Rorate Caeli is engaging in one huge piece of hypocrisy with its post entitled: “Our supreme priority is love.” Dawn Eden has taken RC’s reporting to task because of its use of the opinions of an antisemitic blogger, and now RC accuses her of being an uncharitable ideologue.
RC is a clearing house for every spiteful opinion on the postconciliar Church, and no one is exempt as a target, including Pope Benedict, who now RC claims as their great ideal—the man who reached out the SSPX in charity and has been despised by the progressives for doing so. Now RC claims to share in the Pope Emeritius’ persecution because like him, RC is a the promoter of pastoral charity towards those most marginalized. Like Pope Benedict, RC wants “to educate with love.”
What?
The blogger New Catholic at RC has generally been careful in his manner of critiquing the Holy Father. However, the comment section is miserable pit disrespect for everything postconciliar. I happen to know personally that New Catholic stands at the gate of the comment section like a preconciliar Noble Guard. The comments are always moderated. Nothing gets through until it has been manually approved by the blogger. I have had a number of comments rejected that were critical of Rorate Caeli and were no more offensive than this post. However, the most vile comments against the person of the Holy Father, including Pope Benedict, have gotten through on a regular basis. The things that have been said about Pope Francis are beyond the pale.
Here is one comment that got through in reference to what New Catholic called “The Official End of the Reform of the Reform by Example.” that is, Pope’s Francis liturgical choice to wash the feet of two girls on Holy Thursday:
. . . there is no natural reason to hope for something positive to happen in the Church . . .
The public face of our Faith has been disfigured to such an extent that the New Theologians and the Modernists and the Media and the Masons and The Jews could not be happier.
So this appeal to the value of charity and the example of Pope Benedict is a bit of subterfuge to keep people from observing that antisemitism within the traditionalist movement is not restricted to the flamboyant rantings of Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay himself, the man at the top of the SSPX and highly venerated by many of the readers of RC claimed that Vatican II was not a Council of the Church but one of “the Jews, the Masons and the Modernists.”
In typical traditionalist fashion, RC bloggers use Pope Benedict for their own purposes and are now carefully constructing the mythology that Benedict was their champion and Francis their enemy. This is pure ideology and archetypically traditionalist. The comment section has already painted Dawn Eden as a CPA (Convert from Protestantism Apologist), who is engaged in a conspiracy with other CPA’s. But real people like Pope Benedict, Pope Francis and Dawn Eden, who are not traditionalists, do not fit nicely into the boxes created for them by ideologues. For RC to call all of this “charity” is just mind-boggling.
I am waiting to see if someone dares to take this conspiracy theory to the next level. The traditionalist narrative is so predictable: just isolate a text or event and fit it into the narrative. Works every time.
I just want to go on record as frankly admitting that I am not always as charitable as I should be on this blog. I am sarcastic by temperament and it is often my downfall. I am not excusing it. But neither have I ever painted myself as a paragon of charity. RC’s self-righteousness just amazes me. But no amount of lace and brocade or appeals to Pope Benedict’s pastoral charity will cover this piece of hypocrisy.
Rorate Caeli permits a gross lack of charity on a regular basis and then gratuitously asserts that charity is the supreme guiding principle in its work. Hence, Rorate Caeli will now go radio silent on the matter, which New Catholic considers “closed,” and let the commenters (only those who are approved) do the talking.
Update 1: Here is a comment from Dawn Eden’s post that she chose not to publish, but which I have been give permission to publish here. The commenter is a regular over at Rorate Caeli, and the one to which I refer in this post. Par for the course.
|
Update 2: Mark Shea has posted on the matter, revealing another one of the vicious comments that Dawn chose not to approve. You can read the “Jews = Christ-haters” comment here. And here is an excerpt from Mark:
Patient, thoughtful and not-at-all-bigoted-or-crazy representatives of Truly True Traditional Traddery try to explain to her that there is a huge–HUGE–difference between Holocaust Denial and Holocaust Belittlement. RC’s source just belittles and laughs at the millions of dead. He doesn’t deny they are dead. But will she listen to this totally reasonable distinction? No. Of course not. You know how Those People are. So sensitive about a little mass murder. Not at all attuned to the truly crucial things, like the silk and lace obsessions of not-at-all-crazy anti-semites in their weird little hothouse of self-absorption. . . .
Padre and I, on the other hand, both thought it was important to offer some rejoinder since this kind of vicious and poisonous Jew-hatred is, as the other stuff that *did* get published in Dawn’s comboxes attests, a not-uncommon feature of Urine and Vinegar Traddery and is, in the most exact sense of the word, scandalous. It brings the faith into disrepute, it causes honest and good people to stumble when they might enter in, it harms innocents like Dawn, and, worst of all, it even tempts new Catholics who think they are embracing “hard truths” but are, in fact, embracing ancient evil to become twice the sons of hell that the Trad anti-semite is. It is pure filth and every Catholic, but most especially every lover of the EF, should smash it flat. People have died by the millions because of this crap.
And this brings me to
Update 3: In response to those, who think Marcelo Gonzalez’s article was tame and reasoned (as if Mark’s resonse were not enough):
Dawn Eden’s concern over Marcelo Gonzalez’s article is absolute warranted. She is being much maligned for her courage.
Gonzalez bends over backwards to excuse the Nazi regime, comparing its intention for putting Jews in concentration camps to the reasons why the US interred the Japanese during World War II. He also suggests that many of the deaths were more or less accidental from poorer living conditions in war-torn Europe. But the icing on the cake is this:
And to say that everything done by the Axis was a cruel plan of systematic extermination is as unacceptable as saying that the inmates of these places lived in a recreation area.
Marcelo Gonzalez is doing much more than distinguishing between extremes. He is just repeating Rad Trad boilerplate, while attempting to present it in a moderate tone. He is not disputing the numbers. He says he is not even interested in that question. No, what he suggests is that the whole Nazi malice to exterminate the Jews is a political fabrication, which other Trads will say has been created to destroy the Church. I wonder if the history of Nazism in Argentina has anything to do with Gonzalez’s sympathies.
There is no serious historical dispute at the root of this problem. What we have here traditionalist paranoia that is in need of tracing everything that has happened over the last 50 years to the Jews, Masons and Modernists, including Vatican II and especially Nostra Aetate and our having dropped the word “perfidious” as a modifier to “Jews” from our prayer for the Jewish people on Good Friday (along with other changes).
Dawn Eden does not owe Gonzalez an apology. This is old traditionalist hat. It doesn’t sustain parsing ad infinitum.
