by
Thomas A. Droleskey
No amount of argumentation is going to convince anyone that Summorum Pontificum is a trap to lead people into the Novus Ordo, that it has many pitfalls on a practical level and is designed of its nefarious nature to produce a synthesis between the "two forms" of the "one" Roman Rite. Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter by Father Joseph Ratzinger to the world's conciliar bishops contain one gratuitous claim after another, going so far, as noted above, to call for the "re-education" of those traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures whose scholastic philosophy teaches them that it is impossible to see "continuity in discontinuity." No, no amount of argumentation will convince those who have been waiting to rejoice for so long over this non-liberation of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that they are being treated in exactly the same way as the Catholics of Red China who have suffered for long in the underground but must pretend that it is possible to work within the framework of a Communist-dominated clergy for the advancement of the Faith. (Mister Potter's Big Cigar.)
What I wrote 1754 days ago was castigated by many as "slap in the face" of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI for his "generosity" to "liberate" the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition for Catholics yet attached to the structures of his counterfeit church of conciliarism. What I wrote on July 7, 2007, was true at the time, and is being proved true once again as the long waltz between the Society of Saint Pius X and the conciliar revolutionaries appears to be reaching some kind of conclusion in the next few months. There are forces of intrigue at work, however, that desire to interrupt the waltz, if not stop it altogether.
Intrigue inside the walls of the Vatican is hardly new. That there is such intrigue now is nothing shocking. This intrigue is one phenomenon that has indeed survived almost entirely touched since the onset of the doctrinal and liturgical revolutions during the reign of the first conciliar "pope," Angelo Roncalli/John XIII, which began on October 28, 1958. And there is intrigue aplenty at the present time as "ultra-revolutionary" progressives inside the Vatican's walls work hand-in-hand with their like number in various dioceses to thwart the possibility of a "reconciliation" between the Society of Saint Pius X and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
Adding to the intrigue inside the Vatican is that one of the previously "regularized" or "reconciled" traditional communities that had been associated the Society of Saint Pius X, the Institute of the Good Shepherd in France. The superior of this community, Abbot Philippe Laguerie, which was "reconciled" in 2006, seems to indicate that he has a "suspect" in mind who might have leaked a letter sent by Monsignor Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei, to avoid using the word "exclusively" to refer to their offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and to stop criticizing the "Second" Vatican Council, learning instead how "to channel their efforts in conveying the
whole of the Church teachings, focusing on the hermeneutics of
renovation within continuity and starting, as a base, from the integrity
of the Catholic doctrine as exposed in the catechism of the Catholic
Church." In other words, those in the Motu world must accept thorough Modernist concept of dogmatic truth, condemned by the [First] Vatican Council and Pope Paint Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism,. September 1, 1910, and Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
Here is a report about "Monsignor" Pozzo's letter that was leaked to the press, evidently by someone who has a mind to "sabotage" the "last deciding steps that would mark the return to full communion with Rome of the Society of Saint Pius X":
The last deciding steps that would mark the return
to full communion with Rome of the Society of Pius X that was founded
by archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, will be taken in the next few days. The
Commission Ecclesia Dei will meet next week to examine the reply sent by
the superior of the Society, bishop Bernard Fellay. It contains
the Doctrinal Preamble drafted by the Vatican authorities following
several talks between the Vatican and the Lefebvrians. There are some
changes, but those who read the text said they were not substantial. The
document will be examined by the cardinals of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith and finally by the pope (who should already have
it).
This is a tricky time. It is no secret that there are oppositions within the Society and in the episcopates of countries
where the traditional wing of the Society is more present, but also in a
small group within the Vatican. In the more radical Lefebvrian groups,
which in truth hold positions close to sedevacantism, the agreement is seen as surrendering to Rome’s offers instead of keeping up the fight to “convert” the Holy See and go back in time, to the
Church of fifty years ago. The other side believes that Benedict XVI has
been too generous in the spirit of reconciliation and should not have
tolerated that any Catholic believer felt able to criticise the Second
Vatican Council.
