chance to do anything about dialog with the Russian Orthodox because of the official atheism of the Soviet Union.]



Pope Benedict Continues
His 'Benedictine Reform'
by Stressing Catholic Identity
by Dr. Robert Moynihan

VATICAN CITY, July 10, 2007 - Just three days after Pope Benedict XVI published his motu proprio allowing wider use of traditional Latin Mass in the Catholic Church, the Vatican doctrinal office he used to head, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, today published a brief text on one of the most controversial passages, and words, from the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), and in so doing reaffirmed the traditional Catholic teaching that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

In our view, this is part of a continuing series of decisions and initiatives, beginning with the liturgy motu proprio on July 7, 2007, to increase the sense of Roman Catholic identity in the face of many challenges posed by the modern world.

The Pope's intent, it seems clear, is to lessen confusion in the Church, and at the same time to reinforce the sense of Catholic identity against a type of exaggerated ecumenism in which all Christian communities are increasingly, in practice, regarded as equally valid expressions of Christian faith.

Why is the Congregation publishing this text at this time, so soon after the motu proprio? The answer is not clear. Perhaps the text, which has been in preparation for some time, was simply completed now, and so was published.

But there is one scheduled encounter later this year, in Ravenna, Italy, in October, between Catholic and Orthodox theologians, where the identity of the Church and the role of the Pope in that identity will be at the center of the discussion. It is in a certain sense opportune, then, that this document appear now, before October.

As we stated on July 7, we expect more such initiatives in the near future.

(We note in passing something many have already noted on the internet: that the date July 7, 2007, may be written in shortened form as 7/7/7. Speaking a bit humorously, some internet bloggers have asked whether the Vatican chose the date 7/7/7 to issue the motu proprio knowing that it would seem like a "lucky" date and one very different from the number 6/6/6 given in the Book of Revelation as the number of the Beast, who is against Christ (the "Anti-Christ"). We do not wish to engage in numerology, but we do think it may be a useful aid to memory for Catholics, and others, trying to remember when Pope Benedict's 'Benedictine Reform' was launched: on 7/7/7.)


===================================================================

Now, guess whose hackles are bristling furiously again versus an old adversary - the German media, who resent the CDF statement almost like a personal affront! How strange, as though any of this were new. But here's a round-up from the English service of Deutsche Welle (the German state broadcasting agency, never a Ratzinger fan) of some German newspapers and their outrage.

It might perhaps be somewhat more reassuring of overall German common sense that nonje of the newspapers quoted are any of the large and better-known German newspapers. Still, the Pavlovian indignation is irrational and unwarranted:


Pope's Comments
on Catholic "Primacy" Grate:
Pope Benedict XVI has stirred controversy before
July 11, 2007

The Vatican said Tuesday that Christian communities outside Roman Catholicism were not full churches. Protestant leaders were offended and said inter-denominational dialogue was now at risk. German commentators agreed.

German commentators had a sharp eye on Pope Benedict XVI, himself a German, following the pontiff's comments that other Christian churches outside Roman Catholicism were "defective."

Benedict approved a document released Tuesday from his old office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which reiterated church teaching on Catholic relations with other Christians.

The 16-page document described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but said they suffered from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of the pope.

However, the document also said that the "wound is still more profound" in Protestant denominations.

"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," the paper said.

Not new

The Vatican text reiterates the controversial document Dominus Iesus, which the pope - at that time Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - issued in 2000.

With the current document, its authors said they sought to address "erroneous" interpretations and theological "misunderstandings" deriving from the adoption of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s.

The Vatican said it wanted to again stress the issue because it said some Catholic theologians continued to misunderstand it.

The document is the pontiff's second strong reaffirmation of Catholic tradition within a week, following a decree on Saturday restoring the old Latin Mass alongside the modern liturgy.

The Vatican document said dialogue with other Christians remained "one of the priorities of the Catholic Church," but it nonetheless prompted swift criticism from Protestants, Lutherans and other Christian denominations spawned by the 16th century reformation.

"It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the Reformed family and other families of the church," the World Alliance of Reformed Churches said.

"It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," the alliance wrote in a letter to the Vatican's key ecumenical official, Cardinal Walter Kasper.

Mainz's Allgemeine Zeitung said that "the path toward ecumenism - if it is desired - is based on respect from both sides. A fair dialogue cannot be achieved if one side asserts the claim of embodying the one, sole truth. For those seeking commonalities on the basis of the Christian message, these "answers" (from the pope) are just one more punch."

Mannheim's Mannheimer Morgen noted that the pontiff was merely sticking to his principles in his comments. "One may find the pope's remarks outrageous, but Benedict is actually just maintaining the stance he's always had. He has not transformed himself from a Conservative into a Liberal after taking up the papacy. He has always deflected popular notions of belief. By focusing on the leading role of the Roman Catholic Church, he is keeping in line with the logic of the Vatican. For those who believe in ecumenism, the pope's words were brusque. On the other hand, they can be grateful to Benedict: it is now clear that Catholics and Protestants will not forge closer ties during his papacy. Both sides know where they stand. That is certainly better than an elusory hope that will never become reality," the paper wrote.

Münster's Westfälische Nachrichten took a pragmatic approach to Benedict's comments. "Texts in which the Church is only concerned with itself, in which doctrines and interpretations shift only very slightly, provide material for a theologians' circus, and for common rituals of critique. But they completely miss the realities in which believers live. Believers want help in their daily lives, to deal with their jobs, their families, living with spouses of different faiths, in raising their children to be responsible Christians.

Marl's Recklinghäuser Zeitung said that "people can disagree about how to approach ecumenism. One can debate about whether different faiths should share sacraments. But one should not belittle other people or willfully snub them. During the Second Vatican Council, the then young Joseph Ratzinger was one of the reformers of the Catholic Church in the midst of change. As pope, the one-time "rebel" now wants to re-establish the Latin Mass and dig up things that should have long been laid to rest. That's sad," the paper wrote.

DAY-3 IN LORENZAGO: AND HERE HE IS.....

THE POPE ON VACATION, LORENZAGO DI CADORE, JULY 9-27




God's in his heaven,
all's right with Benedict's world...





Lorenzago di Cadore (Bl), July (Apcom) - Benedict XVI, who is vacationing here, left his vacation villa
this afternoon for an unexpected excursion.

A motorcade with the Pope's car passed through the center of town around 6:15 p.m. enroute to the Church
of Our Lady of Loreto in nearby Lozzo di Cadore.

He came back to Mirabello about an hour later.

And from PETRUS:

LORENZAGO DI CADORE - The Pope thanked the people of Lorenzago "for your welcome to this beautiful town
among the woods and majestic montains of the Dolomites" and for their prayers in his behalf.

His personal secretary, Mons. Georg Gaenswein, read a letter the Pope addressed to the parish priest,
town officials and the people, before an organ concert held at the parish church tonight to mark the feast
of St. Benedict.

He congratulated them for the recent restoration of a classic organ built in the 18th century, saying
the organ was 'the king of musical instruments.' He ended by recalling St. Augustine's words,
"He who sings prays twice", and assured them of his 'spiritual participation' at the event.


Sidebar:
LORENZAGO DI CADORE - Mayor Mario Tremonti said the 'carabiniere' who was struck by lightning while
on guard duty at the Castello Mirabello yesterday afternoon has left the hospital and is doing well.

A lightning bolt hit a tree, discharged on the ground, and then went through the gendarme's body,
causing 'violent muscle contraction resulting in tremendous chest pain'. He was immediately tended to
by the first-aid team on standby duty for the Pope's visit. All the medical tests, including EKG,
indicated no other effects, the mayor said.

Here are two articles from the Italian media today that make a broad assessment of the significance of the Papal decree on the traditional Mass. First, from Il Foglio, translated here:

Benedict-XVI:
The true liberal interpreter
of Vatican-II
By Alan Patarga


ROME - The most frequent accusation against Benedict XVI after the publication of his Motu Proprio on the traditional Mass is of pushing the Church back to the past and of 'betraying the spirit of Vatican II."

Gian Maria Vian, Church historian and professor of patristics at the La Sapienza University of Rome, says Ratzinger's decision obviously "had little to do with the use of Latin but rather with a correct interpretation of the Council, whose spirit the Pope places firmly in the wake of Catholic tradition, and not opposed to it."

Vian says that, with the Motu Proprio and yesterday's CDF statement about the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, Benedict XVI is proving to be the most liberal and least absolutist interpreter of Vatican-II.

"The decision to allow free access to the traditional form of the Roman rite is proof of pluralism within the Church, in the name of unity. By liberalizing the use of the old Mass, Papa Ratzinger is now preventing traditionalists and progressives alike from using something as essential as liturgy as a battle standard.