Which leaves us to ask the question of what exactly was going on with Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio in regard to his dispositions for the Latin Mass community in Buenos Aires. Perhaps the situation is a bit more complex than Gonzalez would make it out to be. Perhaps Cardinal Bergoglio had reasons to want to make sure that those who attended the Latin Mass under his auspices actually accepted Vatican II.
Dawn is right on the money. And she has kicked a hornets’ nest.
Update 4: Dawn has a new post, “An evil not even tolerated among the pagans,” in which she answers the objection that she is being divisive. I have also posted her response to Gonzalez’s non-clarification clarification in “Six Million Jews Killed by Mistake.” Kevin O’brien as well has weighed in on the matter in “Why Should We Think When Hating Is So Much More Fun.”
Mary Victrix 
Well said Father, thx for this.
Dawn’s purity of intention is very evangelical: forging a path through the anti-semitic wilderness that the passionate love of God that burns in her heart may lead the Chosen People of the Burning Bush towards the fervant flames descending at Pentecost. Your defence validates her courageous stance and is a testimony to how the traditional Franciscan charisms form character in imitation of Christ. God Bless.
Pingback: UPDATED: Traditionalists’ “expert” on Pope Francis is a Holocaust denier
It is sad to see the Fransican Friars of the Immaculate enter this polemic. Up until now, I really respected the good and holy men of this order. Since when is it bad to report bad news, but good to yell at people reporting bad news?
Thanks, Clare.
Sorry you’re disappointed, Disappointed.
So now Rorate is accountable for what others say on blogs that they don’t control? Wow that’s tortured logic.
A scandal as well as a very offensive one. I have never been on that site and I never will be as I cannot relate at all to their way of thinking or what they deem “true Catholicism.” I am pegged a “bad Catholic” despite my trying to live as a faithful Catholic, because I do not agree nor do I care for their approach and because I attend the NO Mass rather than the EF.
But whatever, I seek to continue to imitate JPII. BXVI, and now, Papa Francis. I want to live Christ Crucified in love, in charity and in hope. I smile everytime I watch Papa Francis go about his duty to proclaim, to invite, and to celebrate who Jesus is. I am well aware of those who lobby the vile, but I also see those who have accepted his invitation and that is all that matters to me while I pray for those who cannot see the blessings.
I have pretty much stopped reading other blogs because of these same types of comments.
Please pray for me to remain charitable and hopeful towards those who continue in their attacks. Thank you.
I am glad you highlighted the fact that the comment section at RC is heavily guarded. New Catholic has a habit of tossing out bait and then letting the commenters do the dirty work. It’s sickening. I, too have had reasonable comments blocked.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of the recent incident in which RC defamed Damian Thompson (they uncharacteristically took down the post). They accused him of celebrating New Catholic’s (short-lived) hiatus due to his mother’s poor health. But just before they blogged about Thompson’s supposed cruelty, they deleted a portion of a post from a few days before New Catholic mentioned his mom, in which New Catholic also said he was taking a break. They then lied and told people that the only way Damian Thompson could have learned about New Catholic’s hiatus was from the post about NC’s mother’s health. They made the evidence fit their accusations. In fact, Thompson’s tweet that prompted the whole kerfuffle was nothing more than an unfortunately timed coincidence, and it was based on a famous quote, not actually a reference to specific goings on at Rorate Caeli.
New Catholic et al are NOT to be trusted. I wish more priests would warn people about Rorate Caeli.
I’m really thankful for your Order’s priests and brother at the Shrine, esp now departed Fr. Louis who was such an excellent confessor. The last time I read anything of yours was when you rightfully went after The Nativity movie and as I recall the rejection of the supernatural birth of Christ. However, I think you have really stepped in it this time.
I think Dawn has gone off a bit half-cocked on an issue she is emotionally attached to. While I don’t blame her for not wanting to fight every commenter, I think using school as an excuse to bow out before examing a proper translation of Gonzalez’s article is questionable.
I invite you to take a closer look at his article without a “hermeneutic of suspicion”. I think he has been grossly misinterpreted, and possibly libeled. He appears to be talking about two extremes in Holocaust presentation: on the one hand those that intentionally manipulate it for political purposes and on the other hand those that deny. His conclusion appears to be that he’s tired of both of them. I don’t he’s making any comparison or dispute about straight-forward historical presentation.
I offer my comment on Dawn’s blog as a starting point for where I believe Google’s translation is severely lacking. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/feastofeden/2013/04/traditionalists-expert-on-pope-francis-is-holocaust-denier/#comment-12380
As a token of sincerity, I’ll talk to Fra Joseph about this next Sunday at the Shrine, and he can forward any comments of his to you.
“But real people like Pope Benedict, Pope Francis and Dawn Eden, who are not traditionalists, do not fit nicely into the boxes created for them by ideologues.”
Neither are we as Traditionalists. Traditionalism has no supreme authority outside of the customs and traditions of the Latin Church–and the Pope when he is acting in his office as custodian and interpreter of tradition (even here there is sometimes controversy over when these authorities have binding force). The upshot of this is that there are many opinions among traditionalists outside of matters of dogma and a general belief that the liturgical reforms constitute a rupture and the traditional forms have at least a priority in the normal life of Traditionalists.
Having been a self-described Traditionalist for all of my adult life, I can honestly say that I have almost never met in real life the Angelqueen/Rorate-Caeli-Commenter-Type traditionalists–outside of the internet at least. To me the name “Traditionalist” is not a name that denotes a cesspool of critical, prideful unhappiness, but a glorious descriptive name of a formative principle of my life. It describes a hermeneutic that is very much in line with the canons and beliefs of the early Church, the medieval Church, and the Eastern Churches– the belief that we receive our religion, whether in faith or in practice: we don’t invent it as an expression of our own religious aspirations. Our duty, even the duty of the Bishops and the Pope, is not, therefore, one of creativity in novelities, but one of fidelity and obedience.
All self-described Traditionalists I know have in common a strong devotion to the organically developed, traditional, and ancient Roman Rite, and this provides a needed center of unity for us, for we hold any opinions otherwise, some better and some worse, and we are not afraid to test our opinions against each other. For instance, it is not true that every Traditionalist wants to throw V2 into the dustbin of history. It is not true that every Traditionalist refuses filial love for the Supreme Pontiff or stands in judgement over his authentic magisterium. Many of us do not judge the fidelity of other Catholics because they have not adopted Traditionalism as a constituent part of their Catholic self-identity, prefering arguments from the Fathers, the Theologians, and the Magesterium to convince those open to it that our duty is to hold on to what we has organically developed in the Church and what we have received.