This difficult climate and the tensions that will
inevitably rise in the next few weeks are exemplified by the leak of a
confidential letter that the secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission,
Mgr. Guido Pozzo, recently sent to the abbot Philippe Laguerie, superior
of the Institute of the Good Shepherd, society of apostolic life based
on the pontifical right, which celebrates mass according to the Latin
rite. Pozzo’s letter included some observations and suggestions for the
Institute following a canonical visit some time ago. Its release,
according to abbot Laguerie, means that someone wants to put a spanner
in the works and disrupt the dialogue between the Holy See and the
Lefebvrians.
In the letter, Pozzo addressed mainly two points.
The first concerns the “exclusive” use awarded to the Institute of Pius V
missal. Ecclesia Dei suggested that in the charters of the Institute of
the Good Shepherd it would be better to avoid the word “exclusive”
and simply highlight that it is the Institute’s “own rite”. “The matter
of practicing the extraordinary form, as formulated in the charters”
writes Pozzo “must be defined in the spirit of Summorum Pontificum. It
would be better to simply describe this form as the Institute’s ‘own
rite’, without mentioning ‘exclusivity’”. We ought to remind readers
that the constitutions of the Good Shepherd were written before the
pope’s Motu Proprio which in 2007 liberalized the use of the old missal.
Furthermore Pozzo mentioned the criticism of the Second Vatican
Council: “Rather than criticize, however rightly and constructively, the
Vatican II, educators should channel their efforts in conveying the
whole of the Church teachings, focusing on the hermeneutics of
renovation within continuity and starting, as a base, from the integrity
of the Catholic doctrine as exposed in the catechism of the Catholic
Church”.
Basically the secretary of Ecclesia Dei is asking the conservative group already in communion with Rome to make an effort
in closely following the indications of Benedict XVI concerning the
interpretation of conciliar documents. But this confidential letter
might have been leaked because it includes points that might discourage
the Lefebvrians who are about to follow their superior Bernard Fellay on
the way to full communion with Rome. Abbot Philippe Laguerie pointed out in a statement released on several websites http://blog.messainlatino.it/2012/04/parole-dure-di-don-laguerie-per-la.html?m=1 and then picked up by the press agency Agi that “There are people in Rome who are very opposed to any form of agreement”.
The conservative cleric, superior of the Institute
of the Good Shepherd added: “Factions opposed to the agreement of the
Society of Pius X, within or outside the clergy, are responsible for the
leak”.
“ In short” said Father Laguerie “it’s a common
habit everywhere for people to get involved in what is none of their
business, even though everyone is obviously interested. The end does not
justify the means. Never”. If it was a member of the Institute to leak
the letter, the superior said he would like to invite him to join the
Lefebvrians who are against the return to the Church: “ If he really
comes from them, then he should go back there!” “In any case” concluded
the abbot in harsh tones “ This person would be a pathetic politician
trying to disrupt the negotiations of the Society and destabilize his
own Institute. A priest incapable to keeping professional confidentiality might even be capable of breaking the seal of the confessional”. (Who is sabotaging the agreement between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X?)