"This liberalization means preventing that liturgy, and therefore prayer, becomes a divisive element rather than something elevating. Therefore,although the normal Mass usage today is the 'ordinary' form using the vernacular, that no longer means disallowing the older form, now considered 'extraordinary', following the terms used in the Motu Proprio.

"In the past 40 years, that virtual prohibition of the old Mass contributed to the divisions within the Church brought on by the hermeneutic of discontinuity, that Benedict XVI now wishes to belie once and for all.

"In his recent acts, the Pope is saying that the past is alive and and is an important element of our faith. And Vatican-II was not a 'new beginning' but part of the Church tradition, an occasion for synthesis not for rejection."

And Don Gianni Baget Bozzo, who for years, has been saying the traditional Mass at the Church of Saints Victor and Charles in Genoa, echoes Vian, saying the true objective of Benedict XVI is the correct interpretation of Vatican II.

"The pretext of discarding the pre-conciliar liturgy totally placed into question everything in Church history that had preceded the Council. Ratzinger, who is a patristic follower, treasures the mysterious and mystical nature of traditional liturgy and gives it fundamental value - as a constitutive element of continuity in the Church, which is not only a gathering of men, but was born of divine revelation insofar as it is the mystical Body of Christ.

"Now, any revealed truth cannot be disputed. Since Vatican-II never abrogated the old liturgy, and since the Council was not a rupture with the past, but a re-reading of it in order to proceed forward, Benedict XVI is saying that no 'revolution' can belie revelation.

"What happened was that with the collapse of Communism, the theological progressives lost ground and turned to touting the Council as evidence of the Church's total rupture with its past."

In an interview to be published in the next issue of 30 GIORNI, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, says about the old Mass: "Vatican-II certainly never abolished the traditional Mass, nor was there any succeeding formal action that did so. What happened was that those who claim to be the authentic interpreters of Vatican-II interpreted it so restrictively in terms of liturgy, without any respect for the freedom of the faithful, and they made it appear that Vatican-II itself was something far more coercive and valid than the Council of Trent."

Il Foglio, 11 luglio 2007


BENEDICT XVI: THE TRUE REFORMER
By Gianteo Bordero


The die is cast. Notwithstanding the pressures and the perplexity on the part of some bishops; notwithstanding the 'concerns' of the progressive clergy; notwithstanding the reprimands of the advocates of 'ecclesiastical' correctness, Benedict XVI issued his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum with which he liberates the Mass of St. Pius V (in its last version as amended by John XXIII in 1962) and gives the pre-Conciliar Mass the same dignity as the Mass decreed by Paul VI in a post-Conciliar reform.

The significance of Papa Ratzinger's decision goes far beyond the bare fact itself. Its symbolic value is destined to leave a profound mark on the history of the Church.

One might see it as a concrete application of the address given by Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005, on correctly interpretating Vatican-II as a stage in the history of the Church.

At the time, the Pope's address was considered almost 'revolutionary' for contradicting the rhetoric that had become common in wide sectors of the clergy and among Catholic liberals who insist that Vatican-II (1962-1965) represented a break from the Church's past.

Benedict spoke of two conflicting interpretations or hermeneutics:

"They have been in dispute ever since. One has caused confusion; the other, silently but increasingly visible, is bearing fruit. One interpretation I would call the 'hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture' which has enjoyed the support of mass media and even a part of modern theology.

"On the other hand, there is the 'hermeneutic of reform', of renewal in continuity, within the single subject-Church that the Lord has given us. It is a subject that grows in time and develops, but remains the same in essence, the one subject of the People of God in pilgrimage."

Criticizing the 'rupture' interpretation of the Council, Benedict XVI said "it radically misunderstands the nature of a church council - it is not a constituent assembly which does away with an old constitution and replaces it with something completely new."

On the other hand, the hermeneutic of continuity and reform sees the Church as "the same Church, before the Council and after it - the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church as it proceeds in time."

This is the context in which the Motu Proprio on the Mass must be read: The Pope didn't make this decision because he wants to return to 'the good old days', nor because of an aesthetic preference for a liturgy that better expresses the mystery it celebrates.

The Pope was prompted to act because the interpretation of Vatican-II as a break with the past had inflicted deep wounds in the Church's identity, wounds that imperil the unity of the Church.

These are wounds he has now sought to heal, because it is his mission and his task to keep the Church together.

Very specifically, he has pointed out that interpreting the 1970 Mass reform to mean the abolition of all other forms of liturgical rites practised in the Church was an error with tragic consequences, giving the impression that everything that went before had now been replaced and must be consigned to oblivion.

That is an authentic crime against the Church, whose course during the centuries cannot be understood unless in the light of the faith and the continuity of that faith from its beginnings in Christ, not by ideological historically-determined criteria.

Thus it was bound to happen that the reformed liturgy, having lost the cosmic dimension of the Mass (cosmic even with respect to the history of the Church), often degenerated into spontaneous expressions of what the Pope has called 'individual creativity' which has taken the place of the 'initium', the article of Christian faith that knows salvation comes from God alone and not from human inventiveness, no matter how prodigious.

What Papa Ratzinger is accomplishing is not an act of 'restoration' motivated by a devotion to the past. It is fully and profoundly a gesture of ecclesiastical reform as he described it in that address to the Roman Curia - reform as the capacity to respond to the challenges of history and to correct, over time, those deviations which risk compromising the unity of the faithful in Christ - the primary concern of the Church, the task assigned to it and its temporal guide by Jesus before His passion and after the resurrection: "That all shall be one...Everything you bind on earth will be binding in heaven."

As usual, even if some of his speculations can be far-out [his particular monomania is that the Vatican is hiding a 'fourth secret' of Fatima], journalist Antonio Socci often has great insights deriving from looking at contemporary events in the light of history. He has a number of them in this article, but I was specially struck by what he says of John Kennedy.

Well, no,
Protestant churches are not churches!
What does it mean?
By ANTONIO SOCCI

I'll take secondhand Voltaire for now. At least that scourge of priests said it right: "I absolutely disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your absolute right to say it." Jean Daniel cited it again recently in La Repubblica. But never was a principle so often cited but rarely practiced. At least not with respect to the Catholic Church. For everybody else, freedom should be total and absolute, sometimes even to absurdity.

But the Church? Nooooo! First, its freedom to speak on ethical and moral issues is disputed on the grounds that it should not be involved in public life. (What a strange idea of liberalism!)

One can only hope that the Church's right to teach its bimillennial faith to its people, to canonize its saints, and to say its prayers are not going to be questioned next. [And aren't the Jews questioning our prayers with all that misplaced outrage about the Good Friday prayers?]

The last occasion for polemics was yesterday with the release of a statement from the CDF regarding the interpretation of a Vatican II text. An article about it in corriere.it called it 'a document that will raise questions', anticipating a hornet's nest of polemics.

But why did the CDF wish to get once more into the correct explanation of a Vatican-II text? Because there is a faction of Catholic progressives (well represented in the theological and clerical establishments) who have for the past 40 years presented Vatican-II as a rupture from the tradition of the Church. As the 'birth of a new Church,' in fact, different from the Church of the past 19 centuries. Curiously, that same idea is shared by the ultra-traditionalists who see in the Council the same rupture.

In fact, Vatican-II had a pastoral and not dogmatic significance. The Church wished to reflect on new ways to announce Christ to the modern world, not to change its Creed. Repeatedly, both Paul VI and John Paul II expressed their rejection of devastating interpretations that oppose Vatican-II to all other Church Councils - because that would be an end to Catholicism as we know it.

Yesterday's CDF statement reaffirms the Papal interventions and what Vatican-II itself states. It cites in particular John XXIII, whom the progressives have wrongly turned into their symbol. When, in fact, Papa Roncalli, opening Vatican-II, said: "The Council wishes to transmit Catholic doctrine, pure and integral, without attenuation or distortion" and that such doctrine was 'sure and immutable'.

Paul VI, when he promulgated the conciliar constitution Lumen gentium, said: "This promulgation does not change anything in traditional doctrine. What Christ wanted, is what we want. What was, remains. What the Church taught for centuries, we teach as well."

The treasury of the Church is, in fact, its depositum fidei, its deposit of faith - the revelation of Christ, God-become-man - and it is the absolute task of the ministers of the Church to preserve that 'deposit.' They cannot dispose of it or change it at pleasure - they must keep it intact even if it should be at the cost of their own life.

Vatican-II did not change the theological definition of the Church. But there is one passage in Lumen gentium that has always generated controversy because it has been interpreted, by elements from both the right and the left, to mean that it placed any other Christian confession on equal footing with the Catholic Church.