Most of us will always maintain a spirit of joyful obedience. Most of us will try to avoid trad-funk and le spirit mauvais (as I’ve heard members of the Institute of Christ the King call it). It is wrong to speak of “Traditionalists” as if there were an ideological type that applied equally across the board. But sometimes it seems to me that that is precisely how the term is used on this( blog.
Cebollita, I read Rorate DAILY, and I never, ever see them say anything negative about those who attend the Novus Ordo. In fact, when they recently polled their readers, a majority attended the Novus Ordo and not the TLM. It just cracks me up how many people think they know what the actual writers of Rorate say or mean, when in fact they have no clue. Heck, in one breath you say you’ve never been on the site, yet somehow miraculously know what they think of you and slander them, without ever reading them.
How this calumny is permitted to be published by a priest is beyond me.
I just want to go on record as frankly admitting that I am not always as charitable as I should be on this blog.
Unfortunately I must emphatically agree with you, Father, and say that you’ve greatly understated things with this remark.
But neither have I ever painted myself as a paragon of charity.
But nevertheless you do see yourself as being in a position to dispense lessons relating to charity to Rorate Caeli, proceeding to blast them as “a clearing house for every spiteful opinion on the postconciliar Church,” as “[a] miserable pit [of] disrespect,” full of “the most vile comments,” before reigniting what appears to be a real hobby for you: making broad swipes at the entirety of the traditional Catholic movement, with sweeping remarks about what is “archetypically traditionalist,” “typical traditionalist fashion,” ideologues, silly implications about lace, etc.
In reality, Father, after watching your gross caricatures of various things traditionalist, I tend to suspect that you really wouldn’t be able to reasonably and fairly articulate the strong defenses which traditionalists use to uphold their belief; your animus seems too strong.
I don’t have the time to pick through each and every jab you take in this post at traditionalists, though it is filled with errors, nor, given your startling penchant for unrestrained lambasting of trads do I think that this would be of much use any way.
I will say two things. Firstly, your remark about “fitting things into the narrative” applies with far, far greater force to conservatives than it does with traditionalists. The narrative for conservatives is that more or less everything a pope does is wonderful and must never be criticized, and this narrative was strikingly and predictably fulfilled in the aftermath of the new pope’s various departures from protocol (e.g., the washing of women’s feet at the Mandatum, which would have been met with criticism had their local parish priest done this, but meets with uncritical remark if not praise when the pope does it, as though actions bad when done by a priest or bishop are somehow good when done by a pope). I don’t think you appreciate the unintended irony of a conservative accusing a traditionalist of trying to “fit the narrative.”
Finally, the traditionalist comment which you include, although you comment on it with your accustomed bromides, is actually, in its remarks on the cessation of the Mosaic covenant and the distinction between Jewish ethnicity and Jewish religion, simply a truthful restatement of what most every Catholic saint, Church Father, Church doctor, etc. said about the Jewish people.
Put differently, Father, I think if you wish to be consistent you’ll have to go after some of the following “anti-Semites,” from whom traditionalists take their beliefs on things Jewish:
“The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.”–Pope St. Pius X, speaking to Theodore Herzl on Zionism
“The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death.”–Pope St. Pius V, Hebraeorum Gens
““The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with her…”–Council of Florence
“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ. He is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.”–St. John (1 John 2:22)
“Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may It now descend upon them, a laver of redemption and of life.”–Pope Pius XI
“Poor Jews! you then imprecated chastisement upon yourselves in saying, His Blood be upon us, and upon our children; ‘ and the chastisement has come: you now endure, you miserable men, and will endure, even to the end of the world, the penalty of that innocent blood.”–St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ
So it seems Bishop Fellay was actually repeating what the Church had always taught, Father! Imagine!
I think consistency obliges you either to have a post denouncing all of these canonized “anti-Semites,” Father, or else (correctly), a post retracting your attacks on traditionalists. But sadly, I suspect we’ll see neither.
Mike, how can you speak so condescendingly to a priest? And one who lives in solemn religious vows at that? It wouldn’t be out of place for us to kiss the ground he has walked on, but you seem incapable of showing him even fraternal respect, let alone filial. You even use his own admission of fault as an occasion to bash him over the head.
I presume in favor that “everything a pope does is wonderful,” and would say the burden of proof lies on anyone who criticizes a pope- and this burden is quite steep, getting steeper as the accusations get more serious. The driving mistake among anti-Vatican II traditionalists is that they reverse this burden. They see what appears to be inconsistencies between tradition and Vatican II/postconciliar teaching, and consequently, the Church must prove, to their satisfaction, that it is is still in line with “Eternal Rome.”
Actually, it seems that most have already pronounced definitively against the Holy See: the case is closed and the Pope must accede to their wishes if he is to follow God’s will. Because you see, they are more Catholic than the Pope.
@ Athanasius
As usual, you all take what some of us say out of context or just plain misunderstand and then accuse me of slander. I did not say the website you frequent has labeled me a bad Catholic for attending the NO Mass. I do not say I know what they post there since what they are purported to post has been posted by many others on different sites I have visited and have read. I do not need bother to visit since many quote from it and often and report the good, the bad, and the ugly.
I could name the websites but can’t be bothered since my days of being scandalized are
at an end.
Many blessings and prayers to you!
Pingback: Why Would a Catholic from a Jewish Background Feel Unwelcome
Thanks Father!
The term traditionalist arose the other day and I somewhat agreed that I might be called such, partly because I had no idea what it is used to describe and partly due to the fact that we were discussing how Laity shouldn’t be giving homilies or ‘reflections’. At least I know that this word has more implications than simply obeying the magisterium and the teachings of our Holy Mother, Thanks again and pray for me as I discern joining ya’lls FFI Order or the Dominican Order. All the best
Austin
Mike, how can you speak so condescendingly to a priest? And one who lives in solemn religious vows at that?
You should probably start by asking how a priest–“and one in religious vows, at that”–can make repeated and continual attacks against an entire class of Catholics, belittle them as Father’s post has done, etc.
Because you see, they are more Catholic than the Pope.
Well, there goes any claim you had to offering credible advice about respect, theintrepidpage. You yourself can’t even manage to make it to the end of a comment without taking a slam at traditionalists with yet another absurd (and false) charge. (By the way, the Church has never taught that popes are the “gold standard” of what it means to be Catholic, so it is actually possible for a non-pope’s actions on one or another point to be more in keeping with Catholicism than those of a pope. But admitting that point might require you to acknowledge that traditionalists aren’t the unreasonable ogres that their opponents make them out to be, and we couldn’t admit that, could we?).