This is another dog and pony show in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as any agreement that winds up being concluded between the Society of Saint Pius X and conciliar officials will not be sidetracked by sideshows such as this. Those in the Society of Saint Pius X who believe such a "reconciliation" is possible have not been deterred thus far even though their putative partner, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, has offended God in numerous ways in the past seven years, showing no sign whatsoever that he is any the less a revolutionary now than he was sixty years ago. He is a Modernist of the sort described by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, one who believes in Modernist tenets but his more indulgent on matters of liturgy for aesthetic, not theological, reasons
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From
all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager
is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is
absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to
be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They
wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of
philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men
to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the
times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology:
rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and
positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for
history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods
and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to
be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are
to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the
capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of
external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent
their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of
symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out
that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its
branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments
They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into
harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards
democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be
given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and
authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The
Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must
be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of
conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside
political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to
penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they
adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are
more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in
practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their
primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they
should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly
listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the
suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the
Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their
principles? (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, No. 38)
Ratzinger/Benedict wants there to be one "unified" rite to emerge over the course of time, something has been noted over and over again on this site, including in Just About To Complete A Long March Into Oblivion eight days ago now. He is not a "traditionalist." Indeed, he believes in a concept of a "living tradition" that makes the Sacred Deposit of Faith nothing other than an empty vessel into which to pour the prevailing "developments" of the moment, which is why he is so intent on re-reading and reinterpreting Sacred Scripture through the lens of his Protestant-Orthodox-Hegelian "new theology." He himself has stated that there is a "need" for such "reinterpretation" and even re-translation of Scriptural texts as a pretext for breaking with the sure foundation provided by the Church Fathers and Doctors, especially by Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Ratzinger/Benedict's "post-synodal exhortation," Verbum Domini, issued on September 30, 2010, the Feast of Saint Jerome, explains his devotion to this false tenet of "living tradition" as applied to Scriptural exegesis:
17. In reaffirming the profound connection between the Holy Spirit and the word of
God, we have also laid the basis for an understanding of the significance and
the decisive value of the living Tradition and the sacred Scriptures in the
Church. Indeed, since God “so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16), the divine word, spoken in time, is bestowed and “consigned” to
the Church in a definitive way, so that the proclamation of salvation
can
be communicated effectively in every time and place. As the Dogmatic
Constitution Dei Verbum reminds us, Jesus Christ himself “commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel – promised beforehand by the
prophets, fulfilled in his own person and promulgated by his own lips – to all
as the source of all saving truth and moral law, communicating God’s gifts to
them. This was faithfully carried out; it was carried out by the Apostles who
handed on, by oral preaching, by their example, by their ordinances, what they
themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life
and his works, or by coming to know it through the prompting of the Holy Spirit;
it was carried out by those Apostles and others associated with them who, under
the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to
writing”.[56]
The Second Vatican Council also states that this
Tradition of apostolic origin
is a living and dynamic reality: it “makes progress in the Church, with
the help of the Holy Spirit”; yet not in the sense that it changes in
its truth, which is perennial.
Rather, “there is a growth in insight into the realities and the words
that are being
passed on”, through contemplation and study, with the understanding
granted by deeper
spiritual experience and by the “preaching of those who, on succeeding
to the office of bishop, have received the
sure charism of truth”.[57]
The living Tradition is essential for enabling the
Church to grow through time
in the understanding of the truth revealed in the Scriptures; indeed,
“by means of the same tradition, the full canon of the sacred books is
known to
the Church and the holy Scriptures themselves are more thoroughly
understood and
constantly made effective in the Church”.[58] Ultimately, it is the living
Tradition of the Church which makes us adequately understand sacred Scripture as
the word of God. Although the word of God precedes and exceeds sacred Scripture,
nonetheless Scripture, as inspired by God, contains the divine word (cf. 2
Tim 3:16) “in an altogether singular way”.[59]
18. We see clearly, then, how important it is for the People of God to be properly
taught and trained to approach the sacred Scriptures in relation to the Church’s
living Tradition, and to recognize in them the very word of God. Fostering such
an approach in the faithful is very important from the standpoint of the
spiritual life. Here it might be helpful to recall the analogy drawn by the
Fathers of the Church between the word of God which became “flesh” and the word which became a “book”.[60] The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum takes up this ancient tradition which holds, as Saint Ambrose
says,[61] that “the body of the Son is the Scripture which we have received”, and
declares that “the words of God, expressed in human language, are in
every way like human
speech, just as the word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself
the weak
flesh of human beings, became like them”.[62] When understood in this way,
sacred Scripture presents itself to us, in the variety of its many forms and
content, as a single reality. Indeed, “through all the words of sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single word, his
one utterance, in whom he expresses himself completely (cf. Heb 1:1-3)”.[63] Saint Augustine had already
made the point clearly: “Remember that one alone is the discourse of God which unfolds in all sacred
Scripture, and one alone is the word which resounds on the lips of all the holy
writers”.[64]
In short, by the work of the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of the
magisterium, the Church hands on to every generation all that has been revealed
in Christ. The Church lives in the certainty that her Lord, who spoke in the
past, continues today to communicate his word in her living Tradition and in
sacred Scripture. Indeed, the word of God is given to us in sacred Scripture as
an inspired testimony to revelation; together with the Church’s living
Tradition, it constitutes the supreme rule of faith.[65] (Verbum Domini: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Word of God in
the Life and Mission of the Church, September 30, 2010.)