According to them, the statement that "The only Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" [they emphasize it says subsists in, not is] means that there is no theological difference between a Protestant group and the Catholic Church.

Therefore, the Holy See is simply re-stating again that it is not so. Lumen gentium proclaims that Christ constituted on earth one Church which is identified as "the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him," because only the Church has the perennial historic continuity and concretely preserves "all the elements instituted by Christ himself" (the sacraments, apostolic succession and the primacy of Peter, along with doctrine).

The use of the expression 'subsists in', says the CDF, "does not change the doctrine on the Church", but was meant to convey the idea that outside the Church, there is not an ecclesiastical void, but that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and truth" found in other Christian churches (like the Orthodox) and in the separated Christian groups (the Protestants, elements which, as "attributes belonging to the Church of Christ", impel towards Catholic unity.

It must be remembered that Pope Benedict XVI contributed personally to the formulation of 'subsists in' at the Council, and is therefore particularly concerned about its proper interpretation.

It is obvious from the document that it says nothing new, not only that the Church has always said the same thing, but also because the whole question was revisited and explained in the declaration Dominus Iesus of 2000. Which set off all kinds of fireworks.

What a strange fate the Catholic Church has! It speaks respectfully of everyone but it is often treated harshly. The secular press accuses it of not wanting to 'dialog.' The Russian Orthodox Church literally will not tolerate the Catholic Church on its 'own' territory. [That's an exaggeration, of course. The Catholic Church exists in Russia, but the Orthodox Church does not want its priests to try and gain converts from the Orthodox.] Imagine what would happen if the Church said anything similar about other faiths.

What about the Protestants? There's a widespread American Protestant propaganda campaign that has always levelled terrible accusations against the Catholic Church. [Which would that be?] But let's just take the recent speculation about Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism. How is it no one is appalled that in 2007, the law of the United Kingdom still prohibits a Catholic from assuming the highest position in government? Why does no one find that unacceptable - especially in a land celebrated as the cradle of democracy?

Most people - and the British themselves - forget however, that it wasn't the British crown that came up with the Magna Carta of 1215 - 3 centuries before the Protestant Reformation! It was the Catholic Church that coalesced the nobles and the cavaliers to wrest from King John that limitation of royal powers and declaration of people's rights, which gave rise to the various civil and political rights that came to be known as democracy (not to mention, economic liberation because it guaranteed right to property).

What about the great Protestant power that is the United States of America? Was it not surprising that it did not get a Catholic President until 1960 with John Kennedy, its 35th President? He was the first non-WASP president of the USA. And yet, Kennedy - to be politically acceptable - had to declare himself 'independent' of the Catholic Church - as though being a Catholic in itself meant being hostage to the Church and made a citizen suspicious for possible treason!

Recently, secular voices in Italy have been citing Kennedy as the example of a Catholic politician that Italians should emulate! Why? To me, Kennedy's example was a demeaning acceptance of religious discrimination! To say that Catholics in politics should first swear themselves 'independent of the Vatican' [that is to say, of a foreign sovereign state] is akin to the accusations of 'cosmopolitanism' that was always made against the Jews. Remember the infamous Dreyfus case in France a century ago?

Everyone now says the ecumenical dialog will go backward. Right now, the most important dialog between U.S. Protestants and Catholics (incidentally, now the largest religious group in the USA) is the common battle in defense of life, or in defense of the Christians persecuted in the Middle East. That is far more meaningful than a thousand conferences on theological dialog.

Libero, 11 luglio 2007

Benedict XVI, Pope of Surprises
Editorial
National Catholic Register
July 15-21, 2007 Issue



It could happen any day now. A Chinese Patriotic Association Catholic could go to a 1962-Missal Latin Mass celebrated by a Chinese Patriotic priest in full communion with Rome, and then relax in a park and read the new book by Joseph Ratzinger, a man who usually writes under his new name: Pope Benedict XVI.

After his first year, some commentators suggested that Pope Benedict XVI did not seem to have done very much, and that he was bound by tradition in a way that precluded surprises. No one's suggesting that now. [But no one has really come out and acknowledged it in a big way - appropriately with bells and cannonballs, fanfare and celebratory music like Beethoven's Ninth, Mozart's Jupiter Symphony and the 'War of 1812' Overture together! - in the English MSM, either!]

The Holy Father has broken a number of precedents, and not in predictable ways.

In last week's issue, we explained how Pope Benedict had reached out to Chinese Catholics who had opted for a government-controlled Patriotic Catholic Association during the persecution of the Church in China. Pope Benedict had to reach out in a careful way, in order to properly honor those Catholics who had stayed faithful to Rome throughout.

In this week's issue, we explain how Pope Benedict has reached out to Catholics who love the old Latin Mass. He has now allowed the Mass to be celebrated anywhere a congregation and priest decide they would prefer it.

The Pope's outreach to Chinese Catholics, abrograting previous Vatican directives in China, may have seemed a progressive action. His outreach to 'Tridentine' Mass Catholics reached back into the Church's past and may have seemed a traditionalist move. But the Pope's book Jesus of Nazareth reveals that Pope Benedict is no progressivist, and no traditionalist, either.

The book was unprecedented. The Pope published it in April under his pre-papal name, insisting that it was not a magisterial work. No other pope in the Church's long memory has done that.

In it, he speaks frankly about different camps of Scriptural interpretation that led the Church astray. But the scholars he embraces aren't necessarily the favorites of old-school Catholic thinkers, either.

The book is capable of surprising statements, when you consider they are coming from a pope, like when he talks of the disappointment some might feel that Christ offered the Kingdom but delivered the Church.

If the Pope's position seems like an enigma, it neednt.

Pope Benedict's vision isn't one that longs to restore the glories of the Church's past or one that is easily identifiable with one 'camp' or another in the Church's present. He knows that the past wasn't as glorious as we sometimes would like to remember, and that the Church is greater than what any one camp might think.

Rather, these major actions of the Holy Father are all of a kind: They are all attempts to forge unity through love.

We often hear lip service given to unity. But usually, when we promote 'unity', what we really want is for everyone to do things more or less the way we like them done. When unity requires us to overlook unfounded misgivings we might have, and when it requires us to give freer rein to those we might naturally oppose, we lose our enthusiasm for unity.

Pope Benedict has a richer, deeper commitment to unity.

He has taken bold, decisive action to welcome Chinese Catholics and Latin Mass Catholics back into the fold. His decision will entail some liturgical and bureaucratic difficulty in the short term, but will prepare the Church in the best way for its future by maximizing the channels through which it can deliver the sacraments to souls.

And the key to the drive for unity behind the Pope is in his book Jesus of Nazareth. We can fall into the trap of thinking that the Church is a giant institution that regulates religious devotion. If we think of the Church that way, then the Holy Father's efforts at unity can seem like more trouble than they are worth.

But Pope Benedict thinks of the Church as the Body of Christ. His efforts at unity are efforts to preserve the integrity of that Body - and to ensure that the Church acts as the instrument of Christ's love in the world.

If the Divine Son of God can become an infant, then a child, then a victim for our sakes, certainly we can reach out to Catholics disaffected by the events of the last century to extend his action to all.

God is always full of surprises. It shouldn't surprise us that the 'humble worker in his vineyard' has some too.

====================================================================

This is actually the first Anglophone commentary I have seen that seeks to tie up the Pope's recent actions together - not quite as comprehensive as I think it should be (going back to the naming of Cardinal Tauran to the Council for Inter-Religious Dialog and the breathtaking succession of events after that), and it was written before the CDF statement came out. But it does pick up the theme of 'unity and reconciliation' referred to in two commentaries posted here earlier about the Church in China and the Mass MP. And very wise to refer it all to JESUS OF NAZARETH.

I am betting John Allen will have a super-duper overview article on all this the minute he gets back to regular 'duty' in August.

Another comment: 'Pope of surprises' is much too tame to describe what Benedict has been doing. 'Pope of precedents' does say it better, but I'm still searching for the right formulation!


P.S. GEORGE WEIGEL being in Poland running a summer seminar on the teachings of John Paul II, we haven't heard from him either, but he e-mailed the NATIONAL REVIEW yesterday about the CDF statement:

---

Papal biographer and Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow George Weigel, via e-mail, on yesterday's Vatican doc:

"There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW in this document. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a theological illiterate who equates ecumenism with political correctness. Period."