Where do I begin?
Athanasius,
Please get real. I read the comments at RC.
Cassandra,
Nice to here from you. Please see Update 3.
Mike,
You might also benefit from Update 3. But then again, maybe not.
Jen,
Thanks for that. Par for the course. New Catholic guards information that actually makes it onto RC like there is no tomorrow. I think you get the idea of how a traditionalist “Catholic” state would be run.
Austin,
You are not a traditionalist.
theintrepidpage,
God bless you.
Joseph Anthony,
In case you are interested in my definition of traditionalism/traditionalist, see this.
Cebollita: As usual? This is the first, and last, time I have ever commented on this poor blog so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
And taking you out of context? You said: “I have never been on that site and I never will be as I cannot relate at all to their way of thinking or what they deem “true Catholicism.” I am pegged a “bad Catholic” despite my trying to live as a faithful Catholic, because I do not agree nor do I care for their approach and because I attend the NO Mass rather than the EF.”
You’re clearly slandering Rorate for all to see, saying they consider you a bad Catholic because you go to the NO. So you spread calumny against them, a mortal sin, then lie about it, a second sin.
If people want to know the minds and hearts of traditionals and those that hate them, they need to look no further than this blog for the typical example.
Dear Fr. Geiger, In the past I have enjoyed reading some of your articles and have found them to be most edifying, but I am very saddened by this post, because this time you come across as unfair and sanctimonious. It seems to me that if these ‘traditionalists’ are as sinful as you make them out to be, you, who are truly concerned for sinners (I hope) should realize that such an approach will not be successful in converting them.
To flesh out my thought – you say to one: “Get real”, to another: “You might also benefit from Update 3. But then again, maybe not”, and to yet another: “I think you get the idea of how a traditionalist “Catholic” state would be run”. I cannot imagine Lord Jesus talking in such a way, no matter how despicable the sinner or his deeds.
Nor can I imagine Lord Jesus praising the prideful words of Aegis, which you hold up as an example worthy of emulation: “Besting them in debate is easy. Presenting them evidence of their disobedience is similarly not a challenge. They fly only all the more into a rage and insist upon the truth of their position, because their hearts cannot rest inside so cold and alien a space as the present world.”
At the top of your page you have a picture of an impressive sword with much symbolism and you invoke Genesis 3:15 – “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” You thus show that you are aware that Our Lady is the highest example of the Church Militant.
So why excoriate those who realize that there is a battle raging within the Church and are willing to put up a vigorous fight for the defense of the Faith? It will take more than mealy-mouthed platitudes to safeguard the Faith of our Fathers living still in spite of dungeon, fire and sword.
May the good Lord bless you and Mary keep you in her care.
Mar,
Thank you. I need to be humbled.
But it seems that you not only critique my methods, but the opposition itself.
I also am putting up a vigorous defense of the faith, and not nearly as caustic as the one that goes on at RC. The problem is not just one-sided. The sword of truth and charity cuts both ways.
We need to hold ourselves to a very high standard if we are going to lecture others about charity in method and style.
I will take my lumps on my method. But what is going on over at RC is rotten. I will not apologize for saying that.
Dear Fr. Geiger, Thank you for your eirenic response.
I know what is going on over at RC. I post there.
You say: “But it seems that you not only critique my methods, but the opposition itself.” Yes, that is true.
“I also am putting up a vigorous defense of the faith, and not nearly as caustic as the one that goes on at RC. The problem is not just one-sided. The sword of truth and charity cuts both ways.” That’s true. However, IMHO “not nearly as caustic” is no excuse – as if there were gradations of blackness between pot and kettle. Some of the contents here are quite caustic enough.
“We need to hold ourselves to a very high standard if we are going to lecture others about charity in method and style.” Yes, I can see that what I was doing can be construed as lecturing, but my intent was more to let you know what would *not* work for me if you were my pastor and I was the wretched and intractable sinner.
Having revealed myself as a poster on RC, I sense that my chances of being taken seriously by you are now quite slim, so I too will take my lumps and try to exit gracefully. 🙂
God bless.
strunts,
Now you’re doing it. I am not complaining just observing.
You are always welcome here.
Not quite sure why I’ve been given another name now – this and previous post. Mar
Thank you, Father, for your response and for taking the time to respond. Yet I certainly disagree with your definition of traditionalism. This is very personal to me, because I consider the term “Traditionalist” a badge of honor, and having people define it in a negative way, even if this is done by very good priests whose solidity of doctrine and practice I admire, hurts. It is like when someone conflates American Conservatism with Libertarianism, stating that American Conservatives hold to the Sovereignty of the Individual and oppose laws that at whatever level of government that infringe upon it, when the reality is more complex: while there is a strong strea of libertarianism in American Conservatism, many Conservatives, such as Social Conservatives, hold views that are emphatically not libertarianism. Similarly, it is fair to note that within Traditionalism there is the debate about what sort of obedience I due to the Magisterium, and that some Traditionalists give themselves a magisterium above that of the magisterium, I consider it an injustice to define the movement by this unfortunte tendency. For one thing, this is a private definition that suffers from all of the problems of the esoteric, among which is the tendency to offend and hurt those who consider themselves traditionalits. Take me for instance: I’ve now written a set of defensive posts, in solidarity with the movement I choose to identify myself with, only to discover that by the term ‘Traditionalism’ you mean something that would largely exclude me and almost every other Traditionalist I know. That is another problem with it, that I doubt there is are even a handful of self-identified traditionalists that would admit that that is the definition. Shouldn’t you try to define a group in a way they would recognize? If, in fact, the tendency you identify is so prevelent among Traditionalists (and I think it is in circles), perhaps it needs a term coinced for it, as Libertarian or Classical Liberalism are terms that describe certain prevelant ideologies within American Conservatism. Calling it “Traditionalism” and identifying the movemet with it seems to confuse the matter. I question how effective that strategy is.
I’ll leave it there. I want you to know what I’ve followed your blog for years, and I do respect you and your erudition. It is on the one part of attacking Traditionalism that I have reacted negatively, and I still feel the need to defend the movement I’m part of, even if your definition does not largely apply to me.