In other words, "older" interpretations that might have been useful in the past are in need of "adjustment" and "re-examination" by "every generation." Reconcile with this? With this?
Not according to Popes Saint Pius X and Pius XII:
4. The result of this dismembering of the records, and this partition of
them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be
attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no
hesitation in affirming generally that these books, and especially the
Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed from a
primitive brief narration, by additions, by interpolations of theological or
allegorical interpretations, or parts introduced only for the purpose of joining
different passages together. This means, to put it briefly and clearly, that in
the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and
corresponding with the evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they
tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of
it. Indeed, this history they actually do write, and with such an easy assurance
that one might believe them to have seen with their own eyes the writers at work
through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to
their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labor to
show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, adducing other
arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for
themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their
assured verdict as to whether a thing is or is not out of place. Let him who can
judge how far they are qualified in this way to make such distinctions. To hear
them descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to
discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody
ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole
multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity,
have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them
anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply
they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak
thus to men. Unfortunately. these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to
study that are possessed by the Modernists for they did not have for their rule
and guide a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which
consists of themselves. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned
above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even
against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as
to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is
the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion,
already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends
only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and
religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the
Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only
infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they
will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the
Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching
Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human
reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to
the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and
interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.
23. Further, according to their
fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its
explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so
many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are
pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis the
Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would
finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say,
all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere
to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.
24.
Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of
interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo
XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus," and Benedict XV in the
Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical
"Divino Affflante Spiritu."
25. It is not surprising that novelties of
this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches
of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine
revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from
the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is
denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of
the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality
of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible
foreknowedge of the free actions of men -- all this in contradiction to
the decrees of the Vatican Council[5] (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
Reconcile with those who reject these words in favor of the "new theology' whose tenets were condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis?
Conciliarism's defections from the Faith are on evident display
throughout its structures, where bishops and priests and religious and
ordinary lay teachers can not only propagate conciliarism's approved errors but remain in perfectly good standing, at least in most
instances, as they deny quite openly articles contained in the Deposit
of Faith, including the absolute inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. I simply
cannot count the number of "homilies" to which I permitted myself to be
subjected in the Novus Ordo world in the 1970s and 1980s and
early-1990s wherein priests denied the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture
most openly, repeating almost word-for-word Modernism's most basic
presuppositions about the Bible that were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X
in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907, and in Pascendi Dominci Gregis,
September 8, 1907. I only had one Scripture professor in my seminary
days, the late Father William Heidt, O.S.B., who died on March 28, 2000,
who defended--and brilliantly so--the binding nature of those decrees
and of Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus, November 18, 1893, and Pope Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu,
September 30, 1943. The rest, including the late Archbishop John
Francis Whealon of Hartford, Connecticut, were absolute Modernists in
their views on Sacred Scripture.
