Sunday, January 31, 2016

"Of all the post-conciliar popes, Benedict was the one who finally blinked"

Fr. Karl Rahner with Fr. Joseph Ratzinger during Vatican II
~ Breakin' the law! Breakin' the law! Look, mom, no clerics! ~

A provocative response to those rejecting a favorable comparison of Benedict with Pope Francis. By traditionalist journalist, Michael Matt, "Benedict & Francis: Two Peas in a Papal Pod?" (Remnant, January 26, 2016). Matt offers an educated guess as to why Benedict abdicated, or had to abdicate, suggesting that packs of liberal wolves hounded him out of office. (What pressures they brought to bear, God only knows.) He compares Benedict, whose Summorum Pontificum and lifting of the SSPX excommunications outraged many, with the direction Francis has taken things, asking: "What would life be like right now without the powerful spiritual bulwarks (and human consolation!) provided by hundreds of traditional Mass centers around the world, established as a direct result of [Summorum Pontificum]?" Could anyone in his right mind contend that the escalating crisis in the Church today would not have been exponentially worse, he asks, were it not for those bulwarks thrown up by Benedict? "They got rid of [Benedict] for a reason, which the St. Gallen Group now brazenly admits," writes Matt. "Of all the post-conciliar popes, Benedict was the one who finally blinked. And history may well reveal that the reign of Pope Benedict helped undermine the very Modernist revolution which, ironically enough, Benedict himself had had a hand in a half century earlier," he adds. (Remember, back when Fr. Joseph Ratzinger worked along side Karl Rahner, and was a peritus at Vatican II under Cardinal Frings?) There's much more to it than this bit here, but check it out. Food for thought.

[Hat tip to JM]


Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Pontiff Denies Claim 1962 Missal Is a Regression

Calls Liturgy a Living, Developing Reality

EN ROUTE TO PARIS, SEPT. 12, 2008 ( An allowance for the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal is in no way a return to the past, but rather an expression of pastoral concern, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope affirmed this today en route to France; he gave a brief press conference on the plane, answering four questions previously submitted by the journalists selected to be in the press corps accompanying the Holy Father.

The Pontiff said it is "groundless" to fear that "Summorum Pontificum" — which opened the way for a wider celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal — is a regression.

"This ‘motu proprio’ is simply an act of tolerance, with a pastoral objective, for people who have been formed in this liturgy, who love it, know it and want to live with this liturgy," he said. "It is a small group, given that it presupposes a formation in Latin, a formation in a certain culture. But it seems to me a normal demand of faith and pastoral concern for a bishop of our Church to have love and tolerance for these people and permit them to live with this liturgy."

"There is no opposition whatsoever between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy," Benedict XVI continued. "Each day, the Council fathers celebrated Mass according to this old rite and, at the same time, have conceived a natural development for the liturgy in all of this century, since the liturgy is a living reality that develops and that conserves its identity in its development."

"Therefore, there are certainly distinct accents, but a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the preceding liturgy," the Pope affirmed. "I think that there is the possibility of mutual enrichment. It’s clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times."

++++++++++ end quotes++++++++++++

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

ABS does not buy the claim he was forced out and as for all the liberals in the Prelature, look at how many he appointed.

He was Pope long enough to have celebrated the Real Mass publicly but he never did . He was a liberal peritus who never changed over the years as far as ABS can tell.

Yes, the Mass is important because it is the single holiest action of the Church at any moment in time, every day of the year, but the claims that he wanted to restore it widely seems a claim unable to be substantiated.

There are/were traditional Bishops whom he could have drawn into his inner circle but the did not and Mr. Matt's claims. to ABS anyways, echo the claims of the Reaganites who, when they did not like his policies, fooled themselves into thinking they were not really his policies and they would plead Let Reagan be Reagan.

How is the cause of Tradition advanced by advancing claims that the most powerful office of the planet has no power and that that office is so easily manipulated by those who do not have power?

Pope Benedict XVI said he chose to wear white because there were no other vestments around when he retired. Yeah right.

And it was he who chose to be addressed as Pope Emeritus, the onliest time in ecclesiastical history such a title has been cobbled together.

He wanted out for the very reasons he stated is the only rational conclusion for a Traditionalist, or, is a Traditionalist one who stands solidly on the ground of an airy conspiracy while refusing to accept the matter of solid facts as progressed by the Pope they, largely admitted?

The fact is the Benedict XVI had little use for Tradition and that is easily seen my reading the ton of stuff he wrote and said.

There is a war inside of the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church between revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries and he was always a revolutionary who, it could be said, did certain things (See The Brick by Brick Bund's praise of his "Benedictine Altar" arrangement) owing to his high culture background; that is, he did certain things owing to his personal preferences, proclivities, and prejudices.

O, and this is nothing personal against Mr Matt or The Remnant.

Chuck Martelowski said...

"the reign of Pope Benedict helped undermine the very Modernist revolution"

How's that again??

I was not aware that the "very Modernist revolution" had been undermined. When did this happen?

Did Alexander Kerensky also "undermine" the Leninist revolution? It makes about as much sense.