On a different note, it is nice to think that some of the animosity toward the Pope may have been stemmed from the antipathy toward Jews of some traditionalists. I have not a wit of sympathy for holocaust deniers, or, indeed, for much of anything that belongs to the Williamson brand. I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to doub that Summorum Pontificum was not implimented in Buenos Aires, that the only Mass allowed was a hybrid Mass, and at the time of th Conclave there was no traditonal Mass there; but maybe Bergoglio was not entirely disfavorable toward lovers of traditon if the blogger who reported on it was inclined by other factors to dislike him. I’ll admit that Papal Masses have bcome progressively more difficult to watch. But the Papal Mass is one thing, tolerance for the experiment of tradition is another. Hopefully the Pope has been misrepresented or not adequately represented regarding his tolerance of worship that tends toward tradition.
Hello Father,
“Perhaps the situation is a bit more complex than Gonzalez would make it out to be. Perhaps Cardinal Bergoglio had reasons to want to make sure that those who attended the Latin Mass under his auspices actually accepted Vatican II.”
I share the hope of your first statement. There’s a lot we don’t still don’t know about the situation in Argentina (even if it is clear that it’s been a difficult one in general for those Catholics attached to tradition in any way).
The second sentence strikes me as more dangerous – to our understanding of Pope Francis. The most charitable assumption to be made about the 2007 TLM fiasco is that Bergoglio delegated setting up a TLM after the motu proprio came into effect; that it was given to a priest untrained with the rite, who made a mess of it, ignorantly but with good intention, and Cdl. Bergoglio just didn’t bother to check up on it.
But because traditionalists ( or even those with traditional leanings) have apparently been made unwelcome in the Argentine Church for many years, most of them (at least the ones despairing of parish life they encountered) have had no choice but to flee to traditional societies and groups on the margins, such as Miles Christi or Incarnate Word or…the SSPX, which has a tremendous footprint in Argentina, one of its biggest in the world. Which has, unfortunately had the resulting effect of making Argentine traditionalists even more resentful and paranoid than they would have been had they had a home within diocesan life. In short, if you treat people like social lepers, they may start to act like them. Charity demands I not assume that Cdl. Bergoglio has acted in this way (there is still much I don’t know); I’m just making a general observation.
That does not by any means excuse pathologies like holocaust denial. Sr. Gonzalez must accept responsibility for his own words, and Rorate must accept responsibility for relying so heavily on a tainted source.
The concern about Vatican II is also problematic in that there should be room allowed for genuine, well-founded concerns not only about the implementations of the Council (which we all agree have been problematic in many cases) but even some of the statements of the Council. Councils are never perfect; indeed, even when they make clear dogmatic definitions, something may be lacking that a future council must clarify. And on canons of policy, they can, sometimes, be infelicitous. I accept Vatican II as a legitimate ecumenical council, but I feel obliged to disagree with Sacrosanctum Concilium’s call (doubtless well-intended) for an expanded lectionary of Scripture readings; and I am far from alone on that score outside SSPX fever swamps. That’s a prudential call, after all. So I hope we can leave room for critiques of this kind under the rubric of “accepting Vatican II.”
Joseph Anthony,
I will be the first to admit that our terminology is problematic. But “traditionalism” is an inherently problematic word. I think I indicate all this in the post to which I directed you.
There are all kinds of problems with all kinds of words: liberal/conservative; left/right; conservative/traditional; modernist/traditionalist; and on it goes.
But in respect the essential question of Vatican II and its relation to Tradition, there are extremes of which “modernist” and “traditionalist” seem to be relevant terms.
Is Vatican II part of Tradition or not? I am not talking about all the details, or questions and reservations one might have. Richard above seems to accept it with reservations. I certainly accept it as part of Tradition. Does that make me a traditionalist? I don’t think so.
So what in the end does determine that which is part of Tradition and that which is not, and who is the final arbiter? If one says that it is the magisterium as handed on in Tradition and that in the end we may all reserve the right to assess what magisterial teaching belongs to Tradition and what does not, the we are back to square one.
I am a Roman Catholic. I believe in Tradition. I accept both forms of the Roman Rite. I believe the Council was inspired, even if poorly executed. I don’t believe the Church will ever repudiate the principles laid down by Sacrosanctum Concilium even if the liturgical books are eventually revised. Do I have, then, a less of a right to be called “traditional” than you?
But I don’t want to be identified as being a “traditionalist,” because I think it inherently implies that something other than the living magisterium is the final arbiter in the matter.
Richard,
I appreciate your comment. I have said before, that I believe Archbishop di Noia, gave the SSPX, and by way of extension, anyone who has reservations about Vatican II, a way to handle the problem in good faith and in good standing.
I realize it would be best to lower the temperature of this whole discussion. But it is not a one-sided thing. There is fault on both sides.
At some point everyone is going to have to come to terms with what I believe is the fact that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, under the mantle of fifty years of postconciliar teaching; that everyone is going to have to get off their high horse and look to Peter and to the continuity that exists there, not the apparent rupture.
It seems to me that many on both sides have locked themselves into their preconceived bubbles and they won’t budge.
I pray for a solution. I do not see one. I pray for a miracle.
Hello Fr.,
“Richard above seems to accept it with reservations. I certainly accept it as part of Tradition. Does that make me a traditionalist? I don’t think so.”
I think people have a right to call themselves as they like.
Personally, I tire of the labels. “Catholic” should suffice. I *am* very traditionalist in my Catholicism.
There’s a fine line to walk on the Council. If we call the Council’s legitimacy into question, we’re really calling the Church itself into question, are we not? Nearly 3,000 bishops attended its deliberations. It was called by a universally (at least outside the SSPV) accepted Pope. If virtually the entire leadership of the Church could screw up so badly as to call an illegitimate Council…I mean, this isn’t a Sardica or Sirmium we’re talking about here.
And yet…as I said, there’s room for reservations, properly voiced, and properly couched within a larger obedience and charity. Pope Benedict himself was highly critical of some sections of Gaudium et Spes, after all. Few would endorse without reservation the Third Lateran Council’s ban on Christian servants for Jews or Muslims or its excommunication for those who tried to tax churches and clergy without the consent of the bishop. And so on. But surely I can be critical of the three year lectionary (again, doubtless well intended), or concerned that Dignitatis Humanae too easily avoids the hard work of reconciling its statements on religious liberty with those of previous popes, without dismissing the whole Council as a dastardly Jewish-Masonic enterprise.
Dear Father Angelo.
I am writing in defense of Rorate Caeli a great Catholic Blog where I have been privileged to be part of the forum for a couple of years now.
Thank God for a blog like Rorate Caeli, which risks the contempt of people simply because it reports the realities, facts and disasters that have contributed to the present immense crisis in the Church all the while remaining faithful to the perennial Magisterium .