The Catholic Church, the spotless, immaculate bride of Christ the King, her Divine Fonder and Invisible Head, provides a stable, secure home to her children, not one in which alleged popes and bishops and priests are permitted to give whatever views they desire, whether "officially" or in "unofficial" books, and not one in which there exists endless argumentations over the translation of liturgical texts into the vernacular. Yet it is that some forty-three years after Giovanni Montini/Paul VI issued his "revised missal" on April 3, 1969, which was implemented on Sunday, November 30, 1969, the First Sunday of Advent, there a conciliar "pope" is still trying to get the "proper" translations of the "Eucharistic Prayers" standardized from one country to the next, something that was unheard of in the history of the Holy Mother Church's Roman Rite. While there were indeed regional variations in the offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition prior to the issuance of Quo Primum by Pope Saint Pius V in 1570, the Canon of the Mass was fixed by the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great.
Ah, but Ratzinger/Benedict is still trying to standardize a liturgy that is of its very nature premised on a new theology and that has been used as the means to enshrine false ecumenism, an effort that was made necessary by the use of the vernacular in the first place and, it should be pointed out, the interpretative rendering of the phrase pro multis (for the many) into "pro omnibus" (for all) in the Novus Ordo liturgical service's "Eucharistic Prayers" that the old revolutionary has just written to his brother "bishops" of his native country, the Federal Republic of Germany have proved to be problematic theologically even though he once supported it himself:
During your visit of 15 March 2012 you let me know that, regarding the translation of the words “pro multis” in the canon of the Mass, there is still no consensus among the bishops of the German language area. There now seems to be the danger that, with the soon to be expected publication of the new release of ‘Gotteslob’, some parts of the German language area will keep the translation “for all”, even though the German Bishops’ Conference had agreed to use “for many”, as was desired by the Holy See. I promised you I would express myself in writing about this serious issue to prevent a split in our most inner prayer room. The letter, which I send through you to the members of the German Bishops’ Conference, will also be sent to the other bishops of the German language area.
Let me first say a few words about the origin of the problem. In the 1960s, when the Roman Missal was translated into German under the responsibility of the bishops, there was an exegetical consensus that the words “the many” and “many” in Is. 53, 11 and further was a Hebrew expression to indicate the community, the “all”. The word “many” in the accounts of Matthew and Mark was accordingly considered a Semitism to be translated as “all”. This is also related directly to the Latin text that was to be translated, that the “pro multis” in the Gospel accounts refer back to Is. 53, and must therefore by translated as “for all”. This exegetical consensus has know shattered; it no longer exists. In the German translation of Sacred Scripture the account of the Last Supper states: “This is my Blood, the Blood of the Covenant, which is shed for many” (Mark 14:24, cf. Matt. 26:28). This indicates something very important: The rendering of “pro multis” with “for all” was not a pure translation, but an interpretation, which was and remains very reasonable, but is already more than translation and interpretation.
This mingling of translation and interpretation belongs in hindsight to the principles which, immediately after the Council, directed the translation of the liturgical books into the vernacular. It was understood how far the Bible and the liturgical texts were removed from the language and thought of modern man, that even when translated they would remain largely incomprehensible to the participants of the divine service. It was a new endeavour that the sacred texts were, in translation, disclosed to the participants of the service, yet still remained removed from their world, yes, would now even be more visible in their removal. One not only felt justified but even required to mix interpretation into the translation and so shorten the way to the people, whose hearts and minds would be reached through these words..
To a certain degree, the principle of a substantive but not necessarily justified literal translation of the source texts remain. As I [pray the liturgical prayers time and again in various languages, I notice that it is often hard to find a common ground between the various translation, and that the underlying common text often only remains visible from afar. Added to that are the undermining banalisations which constitute the real losses. In this way it has, over the course of the years, become more clear to me that the principle of the non-literal but structural equivalence as a translation guideline has its limits. Following such insights, the translation instruction Liturgian authenticam, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 28 March 2001, has once more placed the literal translation in the foreground, but of course without dictating a singular vocabulary. The important insight which lies at the basis of this instruction is already expressed in the distinction between translation and interpretation, outlined above. This is necessary for both the Word of Scripture as the liturgical texts. One the one hand, the sacred Word should, if possible, be presented as itself, even with the strangeness and questions it contains in itself; on the other hand the Church has been given the task of interpreting, by which – within the limits of our respective understanding – the News which the Lord has intended comes to us. An empathic translation can also not replace the interpretation: it is part of the structure of Revelation that the Word of God is read in the interpreting community of the Church, that faithfulness and realisation are combined. The Word must exist as itself, in its own shape which is perhaps strange to is; the interpretation must be measured to the faithfulness to the Word itself, but at the same time be made accessible to the modern ear.