---

The article is full of errors, as usually texts from MSM are.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2039932.ece

Richard Owen in Rome
With donations to the Church from around the world almost doubling and pilgrims pouring into Rome in ever-greater numbers, Vatican watchers are beginning to reassess the two-year-old pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI and noting a positive Ratzinger effect. Today the Vatican will publish the Popes motu proprio decree allowing broader use by Roman Catholics of the Latin Tridentine Mass  the pontiffs last act before leaving for his traditional summer holiday. The move, which amends the Second Vatican Councils decision in the 1960s that worship should be in the vernacular, is regarded as yet another sign of Benedicts conservative attachment to tradition and doctrine. Some senior Catholics in Britain have accused him of encouraging those who want to turn the clock back and say that they fear the rite will revive preVatican II prayers for the conversion of the perfidious Jews. The Vatican denies this, however, and points instead to the huge appeal of the Latin Mass  and Gregorian chant  not only for disaffected right-wing Catholics but also for many ordinary believers who value the sheer beauty of the ancient liturgy. This is a Pope who  contrary to conventional wisdom  is in tune with the faithful, one Vatican source said. The unassuming and scholarly Benedict does not have the star appeal of John Paul II. At 80, he does not travel as much as the Pilgrim Pope or write as many documents. Andrea Tornielli, the biographer of several popes including Benedict, said that when crowds packed into St Peters Square to hear Benedict in the early days of his pontificate, many people attributed this to the John Paul effect, or the global media coverage of the late Popes courage in the face of illness and death. It was increasingly clear that although Benedict  formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, John Pauls long-serving doctrinal adviser  lacked the showmanship and charisma of his predecessor, his simple and direct assertion of values struck a chord with believers, Mr Tornielli said. The distinction between the good and progressive John Paul and the bad conservative Benedict was a false one, Mr Tornielli told The Times. Ratzinger was John Pauls closest adviser for over two decades, and many of his initiatives as Pope  including the Tridentine Mass  are developments of John Pauls own ideas. While less theatrical than his predecessor, Benedict makes no secret of enjoying the dressing up side of the job, reviving ermine-trimmed robes, elaborate headgear and dainty satin shoes. He has grown more adept and relaxed at greeting people. Cardinal Sergio Sebastiani, head of economic affairs at the Holy See, said that the remarkable increase in both donations and numbers of pilgrims showed that there was a symbiosis, a mutual sympathy between this Pope and Christian people everywhere. Presenting the Holy Sees annual budget yesterday, Cardinal Sebastiani noted that not only had it closed last year with a surplus of ¬2.4 million, partly thanks to diocesan donations, there had also been a huge jump in Peters Pence, the annual church collections given directly to the Pope to use for charity, from $60 million (£30 million) in 2005 to $102 million. The days when people talked of papal bankruptcy are past, said Marco Tosatti, Vatican correspondent of La Stampa. John Paul, who is on the road to sainthood, continues to be an attraction: with up to 35,000 pilgrims filing past his tomb in the crypt of St Peters every day, the Vatican is considering moving the tomb into the Basilica. Record numbers attend Benedicts weekly audiences, and seven million people a year now visit St Peters, a rise of 20 per cent. Similar increases are recorded for pilgrimages to Catholic shrines at Assisi, Lourdes, Fatima in Portugal and Madonna di Guadalupe in Mexico. This is a Ratzinger phenomenon, reported La Repubblica. For some he remains Gods Rottweiler or the Panzerkardinal. He has disappointed liberals who hoped that he would relax rules on priestly celibacy or the use of condoms to help to fight Aids in Africa. Next week the Vatican is due to issue a document reasserting that only the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, a move that risks offending Anglican and Orthodox Christians. Benedicts statements on issues from the Latin Mass to dialogue with China were promised imminently, then delayed, and Curia department heads long past retirement age have not been replaced. Running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not the same as running the world-wide Church, one insider said. Benedict tends to appoint men he knows and trusts  regardless of whether they are right for the job. Above all, he does not delegate as the ailing John Paul II did, and such is his reputation as a theologian that no one dares to offer him advice. This has led to a series of avoidable public relations disasters, most notably his speech on faith and reason at Regensburg University last year, when he inflamed Muslim opinion by appearing to suggest that Islam was inherently violent. In Brazil in May he angered indigenous populations by asserting that the arrival of Christianity in the New World did not amount to the imposition of a foreign culture on native peoples, and his off-the-cuff assertion that Catholic legislators who voted for easier abortion in Mexico should be excommunicated had to be hastily clarified by Father Federico Lombardi, his spokesman. More recently the Vatican was dismayed when a reference to a frank exchange of views on delicate questions after Tony Blairs farewell meeting with the Pope was taken to mean the two men had had a row. Such lapses, says John Allen, another of his biographers, make him appear tone deaf. For those who know Benedicts mind, it can be painful to watch his carefully reasoned reflections become capsized in the court of public opinion by a stray phrase thats obviously open to misinterpretation. Traditional strength - On his election, Benedict XVI replaced the crown on the papal arms with a mitre, indicating a rejection of political power - He has maintained the Churchs position on artificial birth control, abortion and homosexuality, areas that reformers had hoped would change - Deus Est Caritas, Benedicts first encyclical, argued that the concept of Eros, or sexual love, now signified simply sex. Its warmth and insight surprised commentators - In March, the Pope affirmed the Catholic doctrine that Hell exists and is eternal for those who shut their hearts to [Gods] love. The move caused controversy amongst liberal theologians For Christmas 2006, the Pope, who has described rock music as Satans work, abandoned the annual Vatican pop concert established by John Paul II. The move was seen as a refreshingly honest refusal to compromise spiritual values for popularity Source: Times archives

====================================================================

P.S. I realize copying PDF documents is such a hassle and often results in continuous sentences like this - it was sheer torture to straighten out the USCCB translation of the Explanatory Letter and their Q&As from PDF! But those of you who have not previously read this Owen article may find it easier to read as posted by Benefan in 'normal' format on 7/7/07, on page 111 of this thread. I hope you don't mind, Maklara. Teresa

Is Pope Benedict turning back Catholic clock?


Thu 12 Jul 2007, 9:31 GMT
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY, July 12 (Reuters) - Critics say Pope Benedict, in several recent controversial moves, is turning the Roman Catholic Church's clock back by half a century and alienating Muslims, Jews and Protestants in the process.

Supporters say that by allowing a wider use of the Latin Mass and reasserting Catholic primacy over other religions, he is trying to revitalise his 1.1 billion-member church and prepare it for an uncertain future.

"Basically, what we are in the grip of at the moment, and Benedict is one of the engineers of this, is what I would call a strong re-assertion of traditional Catholic identity," said John Allen, author of several books on the church and the Vatican.

Some saw his decision to allow a wider use of the old-style Latin Mass as a blow to the reforms of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, which substituted Latin for local languages, modernised the church and encouraged inter-religious dialogue.

Catholics who thought the days of incense and dead languages were behind them were puzzled. Jews voiced concern over the possible use of prayers for their conversion in the old Mass.

Benedict also approved a document which said all other Christian denominations apart from Catholicism were wounded and not full churches of Jesus Christ, drawing the ire of a number of Protestant groups who said it would hurt dialogue.

"This is the Pope being the German professor who is going to clarify language in his classroom," said Father Tom Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. "And he thinks the world is his classroom."

"The problem with that is that he defines what a church is and by doing so takes any discussion of what a church is off the table in dialogue (with other religions)," said Reese, a leading U.S. Jesuit author.

In the wake of the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council, Catholic identity underwent revolutionary changes.

The Latin Mass was phased out, Gregorian chant gave way to folk guitar masses, and Jews, Muslims and other members of other Christian faiths were no longer seen as heretics to be converted or shunned.

"The basic debate after Vatican II was 'should we become more like the world, more modern, more relevant in order to meet it halfway, or is the world heading off in the wrong direction and the last thing we want to do is follow it?'" Allen said.

For most of the immediate period after Vatican II, modernisers won the day even though church attendance fell and the number of men who left the priesthood rose.


FINGERPOST

Nuns stopped wearing traditional habits, some priests took normal day jobs so they could better understand workers' problems, and in many cases Catholic identity was thrown into the blur of the inter-religious blender.

With the election of Pope John Paul II in 1978, traditionalists began to make inroads again and Benedict's actions this month were seen by some as a clear fingerpost for the church's future -- what some see as a hard right turn.

"His intention is not to insult people but many times that's the way it come across," Reese said. "He uses words the way he defines them whether people like it or not, whether it upsets gays, women, theologians, Protestants or Muslims."

Last year Muslims protested after Benedict used a quote that associated Islam with violence. He said he was misunderstood and later expressed his esteem for Muslims but the sting remains.