With all due respect to your holy priestly office Father , I think you are wrong in distorting the news the blog reports by basing your criticisms on a couple of commenters. While I agree some commenters go over the top sometimes , the one you have quoted is hardly an example of being extremely offensive. I have seen worse. And the blog moderators have often eliminated them afterwards. To suggest that Rorate thrives on vitriolic comments is totally unacceptable because it’s untrue. To suggest that they are anti-Semitic is a kind of calumny. They simply stand with the perennial teaching of the Church on that matter. Why would they want to be anti-Semitic and nasty anyway ? It doesn’t add up. . Firstly, the contributors are all intelligent people and it is evident that they love the Church, and would see such a way as self-destructive and time-wasting. Secondly, they are all serious Catholics with busy lives and a solid foundation in knowledge of the faith which is very high.
Jennifer got that that story about Damien Thompson all wrong. I was there that day on the blog and it is not correct what she wrote about that post. Maybe she didn’t follow it all. And this is too much” New Catholic et al are NOT to be trusted. I wish more priests would warn people about Rorate Caeli.” This is character assassination. NC reports facts he does not invent them AND never has done.
You wrote:” But what is going on over at RC is rotten.” This is completely untrue. This is unfair Father.
All this back-biting among Catholics is heart-breaking and as a priest, Father Angelo, I am surprised that you are going along with it.
I posted the following from von Hildebrand on Rorate a couple of weeks ago to help explain the frustration and exasperation of Traditional Catholics sometimes, who truly are those that are the most misunderstood and maligned in the Church. At least in my humble opinion .
Here is the quote:
1. On Bishop’s authority – Dietrich von Hildebrand – in the chapter of The Devastated Vineyard titled “The Lethargy of the Guardians” – summed up the present state of affairs pretty well:
“The drivel of the heretics, both priests and laymen, is tolerated; the bishops tacitly acquiesce to the poisoning of the faithful. But they want to silence the faithful believers who take up the cause of orthodoxy, the very people who should by all rights be the joy of the bishops’ hearts, their consolation, a source of strength for overcoming their own lethargy. Instead, these people are regarded as disturbers of the peace. And should it happen that they get carried away in their zeal and express themselves in a tactless or exagger¬ated manner, they are even suspended. This clearly shows the cowardice which is hidden behind the bishops’ failure to use their authority. For they have nothing to fear from the orthodox; the orthodox do not control the mass media or the press; they are not the representatives of public opinion. And because of their submission to ecclesiastical authority, the fighters for orthodoxy will never be as aggressive as the so-called progressives. If they are reprimanded or disciplined, their bishops run no risk of being attacked by the liberal press and being defamed as reactionary.”
Just to let you know, I am fairly new to things of Catholic Tradition as I discovered the Old Rite through Summorum Pontificum, but I felt it my duty to defend Rorate Caeli which has been a great source of grace in my life as a Catholic.
Your sincerely, Father,
Barbara
Thank you so much for writing this, Barbara. With all the anger and injustice abounding, it seemed pointless to restate these truths, but I am so glad that you did.
Good catch, Father, on pointing out how the traditionalists are trying to make Benedict out to be their hero so they can use him as a stick to beat Francis. In reality, they despise Benedict as they have despised all recent popes beginning with John XXIII and as they despise the Jews. I once heard a traditionalist “bishop” (no idea if his ordination was valid, but certainly illicit) ridicule Pope Benedict’s Bavarian accent and accuse him of preaching heresy with a soft melodious volce.
Richard,
I have no problem with people labeling themselves as they like. The terms are problematic. These are the types of discussions we need to have.
On the other score, I think that what you say is exactly in accord in accord with what Archbishop di Noia recommended. What I have criticized are the propaganda campaigns and the idealogical programs.
Barbara,
I read Rorate Caeli and the comments. I know what goes on over there. And I happen to know that the comments are heavily moderated. Mine don’t get up because I disagree with New Catholic’s methods.
Jennifer is right about at least one thing. The post of New Catholic about his mother is gone, and I can’t find the other one in which RC called Thompson “classless” and urged readers to write to the Telegraph. I read those posts. I know they existed. So I guess, Jennifer was following the situation after all.
Barbara, I understand the problem. Really I do, and I am more than willing to be humbled in this matter. But all the lectures on charity from the commenters at RC is just wearying. Clean up the mess over there and then come and talk to me.
I am not lecturing anyone on charity in method and tone and all the rest because the whole thing misses the point. Commenters at RC have not just gone after bishops, but also Popes, including Pope Benedict. So if DvH’s words apply to those who defend orthodoxy, why do they not apply to me, when I defend the Holy Father? I am not going to lecture you about your tone or your disagreement with me as being “back-biting” because it would be a huge piece of hypocrisy.
I really do try to be civil. I don’t always succeed for the same reasons outlined by DvH. But if you are really so concerned about the problem, then you have your marching orders.
I happen to celebrate the EF everyday and have lived in a very traditional (not traditionalist) community for more than twenty-five years. When I address these problems I have years of personal experience. I am not criticizing something from the outside. I don’t think we should limit our criticisms, when they are necessary, to everyone else but ourselves.
There is a problem among traditionalists. Face it. If you don’t, what is left unaddressed is going to float to the top, as it is now, and what you hope for may be lost.
Pope Francis in a sense was Pope Benedict’s idea. Deal with it. You may be shocked one day to find out what the Spirit was actually saying to the Church in this age.
Kirt,
Thanks. It is hard to watch and to know to what extent they are likely to succeed.
Hello Kirt,
“Good catch, Father, on pointing out how the traditionalists are trying to make Benedict out to be their hero so they can use him as a stick to beat Francis. In reality, they despise Benedict as they have despised all recent popes beginning with John XXIII and as they despise the Jews.”
I guess this gets to Fr’s point about the problems with labels. Who is a traditionalist?
Often it seems that when critics use the term, they really are being driven by what some call “rad trads” – largely SSPX folk who pretty much reject not only everything since the Council, but the entire Council itself, noisily so.
The Rorate bloggers – I know a couple of them – don’t seem quite in that camp, for the most part (though they are not far removed from it, either), but many of their regular commenters certainly are. And however it works out, NC and Adfero and Ken and company are content to let quite a few of their comments be posted. I think it’s fair to ding them for that, as well as for their eager use of sources dabbling in some form of Holocaust denial, without qualification. They don’t seem to understand that many otherwise sympathetic Catholics don’t consider such things to be “non-sequiturs.”