In this context the Holy See has decided that in the new translation of the Missal the words “pro multis” must be translated as such and not at the same time interpreted. The simple translation “for many” must come in the place of the interpretative ” for all”. I would like to point out that in both Matthew and in Mark there is no article, so not “for the many”, but “for many”. As the decision of the fundamental ordering of translation and interpretation is, as I hope, understood from this, I am yet aware that this represents a tremendous challenge for all who have the task of interpreting the Word of God in the Church. Since for the regular visitors of the church this will almost inevitably seem to be rupture at the heart of the holiest. They will ask: did Christ not die for all? Has the Church changed her teaching? Can and is she is allowed to do so? Is this a reaction against the heritage of the Council? We all know, through the experience of the last fifty years, how deeply the changes in the liturgical forms and texts affects the people; how much must a change in the text of such a central point affect the people? While this is the case, it has long been held that the translation of “many” was to be preceded by a thorough catechesis on the difference between translation and interpretation, a catechesis in which the bishops must inform their priests, through which they must make themselves clear to their faithful, what it is about. This catechesis is a basic requirement before the new translation comes into force. As far as I know, such a catechesis has, until now, not been given in the German language area. The intention of my letter, dear brothers, is to most urgently ask for such a catechesis to be established, to then discuss it with the priests and immediately make it available to the faithful. (Rorate-Caeli.)
Interpreting the Word? What's wrong with the Latin Vulgate of Saint Jerome? Much, if you are possessed for a new theology for a new religion. Much.
Ratzinger/Benedict's letter to his fellow apostates in Germany, which include among their number, of course, Robert Zollitsch, who has denied that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins, is an exercise in pure Modernism. The harm caused by the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service to the Catholic faithful should speak volumes about its invalidity, of its very offensive nature in the eyes of God. It is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church that there would be multiple canons of the Mass and that Roman Rite Catholics would be unable in many instances to recognize what they think is a true offering of Holy Mass in a nearby parish that "does liturgy" differently than in their own parishes.
Efforts to "fix the language" in the Novus Ordo are very much besides the point as the theology itself, as noted above, is apostate in nature:
The same awareness of the present state of the
world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It
seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases
were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with
the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual
state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes
of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things
of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance
belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph 15, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)
Acts of outward penance
belong to every age in the history of the Catholic Church, unless, that
is, Our Lady herself, the very Mother of God, was wrong when she said:
"Penance! Penance! Penance!. . . . Kiss the ground as a penance for sinners." (Our Lady's Words at Lourdes.)
"Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and
bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation
for the conversion of sinners? (May 13, 1917.)
"Then you are going to have much to suffer, but the grace of God will be your comfort." (May 13, 1917.)
"Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for
sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice
themselves and pray for them." (August 19, 1917.) (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)
Reconcile with this? That leaked letter from "Monsignor" Guido Pozzo to Abbot Philippe Laguerie of the Institute of the Good Shepherd is relatively unimportant. Those who are willing to "reconcile" with revolutionaries who hate the perennial Catholic Faith and who have sought to replace It with a synthetic one of their own making, replete with his own synthetic liturgy, are far along the path of "pacification" even if an "official reconciliation" does not take place as many, including this writer, expect. A little leak is not going to stop a path that has been ongoing for nearly seven years now.
No, those who believe that they can "resist" the false "pontiff's" desire to "pacify spirits" and "break-down" "obstinacy while working inside the official structures of the conciliar church are not going to let this leak "sabotage" their "reconciliation." It will only be internal resistance within the Society of Saint Pius X that will prevent an agreement from being reached so that the Society can continue in its present Gallican ecclesiology that makes a mockery of the authority of the Successor of Saint Peter (see Just About To Complete A Long March Into Oblivion).