George Weigel, a prominent U.S. lay Catholic theologian, author and leading conservative commentator, sees Catholic identity as a matter of life and death for the church.

"Christian communities which maintain a clear sense of their doctrinal and moral boundaries can not only survive the encounter with modernity, they can flourish within it. Whereas Christian communities which fudge their boundaries tend to wither and eventually die," Weigel said.

Weigel believes Catholic identity and belief cannot be part of "options in a supermarket" if the church is to survive.

Some see a leaner, meaner Catholic Church in the future.

"The Vatican's calculation is that the retrenchment we are going through now may result in a smaller church but it will be a church that is more focused, more energetic, and in the long term that will pay off," said Allen.

=====================================================================

If I see one more Reuters report.....GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!
The Reuters wrecking crew is really at it! Among the three news agencies carried by Yahoo's service, it's this British new agency -(which like the BBC) refuses to use the word 'terrorist' in its new reports - that has been relentlessly assiduous about these negative articles since the day the MP was announced and have done everything they can to emphasize the negative, without the facts to back them up except a few random quotations from their usual tainted sources like Thomas Reese...and then make it appear like the whole universe shared the negative view.

These, for instance, are sentences that would fail a Journalism 101 student if he wrote it for a test:

---

Catholics who thought the days of incense and dead languages were behind them were puzzled. Jews voiced concern over the possible use of prayers for their conversion in the old Mass.

---

The world has at least 1.1 billion Catholics. To make the bald statement Pulella does gives the reader the impression that the overwhelming majority of Catholics feel that way.

The correct, objective and fair thing would be to report, for instance: "We spoke to N-number of Catholics and asked them about the changes - X-number were puzzled..., Y-number thought it was OK, and Z-number felt it made no difference" or, as the case may be, "We spoke to N=number and all N approved/disapproved..." This way, you limit the validity of the views expressed to a specific finite number of persons giving their opinions, not implying that your small circle of contacts represents the universe of all Catholics or all Jews!

Polls give numbers, even if their base is pretty small [but according to the rules of statistical science should be drawn up according to certain criteria in order to be as typically representative of the sampling population] - and if they did not give numbers (how many did you ask and how many said what exactly), no one will even look at them!

But unscrupulous journalists feel licensed to transmit their own personal opinion as supposedly 'representative' - and no one questions their objective basis for the statements they make.

But of course, the unscrupulous reporter would be unable to provide such objective basis because 1) he probably spoke to 1 or 2 people only, and 2) that would spoil the strategy of making indefinite and vague statements sound like a universal general truism.

In this item, for instance, the writer even omits using an indefinite adjective - he does not say "Some Catholics..." or "Some Jews..."; just, "Catholics were puzzled" and "Jews voiced concern...ie.,to imply that "In general, Catholics were puzzled..." and "In general, Jews were concerned...."

And I'm only citing the most elementary violation of fair and objective news reporting in this item!

But this kind of reporting happens all the time in all the thousands of news items that get reported everyday all over the world - media's insidious but tried and tested way of manipulating public opinion. The unabashed strategy is: If we say anything often enough, and all of us say it often enough, it will become established as fact. Because in this global village, you can fool most of the people most of the time.

Most people just skim through news items or listen to the soundbites and skimpy reporting that passes for TV news - and they feel they know everything there is to know about the world. For most of them, if it appears in the newspapers or I hear it on TV, it must be true. And that is how the 'dominant culture' comes to be shaped and becomes, indeed, dominant!

DAYS 2&3 IN LORENZAGO, REDUX

THE POPE ON VACATION, LORENZAGO DI CADORE, JULY 9-27



PAPA AND HIS PEOPLE















Here's a composite story put together from Corriere delle Alpi and various news agency snippets reported on PETRUS, about the Pope's first three days on vacation:

LORENZAGO - Mons. Giuseppe Andrich was right. Pope Benedict XVI is not likely to stay cooped up inside his well-protected vacation villa for all of three weeks.

So on his second day in Lorenzago, he took more than just a walk in the gardens of Castello Mirabello Tuesday morning. He went out again in the late afternoon, beyond the castle grounds, walking as far as the first houses within town limits, along a road that passes by the public tennis courts.



He even sat down on one of the park benches to watch - two 40-year-old men playing tennis, and a 15-year-old girl playing pingpong with her father, both vacationing from Venice.

Later they said, they would have stopped playing 'out of respect' but security had warned them beforehand "Just do what you're doing - pretend it's all normal."

The Pope got into a car which took him by some other way back to the castle grounds. On the road leading to the castle, there is a house for vacationers from Treviso. "When the Pope saw us, he waved from the car," they reported excitedly.

That was Tuesday evening.

Last night, at around the same time, the Pope left again, this time in a convoy of four cars bound for the little 17th-century church dedicated to Our Lady of Loreto in Lozzo di Cadore. He spent a half hour of prayer inside the church.

Meanwhile, a small crowd of residents and vacationers, and many children, had gathered outside the church. When the Pope came out, he took the wildflower bouquets prepared by the children.

"Oh, what beautiful flowers, he said to them. "Are you here on vacation also?"

To one child who was too dumbstruck to answer, he said, "You're too excited!" He spoke to her parents, a couple from Udine; the husband was on crutches. The Pope held his hands in sympathy, and the wife burst into tears.

Afterwards, the Pope turned to the newsmen and photographers present and bantered, "How did you get here? I know you newsmen are supposed to know all, but I only came here to pray."

The Pope appeared suntanned, relaxed and smiling. Don Giorgio took the flowers from him and they got into the car to head back to Lorenzago.

Leaving Lozzo, the car slowed down so the Pope could greet a nun from Florence, Maria Basso, for whom he rolled down his car window.

She took his hand and kissed the ring, and said, "Holiness, I come from the nearby retirement home where there are so many old people."

And she says he answered, "I, too, am an old man." She says she would have wanted to ask him for a rosary, but she 'did not have the courage.'

The Pope's convoy - four cars and 2 motorcycle escorts - was slowed down because there were people by the roadside. The Pope kept his window open and waved to everyone.

At Lorenzago, some 300 people had gathered in the town square. /when the black Volkswagen with the Pope reached the piazza, policemen and carabinieri were hard put to control the crowd. Cameramen were jostled The Pope shook some hands when he could, until the lead car could pull away and the others followed.



"The Pope walks like a mountaineer," Bishop Andrich told newsmen earlier. He recalled that on the day the Pope arrived, he had accompanied him from the foot of the hill to go up the path leading to the villa. He walks rapidly, briskly." He said he hoped the Pope would be able to take some of the mountain paths leading to the nearby peaks.

Andrich said the Pope has expressed his wish to be able to meet more people, but "security is being very strict."

He said that personally, he was most impressed by Benedict's 'simplicity and serenity.'

As reported earlier, the Pope did not attend the organ concert at the local parish church last night, but Mons. Gaenswein came back to town to read the Pope's letter to the town officials and citizens.

=====================================================================

7/13/07



Osservatore Romano today had this brief little item that tells us more about the Pope's visit to Lozzo. Here is a translation:

In the late afternoon of Wednesday, July 11, Benedict XVI went to the sanctuary of Lozzo di Cadore built in 1660 and dedicated to the Madonna of Loreto.

A little after 6 p.m., the Pope left the little villa near Castello Mirabello where he has been residing since July 9. Passing through the center of Lorenzago, the Pope's car took the road between Auronzo and Comelico towards the church of Lozzo.

Inside the church, built in late Gothic style, the Pope prayed in front of the altar, adorned with a neo-classical altarpiece by Tomaso da Rin (1938-1922) showing the Virgin of Loreto, and just below it, Mary as a girl.

Afterwards, the Holy Father walked through the surrounding woods of Vizza to pray the Rosary. He returned to Lorenzago around 17:30.


====================================================================

The regional newspapers today, 7/13, also had additional details about the Pope's outing yesterday. Will post when translated.

Teresa, thanks so much for the news reports on Day 2 & 3 of Papa's vacation. It was wonderful to read about the interactions & Papa's responses. How funny of him saying: "How did you get here? ...I only came to pray."

Also thanks for the editorial from the National Catholic Reporter. Quite interesting to tie all the things that have been happening into J.O.N. I know Reuters isn't Benedict's buddy (more like the official misreporter of everything he does), but this article is just another example of how sloppy they are. "Catholics who thought the days of incense and dead languages were behind them were puzzled," just made me laugh. The interview with Prof. Jacob Neusner was good too, thanks for posting.

The Language of Tradition:
The pope brings back the Latin Mass

BY RAYMOND ARROYO
For the Wall Street Journal
Friday, July 13, 2007

While drafting the decree that would return the old Latin mass to Catholic altars around the world, Pope Benedict XVI rightly predicted that reaction to his directive would range from "joyful acceptance to harsh opposition."