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of other tradition-minded folk who get tarred with the same brush. Hardly any really think that Benedict XVI was a “traditionalist,” but there’s quite a few such people (starting with the late Michael Davies) who think that he was a good friend to their causes, a very rare high prelate who, despite being a man of the council shared some of the same concerns about rupture in the Church. I certainly don’t “despise” Benedict. I might not agree with him on everything, but I have admired him for many years.
So we’re back to labels. The traditionalist movement, if indeed it can even be said to be a movement, is a lot more diverse than people like to credit.
Hello Father,
“On the other score, I think that what you say is exactly in accord in accord with what Archbishop di Noia recommended. What I have criticized are the propaganda campaigns and the idealogical programs.”
Sure, I understand that.
I think Archbp. DiNoia is still figuring out the lay of the land on all this (as he himself admitted last year), but I think he’s not far off in trying to identify a way to have critical and constructive engagement with the Council’s texts, and the theological implications of all that.
“Jennifer is right about at least one thing. The post of New Catholic about his mother is gone, and I can’t find the other one in which RC called Thompson “classless” and urged readers to write to the Telegraph.”
Even if Damian had learned of NC’s mom’s situation from the blog itself, I do think his behavior in that episode really was “classless.” Two wrongs do not make a right. It’s a shame, since Damian has otherwise been a valuable voice on many issues…but he, too, often writes before reflecting. The problem for Rorate is that this will not overcome the problematic way in which they have conducted the blog since this pontificate started. Neither will the fact that they really do seem to be technically correct about the failed hybrid TLM Mass sponsored by the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires in 2007 (even if we don’t know all the reasons why it occurred, or who was responsible).
No one can keep Rorate (or Angelqueen, or whathaveyou) from publishing what they want; it’s a free internet. The only healthy response will have to be other, more measured traditional voices, emerging and permeating the discussion online and beyond.
Jennifer: “I’m not sure if you’re aware of the recent incident in which RC defamed Damian Thompson (they uncharacteristically took down the post). They accused him of celebrating New Catholic’s (short-lived) hiatus due to his mother’s poor health. But just before they blogged about Thompson’s supposed cruelty, they deleted a portion of a post from a few days before New Catholic mentioned his mom, in which New Catholic also said he was taking a break. ”
As the person on Rorate who posted this about Mr. Thompson, I can tell you, Jennifer, the only defaming being done in the case is from you. In fact, to prove it, the post where New Catholic says his mother is ill and he’s taking a break was not only NEVER deleted, it’s still there now, for all to see — but that’s just facts, which you clearly don’t concern yourself with. Seems to be a theme on this blog, no?
As for us taking down the actual post about Mr. Thompson, yes, we did. This came after he apologized to us and we believed his apology was sincere. He said it was just a bizarre coincidence and, out of charity, we must believe him. Charity and trust — two themes definitely not characteristic of the priest who runs this blog nor his readers.
Now, you can try to bait me with more, have at it. But I’m gone, so talk amongst youselves.
Oh, I am sure your are reading Adfero.
Thanks for clearing Mr. Thompson’s good name. Too bad you did not do it on your own blog.
Jennifer may have been wrong about a detail, but so were you.
Perhaps we should all take our fingers off the trigger.
God bless.
Now that we are doing anti-semitism by association, someone who wrote a defensive booklet about Mel Gibson’s Passion should probably be more circumspect.
Nben,
Classy. Just Classy.
FYI, I did everything I could to take all the copies out of circulation.
Oh, BTW, I did not go after the Pope with my little book. All I did is try to promote devotion to the Blessed Mother.
@Cassandra,
Nobody has offered a real counter to what was said. Including what you wrote. He played the Holocaust deaths, that the majority of them wer ebasically due to poor war conditions, rather than a meticiously organized plan to exterminate a certain race of people. He then compared it to Internment camps. As hideous as those were, no, you really can’t compare the two in the same league. he then attempted a false equivalence at the end. then he alleges some jewish conspiracy about it all that gets in the way of the real truth.
Anyone who has actually dealt with holocaust denialism sees these marks all the time.
And I think the whole issue with Damian Thompson is perhaps the RC guys should’ve checked to see if it was a coincidence before popping off. I think some of what they do is vital, and some of the reporting is valuable. Yet at the same time, NC loves to play the “woe is me” card, and how a lot of people who disagree with him really have the worst of motives. (Just see with Dawn Eden, and then his one “the one you are looking for” post.) I get it, it’s a way to work the crowd and fire up the base Yet this isn’t pro wrestling or a political campaign rally. He really doesn’t know the state of those he disagrees with, so he probably really shouldn’t be insinuating about them.
Everyone gets it, he is indeed going through a very trying and difficult time personally. So while allowances can be made for that, he shouldn’t make it any worse, and those close to him should probably tell him to stop poisoning the well with people he disagrees with.
It probably would’ve also helped had he first went to the gym or found another way to blow off steam instead of allowing holocaust deniers like Sr. Gonzales the ability to spout his views that had to be walked back later. (Such as the idea Bergoglio barely lifted a finger when it came to gay marriage.)
You guys want a fair shake, and perhaps you aren’t getting it. Yet from many, you aren’t getting a fair shake because of the actions taken.
@kmtierney and @Fr. Angelo,
Dawn’s article has come to the attention of Gonzalez, and he gives a clarification that requires reading by all spouting off. Note that on his site there is an English translation available for both the clarification and the original article, and there was no need for Dawn to be using a Google translation.
Clarification: http://panoramacatolico.info/articulo/aclarando-la-confusi-n-de-la-sra-eden-clarifying-ms-edens-confusion
Original Article: http://panoramacatolico.info/articulo/holocausto-y-holocuento
Worth quoting from the original’s translation is this:
[That is, the “holonarrative” comes in two versions, the Jewish one and the Anti-Jewish one. And the truth of the facts is the most notorious victim. And it will keep being so, because it is known that this matter cannot be discussed, because the authors of one version, the most rentable one, that of the pro-Jewish holonarrative, have all means to shut down an open and rational debate.]
If the uproar by Dawn originally, and comments by all since then, do not absolutely prove Gonzalez’s point that no rational debate can be held on the topic, I don’t know what could.
Actually…. that doesn’t really solve anything.
What is the documented historical fact? that millions of Jews died? Or that millions of them died as part of a racist regime who intentionally targeted them for death because of their race? And the whole “it is licit that others do so provided” schtick…. except one might as well say that people should start arguing the earth is flat. The earth is round, and the Holocaust is a documented historical fact. One really is as free to treat its existence as an open matter as one is free to treat gravity as an open matter.
What is the “rational debate” that the so called Jewish narrative (holonarrative) prevents? That Gentiles died in the Holocaust? Don’t think I hear anyone actually denying it.