There is more than enough room for "diversity" in the One World Ecumenical Church. As noted in several recent articles, Ratzinger/Benedict is more than willing to live with some unresolved issues with the Society of Saint Pius X as a meager price for the long-term benefits of "pacifying" their "spirits" as letters such as "Monsignor" Pozzo's to Abbot Philippe Laguerie are sent to their officials and seminary rectors at some point in the future should an agreement be reached.
There's room for George "Cardinal" Pell of Sydney, Australia, who denied the actual existence of Adam and Eve in a debate with atheist Richard Dawkins.
There's room for men such as Sean O'Malley, O.F.M., Cap., and George Pell, both of whom have called the crimes of agents of the Third Reich the "greatest" in all of human history, meaning that they do not consider--or have bothered to think about--the simple fact that the greatest crime ever committed was that which our sins imposed upon the God-Man Himself on Good Friday.
There's room for Robert Zollitsch.
There's room for Catholics in public life who support the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children and "marriage equality" for those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
There's even room for traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures IF they simply go along with prevailing "trends" in light of the "needs" of the mythical entity known as "modern man."
We have to keep saying to our friends and relatives who castigate us for believing that we are "outside of the Church" that we will remain faithful to Catholic teaching what anyone, including our closest relatives and friends, say about us as they have failed to consider these telling words:
These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we
define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or
to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall
presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand
to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the
Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us,
all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the
Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be
monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).
They [the Modernists] exercise all their ingenuity
in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of
tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But
for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of
Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of
heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties
of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of
the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We
therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious
Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by
everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the
Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX,
ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following
declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and
ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the
Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in
exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I
entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and
change from one meaning to another different from the one which the
Church held previously. . . . The purpose of this is, then, not
that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more
suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and
immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)
We place our trust, as always,
in our dear Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as
many Rosaries each day as our freely chosen states-in-life permit,
understanding that the graces won for us on Calvary by the shedding of
her Divine Son's Most Precious Blood and that flow into our hearts and
souls through her loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces are
sufficient to see us through this period of the Church Militant on
earth's Mystical Passion, Death and Burial.
Remember these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:
History, in fact, tells us that in the course of
ages these festivals have been instituted one after another according as
the needs or the advantage of the people of Christ seemed to demand: as
when they needed strength to face a common danger, when they were
attacked by insidious heresies, when they needed to be urged to the
pious consideration of some mystery of faith or of some divine blessing.
Thus in the earliest days of the Christian era, when the people of
Christ were suffering cruel persecution, the cult of the martyrs was
begun in order, says St. Augustine, "that the feasts of the martyrs
might incite men to martyrdom." The liturgical honors paid to
confessors, virgins and widows produced wonderful results in an
increased zest for virtue, necessary even in times of peace. But more
fruitful still were the feasts instituted in honor of the Blessed
Virgin. As a result of these men grew not only in their devotion to the
Mother of God as an ever-present advocate, but also in their love of her
as a mother bequeathed to them by their Redeemer. Not least
among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate
honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We
may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God,
who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the
faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be
attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has
afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men's faith,
aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary
now so that we can plant a few more seeds that might result, please God
and by the intercession of Our Lady, in the restoration of the Catholic
Faith and the vanquishing of conciliarism and all of its egregious
errors and novelties and blasphemies and sacrileges and heresies once
and for all? Just one Rosary more. Right now. Isn't it time?
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now so that we can plant a few more seeds that might result, please God and by the intercession of Our Lady, in the restoration of the Catholic Faith and the vanquishing of conciliarism and all of its egregious errors and novelties and blasphemies and sacrileges and heresies once and for all? Just one Rosary more. Right now. Isn't it time?
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the Rosary, us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Mark, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