But what he did not anticipate was the reaction of pundits and not a few clerics who have tried to dismiss the decree as a curiosity - a nonevent that is likely to have little effect beyond a few "ultraconservative" throwbacks.

David Gibson, the author of The Coming Catholic Church, says that the announcement is "much ado about nothing," and French Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard says that he doesn't "see a tsunami coming." But there is much more at play here than satiating the liturgical appetites of a few traditionalists.

The legislation (made public on Saturday) allows a pastor, on his own authority, to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, codified in the 16th century. Following the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the venerable Mass - in which cries of "sanctus, sanctus" rose like incense around the altar - fell out of practice. It was actively suppressed in some quarters - though never outlawed by the church.

Pope John Paul II encouraged celebrations of the old rite in a declaration he issued in 1988, although the permission of the local bishop was required for a priest to offer it.

This new legislation removes the middleman and puts the Latin Mass on a par with the widely celebrated vernacular Mass. In the words of the pope, these Masses constitute "two usages of the one Roman rite."

It is an open secret that many in the Roman Curia (including top Vatican officials) were opposed to the decree. Bishops in Germany, France and England grew angry over the prospect of reviving the old Mass.

British Bishop Kieran Conry said that "any liberalization of the use of the [Latin] rite may prove seriously divisive. It could encourage those who want to turn back the clock throughout the church."

According to several prelates I have spoken to, Bishop William Skylstad, the president of the American Bishops Conference, flatly told the pope that the U.S. bishops opposed any revival of the old rite. Why would the pope risk alienating so many of his own churchmen to appeal to a relatively small group of "disaffected" Catholics?

Reform of the liturgy has been a central concern for Pope Benedict for decades. Disgusted by some of the liturgical experimentation he witnessed in the past few decades, the pope suggested in a letter to the bishops (issued along with the decree) that these "arbitrary deformations of the liturgy" provoked his actions. There is little room for such tomfoolery in the old Mass, whose focus is on the Eucharist and not on the assembled or the celebrant.

During an interview I conducted with the pope in 2003, before his election, he said of the Latin Mass: "[What] was at one time holy for the church is always holy." He also spoke of the need to revive the "elements of Latin" to underscore the "universal dimension" of the Mass.

Before Vatican II, a Mass celebrated in New York was identical to a Mass celebrated in Israel. That is not true today. For a faith that crosses borders and cultures, common language and practice in worship are essential signs of unity.

The pope's decree also underscores for Catholics the origins of the new Mass and the continuity of the two rites. Pope Benedict tells his bishops that as a result of his decree, "the celebration of [the vernacular Mass] will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage."

By placing the two Masses in close proximity, the pope is hoping that the new Mass will take on the sensibilities of the old. The pope is betting that sacrality and reverence will win out over innovation and novelty, no matter which rite people choose.

There are inevitable problems: Many priests today simply don't know Latin. But they can learn it, or at least enough of it to get through the Mass. The movements of the traditional rite can also be learned from older clergy and from groups like the Fraternity of St. Peter that offer intensive instruction in the ritual.

Just as the laity have grown accustomed to the incessant hand-holding and hand-shaking that make the Mass look like a hoe-down, they will learn to embrace the gestures of the old liturgy.

Parishioners can actively follow the Mass using a Missal, which usually provides side-by-side translations. Listening with attention will be required. But who said worshiping God should be effortless?

Since Vatican II, generations of Catholics have participated in Masses and repeated actions that they have no historical appreciation or understanding of. This move by the pope will not only provoke a healthy conversation about why Catholics do what they do but ground them in the beauty and meaning of the liturgy, both new and old.

Mr. Arroyo is the author of "Mother Angelica" and news director of EWTN, a Catholic broadcasting network.

Father Z says - write him!

Many people want to express their gratitude to someone for the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.

It costs almost nothing to write a note of appreciation.


I suggest you write a very brief, VERY brief note to

His Holiness
Benedict XVI
Palazzo Apostolico
00120 Vatican City

Tips for writing to the Pope to thank him:

1) one side of one sheet of paper
2) unless your penmanship is perfect, type or word processor
3) don't say anything negative about anyone
4) in two lines, express why you love the older liturgy and ho you participate
5) in one line promise prayers for His Holiness and some work of mercy do will do for him and his intentions

Start with "Dear Holy Father," or "Most Holy Father", and address him as "Your Holiness".

=================================================================

If the hospitality thank-you note dictated by etiquette is called a bread-and-butter letter,
I suppose we might call this the bells-and-incense letter!

And we can always use e-mail. I'll check out the right address - I think it still is benedictXVI.va.

Snail's pace creeps through Vatican, some say,
as new changes reflect pontiffs thoughtful, careful manner

By Russell Shaw
7/12/2007
Our Sunday Visitor

HUNTINGTON, Ind. (Our Sunday Visitor)  Popes naturally have a lot on their minds. On the evidence, it appears that one of the things they think about most is how to elect a pope.

Over the centuries, one product of this preoccupation has been a series of documents in which popes have revised and re-revised the rules for papal elections. Now Pope Benedict XVI is the latest to have a go at it.

Reversing a decision by Pope John Paul II allowing a pope to be elected by a simple majority under certain circumstances, Pope Benedict issued a decree that reinstates an earlier rule requiring a two-thirds majority, with no exceptions.

In doing so, he made it clear once again that, much as he reveres his predecessor, by no means does he feel bound by all his decisions. In the present instance, Pope Benedict said that returning to the old two-thirds rule for election of a pope was a response to serious requests.

Pope John Paul laid down his rules for the conclave  the gathering of cardinals to elect a pope  in a 1996 apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis (The Lords Whole Flock).

He specified that, at the start, the requirement of a two-thirds majority to elect a pope would be in effect. But if no one was chosen after 33 or 34 ballots stretching over 13 days, the cardinal-electors would have the option of switching to election by a simple majority. That decision would itself require only a majority vote.

Stalemate possible

Pope Benedicts decree returning to the two-thirds requirement, come what may, was contained in a document called a motu proprio released June 26. He did not explain the reason for the change, but it isnt hard to guess.

Under the procedure envisaged in the 1996 document, if a narrow majority favoring a particular candidate emerged early in the conclave, it would only have to hold out for a few days until the procedure change and it had its way.

The election of a pope under such circumstances would certainly be valid. But its generally acknowledged that the interests of the church are best served if the man elected pope is the favorite of a commanding majority of the cardinals rather than  potentially  a one-vote majority.

Pope Benedicts new procedures remove the latter possibility.

At the start of the conclave, the two-thirds requirement is in place. If no one has been elected after 13 days, the cardinals are to pause for a day of prayer, reflection and dialogue among themselves.

When voting resumes, the candidates will be the two men with the most votes on the last ballot, though at this point neither of them will be permitted to vote. But  in a departure from Pope John Pauls innovation  a two-thirds majority of those voting will still be required for either man to become pope.

The obvious difficulty with this procedure is that it reopens the door to what Pope John Paul presumably wished to head off  a stalemated conclave.

Arguing against this eventuality, however, is the cardinals presumably strong impulse to find consensus on a candidate for the sake of the church.

No worries

While this revision of the conclave rules is significant in itself, it would be a gross overinterpretation to see in it anything more than remote preparation for the next papal election, at a time impossible to predict. Although Pope Benedict turned 80 last April, there is no reason to think that his health is anything but excellent.

All the same, he often does refer to his age and his mortality.

In the foreword to his best-selling new book Jesus of Nazareth (Doubleday, $24.95), for instance, he says he is working on a second volume but thought it wise to publish volume one now, as I do not know how much more time or strength I am still to be given.

Inevitably, too, the new motu proprio suggests the question of what provisions for the governance of the church Pope Benedict may have made in the event that he becomes disabled in office. Procedures covering this contingency were rumored to have been prepared under Pope John Paul, but if Pope Benedict has anything like that in his desk drawer, its one of the Vaticans best-kept secrets.

Slow pace

Meanwhile, a common complaint heard around Rome these days is that, in one journalists words, personnel and structural changes have been moving at a snails pace at the Vatican. Maybe so. But publication of the papal election document  and of a motu proprio on the Tridentine Mass shows that the pope is working on multiple tasks in his own careful but industrious manner.

In recent weeks, he has made top-level, or near top-level, appointments in several Vatican agencies. No sooner did he return from the longest trip of his pontificate so far  to a continent-wide bishops meeting in Brazil  than he was off to Assisi for a symbolic visit dramatizing his commitment to peace.

And the round of papal speeches, audiences and liturgical events goes on.

Pope Benedict is hardly the dynamo that Pope John Paul was in the early years of his pontificate. But Pope John Paul, bowed by age and illness, was no dynamo either by the time he turned 80. For a man his age, Pope Benedict XVI continues to carry the many burdens of the papacy surprisingly well.


====================================================================

Frankly, I don't understand how even someone like Russell Shaw could take the bait of NEVER-NAMED persons - 'Curial officials' and 'Vatican journalists' - who ostensibly voice the 'common complaints' against the Pope at the Vatican. All right, those of us who perforce follow Vatican reporting can figure out who the carpers are among the journalists.

But who are these antagonistic Curial officials, and why should we care what they say? We care that these are obviously the types who would do everything to impede, delay or sabotage - to the degree they are able to - anything the Pope wants to do which they disaagree with.

But how many are they, even? Do we ever get a sense from reports like Shaw's - or of the veteran Vaticanistas - of how widespread this anti-Papal sentiment is in the Curia? The way it is reported, one would think there were more dissidents in the Curia than conscientious, hardworking prelates who serve the Pope with the respect and obedience they owe the Vicar of Christ.

Why hasn't a single Vatican 'analyst' come up with a realistic presentation - go down the list of Curial offices one by one, indicate what is the general inclination of each office insofar as 'sentire cum ecclesia and cum Papa' and give an indication of how well-placed (or not) or influential (or not) the dissidents are in each office to affect papal initiatives? That's a story - not vague references every now and then to 'Curial officials' in general.

If someone just started doing that kind of analysis with the Secretariat of State - which has its fingers in every Vatican pie - we would all have a better understanding of the Pope's bureaucratic problems!

Snail's pace - what crap!


AN OBJECTIVE LOOK AT THE RECORD


Just for the record, let me list down here what George Weigel presents in summary form in each chapter of his book WITNESS TO HOPE, as the highlights of John Paul's Pontificate (pastoral visits, encyclicals, other apostolic letters, consistories and bishops synod) during the first 26 months - where we are with the Ratzinger Pontificate now:

Oct 1978 John Paul II becomes Pope.
Nov 1978 Pilgrimage to Assisi.
Dec 1978 First visit to a Roman parish.
Jan 1979 Visits Mexico, opens CELAM confernece.
Mar 1979 First encylical, Redemptor hominis.
Mar 1979 Death of Paul VI's Secretary of State Jean Villot allows John Paul II to name his #2 man, Cardinal Casaroli, to succeed him.
[He will not make another Curial department head appointment till Nov 1981 when he names Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the CDF -
three years into his Pontificate.]
Jun 1979 First visit to Poland.
Jun 1979 First consistory.(He will not call a second one until Feb 1983 - or 4-1/2 years into his Pontificate)
Sep-Oct 1979 Travels to Ireland and the US. Addresses the UN.
Oct 1979 Apostolic Exhortation on 1977 Bishops Synod
Nov 1979 Calls first consultative meeting of the College of Cardinals in more than 400 years.
Nov 1979 Visits Ecumenical Patrriarch Dimitros I in Istanbul.
[Incidental Note: Dec 1979 - CDF declares Hans Kueng cannot teach Catholic theology.]
Jan 1980 Special Bishops Synod to avert 'schism' by dissident Dutch bishops.
Feb 1980 Apostolic Letter on the Eucharist
May 1980 First visit to Africa: Zaire, Congo, Kenya and Ghana in 10 days.
Jun 1980 Visits France - address to UNESCO, pilgrimage to Lisieux.
Jul 1980 First trip to Brazil: 12-day trip takes him to Brasilia, Belo Horizonte, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Salvador de Bahia (and the Amazon), and Recife.
Aug 1980 Convenes a meeting of physicists in Castel Gandolfo.
Sep 1980 Bishops Synod on the family
Aug-Sep 1980 Seven pastoral visits within Italy
Nov 1980 First visit to West Germany
Nov 1980 Second encyclical, Dives in misericordia.

Of course, running through all these were John Paul II's initiatives in behalf of the Churches of Eastern Europe and against the Communist system in general that would eventually contribute to bringing down Communism.

Anyway, an objective look at the first 26 months of the Wojtyla Papacy and the Ratzinger Papacy, respectively, does not show that John Paul II was necessarily 'a dynamo compared to Benedict XVI' - other than the ambitious itinerary for single travels possible for a 58-60 year-old athletic Pope compared to someone 20 years older. Nor that Benedict has moved at snail's pace! Both have acted according to the need of the moment and in their own individual ways.

Let us not denigrate in any way what each has done by imposing value judgments. Objective facts speak for themselves.

For an at-a-glance look at the first 26 months of Benedict's Pontificate, I put together 'BENEDICT'S MILESTONES' on page 110 of this thread:
freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=354494&p=110

Why worry about others' prayers?

Jerusalem Post.Com/Opinion
July 14, 2007

Sir, - Once again hysterical Hebrews are rending their garments over what other people might or might not utter in prayer ("Pope's revival of Latin Mass described as 'body blow' to Jewish-Catholic relations," July 8).

Pope Benedict XVI brilliantly assisted Pope John Paul II through the theological minefield of reconciliation with the Jewish people, culminating in the pope's visit to Yad Vashem and the Western Wall. Now he is trying to reconcile the conservative wing of his church, which is still distressed over the radical liturgical changes of Vatican II, especially the ban on use of the hallowed Tridentine Mass. This 16th-century liturgy was often tinkered with, and the last approved text of 1959 did not include the objectionable references to Jews.

The Society of St Pius X is much more influential than its small numbers because it plays on feelings of tradition and nostalgia; a return to the good old ways, much like certain extremist groups among us. They are certainly anti-Semitic, and on occasion quote the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their communications.

They are not, however, to be taken too seriously. One of their excommunicated leaders, Bishop Williamson, still objects to women wearing slacks, and claims that the most dangerous cultural opus of the 20th centurywas the The Sound of Music, in which a nun, a Bride of Christ, abandons her divine betrothed for the carnal embraces of marital love, Hollywood-style.

The society's main attraction is the practice of the Latin Mass. By allowing more general use of it, the pope is taking away the society's monopoly on this popular rite, more attractive to some because it was forbidden. By the way, the Old Mass is a magnificent text, made even more beautiful when accompanied by some of the most inspired music ever composed.

Let us remember that there are a few prayers in our own liturgy that others might find offensive. I am sure the same hysterical Hebrews would shout "Anti-Semitism!" if the pope demanded the removal of the "Pour out Thy wrath" (Shfoch hamatcha) prayer from the Haggada.

Benedict XVI is trying to heal the ruptures in his church caused by rapid and extreme modernization. I wish our own religious leaders would imitate him and work for more internal conciliation instead of the divisions they encourage. The pope is the most influential Christian leader in the world, and he has openly challenged Islamism. He wants to unite his church in order to stand up to the dangers that threaten
all of us.

Let us get our noses out of other people's prayers.

JOSEF GILBOA
Jaffa

Sir, - I welcome Pope Benedict XVI's decision to loosen restrictions on the use of the Latin Mass. Vatican II never called for the elimination of Latin, the

official language of the Catholic Church. It is a "dead" language that prevents church liberals from translating words into the vernacular using ambiguous terms that undermine church doctrine, such as the use of inclusive language. Perhaps the greatest advantage of the Latin Mass is that it is not open to the abuses regularly experienced with the new Mass.

The universality of Latin makes it conducive to all believers experiencing more fully the mystery of the Mass. It imbues a heightened reverence and sense of the sacred. It compliments well the Latin rites. Traditional Gregorian Chant with its moving meditative cadence touches the depths of the soul.

I hope the pope's new directive will encourage bishops to actively and aggressively promote the Latin Mass throughout their dioceses, and beyond.

PAUL KOKOSKI
Hamilton, Ontario

=====================================================================

Thanks, Benefan, for these letters. I'm glad there is at least one Jew who went on the record to say what has been so obvious: We don't tell other religions what to pray - What business do they have telling us what to pray?

And in any case, as Rabbi Neusner and Josef Gilboa above inform us, the Jews have analogous prayers about non-Jews as the now-discarded 'prayers for the Jews' in the Good Friday liturgy. Has any Christian protested the Jewish prayers? I don't think so. Lex orandi, lex credendi goes for everyone - you pray as you believe.

The New Liturgical Movement site just posted this - and I had to post it on our Forum before taking off for the rest of the afternoon, because it brings up a very obvious point.

None of the self-consciously arrogant liberals in the Catholic and secular worlds have dared to admit that what Pope Benedict XVI ahs done with Summorum Pontificum is - as I formulated in an earlier post - liberalizing, liberating, liberal. He's beaten them at their own game and they won't acknowledge that!


The Pope has created a liturgical 'free market'
By Alcuin Reid
The Catholic Herald
July 13, 2007


Well, he has done it. After much speculation, and in spite of intense and orchestrated lobbying from some bishops (as well as the all-too-frequently published opprobrium of ageing priests and liturgists), by means of his motu proprio letter Summorun Pontificum the Pope has either - depending upon your point of view -undermined the liturgical reforms initiated by Vatican II or restored to the Church the venerable liturgical tradition she jettisoned in the wake of the Council.

The latter is, at least in part, true, for we know from the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger mat this pope has long since believed that the juridical proscription of the Church's older liturgical tradition was a historical anomaly and a gross impoverishment of the liturgical life of the Church. Now, he has acted to correct this.

But let's be clear the Holy Father has not "restored" anything really, at least not by way of imposing or ordering a return to the older liturgical forms. He has simply permitted their free use. He has taken down the legal barriers that - as he says in his motu proprio - should never have been erected in the first place: His Holiness states clearly mat the older liturgy was, in fact, "never abrogated".

Herein we glimpse the genius and the profound humility of Benedict XVI. Yes, he is deeply concerned about the crisis in the liturgical life of the Church (we saw this in Sacramentum Caritatis) and yes, he is convinced that it was wrong to ban the old liturgy after the Council.

As Pope, he enjoys the authority to act as he judges best for the good of the Church. Having done so he imposes... nothing; he simply permits. He does not ban the newer liturgy or even recommend that there be at least one weekly celebration of Mass according to the older use in each parish or diocese.

In his profound conviction that this form of the liturgy has much to offer the Church of today and of tomorrow, he humbly trusts that the pastoral judgment of priests of this and of coming generations will afford the older liturgical forms their appropriate place in the life of the Church.

This decentralised and somewhat "free-market" approach is quite a novelty in recent liturgical history. For whether we have in fact done as we have been told in Church, in the last 40 years we have been told a good deal about what we must and must not do: that Rome required us to adopt the new rites and to forsake the old, that the bishops required us to transfer this feast or that to a Sunday, that the bishop insists that the tabernacle be moved to the side, that churches must be re-ordered, and so forth.

Such positivist juridical centralism was not always the case. Throughout her history up until the Second Vatican Council the one Roman Rite had varying ancient uses (rituals for the celebration of Mass and the sacraments) proper to particular dioceses and to many religious orders.

There was even more ritual plurality before the centralising reforms of the Council of Trent: here in England the Sarum use of the Roman Rite, as well as other local uses, held sway. Abroad, many if not most dioceses had their own missals or "uses".

So there is nothing all that unusual - from the point of view of liturgical history - in Pope Benedict allowing different "uses" of the one Roman Rite. Indeed, we may hope that the religious orders may once again enjoy free access to their proper uses. Perhaps there may even be a place in the life of the Church in England for a revival of the Sarum use?

But doesn't all this risk liturgical disunity and repudiate the liturgical reforms of Vatican II? As to the first, we need to be honest: the way the modern rites have been celebrated in some - indeed too many - parishes over the past 40 years has been so ideologically idiosyncratic that one can legitimately ask whether there is in fact any real unity of worship (in some instances, even of faith) within the modern use of the Roman Rite.

That very large issue aside, let us remember that the Second Vatican Council itself spoke of a legitimate diversity within substantial unity: unity, not uniformity.

The irony of protagonists of the modern use of the Roman Rite opposing the availability of the older use by means of insisting on liturgical uniformity ought not to be lost - for overcoming liturgical uniformity was heralded as one of the victories of the modern liturgical reform.

No, whatever liturgical books are used, there will be substantial unity amid legitimate diversity, provided the rites are celebrated as the Church intends them to be celebrated. This is in perfect harmony with the Second Vatican Council and the liturgical tradition of the western Church.

Pope Benedict's act could, however, be seen to contain an implicit criticism, not of the Council, but of the liturgical reforms that were enacted in its name: quite simply, they have not completely satisfied the spiritual appetites of all the faithful.

Indeed, as the Holy Father observes, many young people who never knew the older liturgy find in it much that draws them to God. To put it another way, there would have been no need for this motu proprio had the liturgical reform that followed Vatican II been an unqualified success and had it been a moderate, organic development of the traditional liturgy as the Fathers of the Council themselves desired. The Pope does not discuss these issues explicitly here, but he has done so frequently as cardinal.

And what of the bishops? Hasn't the Pope undermined their authority to regulate the liturgy in their dioceses? As Cardinal Ratzinger, the present pope wrote a rather audacious paragraph about the limits of the pope's power in respect of the liturgy. He stated bluntly that the pope is not "an absolute monarch" in respect of the liturgy, but "a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity." Pope Benedict XVI taught this fundamental principle to himself, as it were, in his homily on taking possession of the Lateran Basilica soon after his election.

The same has to be said of the diocesan bishop: his role is that of one who oversees the liturgy in his diocese, of one who ensures that it is celebrated with integrity, in accordance with the liturgical law of the Church. Liturgical law certainly gives him some personal prerogatives (he may delegate others than himself to administer Confirmation), but it does not empower him to restrict the legitimate options that the Church gives in her liturgical books.

The Pope's motu proprio has certainly extended the range of liturgical celebrations the bishop must supervise. Perhaps it has also served as a salutary reminder for some bishops that their episcopal office is indeed that of an overseer of the liturgy's proper celebration, and that they are not its authors or proprietors.

The lasting significance of Summorum Pontificum and its accompanying letter to the bishops will be seen by the generations to come. In the coming months and years we shall probably see much commentary and clarification in respect of them as the practicalities of a gradual increase in the celebration of the usus antiquior of the Roman Rite are worked out.

Please God, we shall also see progress in the reconciliation of those groups who have broken with Rome over this and other questions: their positive response to the motu proprio is both encouraging and a testament the paternal solicitude of the Holy Father.

Dr Alcuin Reid is the author of The Organic Development of the Liturgy (Ignatius, 2005), which carries a preface by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Crotchet - that is an amazing photo! I was watching one of the documentaries I'd recorded from two years ago - I think it was that dreadful "God's Rotweiler". Part of it was about the Church's attitude to "gay" people and they showed a Mass . It was a house Mass, which in itself is allowed, if liturgically correct. We have them in my parish. But in this case the chalice [it looked like a proper chalice] was being passed round one way while the priest administered the host going round the other way!!!!!!
Those video links posted on the Pictures and Videos thread recently show some of these abuses too. Did you see those, Crotchet? They are on You Tube.

I would like to get a discussion going about Summorum Pontificum and also the latest letter from the CDF. Would this be an appropriate thread or not? What do you all think?

===============================================================


Dear MaryJos and everyone else who participates in the English section: - Obviously Yes! The idea for all these threads - and reporting any news item - is not only to provide information but to be a take-off point for any comments or discussion! So what's stopping anyone from such discussions????

As I told you in a long e-mail recently, I have been so frustrated that the English section is turning out to be a newsmagazine rather than a forum - which it is supposed to be - because nobody seems to want to comment or discuss anything except pictures or Concetta or ... I"m sure you all get what I mean...

And yet, as I have been pointing out, Pope Benedict XVI has just had the most densely significant two weeks of any Papacy in recent historical memory - but no one has commented! Not on Inter-Religious Dialog, or the Conclave rule, or the China letter, or the Motu Proprio, or the CDF statement, despite all the items and commentary I have tried to bring into the Forum from all sources I can tap!

I have been venting myself blue in the face to start off any discussion, but without any luck so far, except now and then with Crotchet. And not only with my own posts. Everytime someone posts something I feel needs comment or further discussion, I immediately post a comment, but it seems it all falls into a void. Will someone tell me what the problem is, PLEASE????

And please remember, I brought up this issue a few months back about a lack of genuine forum activity in terms of discussing things. That didn't get anywhere, did it? Despite the seeming lack of reaction, I have not slackened in sharing whatever I can get that I feel is worth sharing. Because I look at the hits of each thread at the start of the day and at the end of the day, and I see that even a thread like THE WORD OF GOD gets an average of 70-100 visits a day.

Since we can count on both hands the number of 'active' participants in the English section, I can only conclude that most of the visits are from casual visitors. This keeps me going - that, and the fact that some reputable bloggers refer to us for certain things only we can provide.

I am glad I was given an opportunity to come out with all this - and pray it may lead to more participation by everyone.

THANK YOU ALL.

Teresa