Kevin,
Exactly.
And who exactly thinks the question of the Holocaust is a matter of Catholic dogma?
Cassandra,
Actually, I did rationally answer your objections to Dawn’s interpretation.
Dear Father Angelo,
I too have had comments blocked. This is not a reason to trash the blog. Mine deserved to be blocked.
Jennifer was wrong. “Classless” was written by Adfero and the thread was taken down because of the tone of SOME of the comments. I remember distinctly protesting about them. Still no reason to trash a good blog. People make mistakes.
So you think I am lecturing you merely because I think you are wrong Father? Maybe you should back off this campaign of persecution that you are so bent upon…then people who don’t agree with you will “stop lecturing you”…. and it will be all less wearying for you…?
I don’t know what you mean by “my marching orders”. I’m just trying to stay faithful to Our Lord His Holy Church , the Pope, the Holy Mass and all the rest that is part of our beautiful Catholic Tradition – one day at a time. And Rorate Caeli has been an enormous help for me in this endeavour – the reason for my life.
You are right there is a problem with traditionalists. Before the Second Vatican Council, I have read and been told, we Catholics were all traditional – the divisions and labels in the Church that we have acquired now simply did not exist among the lay faithful. The clerics and hierarchy might be another thing. There was a Catholic identity then…now long gone. I wonder what happened…
I have no idea why you would direct your last quite rude remarks to me as you don’t know who I am and what I think about Pope Benedict and Pope Francis Neither do I get the “you may be shocked” comment. Sounded like some kind of a threat …
Well, Father Angelo, I’ve tried my best to be sincere with you.
I wish you all the best and bow to your priesthood,
Barbara
Barbara,
Persecution? A threat? Seriously?
I understand the bit about being sincere. Me too.
God bless.
I agree strongly enough with Mr. Tierney’s comments above to repeat them here, as he says something I’ve long thought:
“And I think the whole issue with Damian Thompson is perhaps the RC guys should’ve checked to see if it was a coincidence before popping off. I think some of what they do is vital, and some of the reporting is valuable. Yet at the same time, NC loves to play the “woe is me” card, and how a lot of people who disagree with him really have the worst of motives. (Just see with Dawn Eden, and then his one “the one you are looking for” post.) I get it, it’s a way to work the crowd and fire up the base. Yet this isn’t pro wrestling or a political campaign rally. He really doesn’t know the state of those he disagrees with, so he probably really shouldn’t be insinuating about them.
“Everyone gets it, he is indeed going through a very trying and difficult time personally. So while allowances can be made for that, he shouldn’t make it any worse, and those close to him should probably tell him to stop poisoning the well with people he disagrees with.”
Damian’s tweet was classless no matter what the context. But if RC was going to accept his apology and give him the benefit of the doubt, it would have been advisable to say as much on the website, rather than merely taking down the retort.
Rorate *is* a site that does some valuable reportage; in many ways, it is better sourced and run than almost any other English language traditionalist website. That’s why it’s more disappointing that they can be so impulsive and defensive – and yes, too indifferent to the optics, if not indeed the morality, of aggressively using sources like Marcelo Gonzalez. A lot of Catholics who would have been otherwise sympathetic to Rorate were put off to see Pope Francis denounced as a “disaster” in high octane language within 15 minutes of the announcement of his election…and then even more so when it turned out that the guest blogger in question turns out to have questioned many key facts of the Holocaust in order to reduce its moral salience, if not necessarily to deny it outright. What’s lacking is not only prudence, but charity. And it’s not mitigated by the fact that it’s often done in a passive aggressive manner – the main bloggers being “careful,” as Father puts it, in their criticisms, but allowing carefully selected guest writers and combox posters to speak far more aggressively and viscerally, with no real counterbalance.
Which is doubly a shame, because there’s a genuine theological concern lurking behind all of this: Ecumenical and interreligious enthusiasms in the post-conciliar period have been taken so far by many in the Church as to promote widespread indifferentism – and in the case of the Jews, Dual Covenant theory. And there are genuine concerns, based on his record, that Cdl. Bergoglio was too blithe about these dangers himself while in Buenos Aires (one hopes this will not be the case in his pontificate). But when the criticisms are not only immediate and visceral but are emitted by traditionalists who have spent time obsessing over Holocaust narratives and Jewish conspiracies, readers are naturally going to dismiss all of it as rank anti-Semitic bigotry.
Pingback: An evil not even tolerated among the pagans
Matthew 7:21-23
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE BIG PICTURE!!!!!!!!!!
Our Lord says He will hold us all accountable for every word we utter (type in this case).
Are you all really willing to jeapardize your eternal salvation combating with each other over a situation that non of you can fix?
We are called to personal holiness, “Be thou perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” You’re arguing over something that can only be changed when everyone looks skyward to God and does His Will, which is NOT fighting brother against brother; priests included.
The moment we focus on doing the Will of Our Father is the moment we will have peace on earth…not until then. It’s all about the heart, and I see zero compassion on this blog for one another.
Lectio divina would be a great beginning for some of you…..maybe all of you.
Marie, would that include risking your eternal salvation by typing here, perhaps inflaming an issue that is already pretty high, by threatening people here with hellfire for a disagreement?
We all got our opinions. Everything can only be changed by looking skyward. People are free to discuss those opinions. I ask this as an honest question: did anyone ask if people were risking their eternal salvation (by causing grave scandal) by speculating whether or not certain facts of the holocaust were just one big Jewish conspiracy? Why is it people only play the “you are causing division and risking salvation” card when it is something they disagree with?
Where specifically could people stand to have greater compassion? “Pox on both houses” doesn’t work. If people really are being uncharitable, then it should be pointed out in examples, and how they should do it better.
Pingback: Six Million Jews Killed by Mistake | Mary Victrix
Kevin,
Perhaps reading St Matthew, Chapter 5: 1-12 (The Beatitudes)
Especially, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.”
Oh, yes…St Matthew Chapter 5: 21-26 (Against Anger), then there is this one..
Chapter 5:43-48 (Love of Enemies)
My favorite….St Matthew Chapter 6:25-34 (Trust in God)
The Gospel of St Matthew….lectio divina, Kevin. ….follow the Word, and be set free.
Ave Maria!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.” (St Matthew 12:25)
Adfero (even though you are not reading here anymore),
I will charitably assume that you misread my comment. I never claimed that NC’s post about his mother’s health was deleted or modified. I was referring to a post from 3/15, several days before he mentioned his mother, that had a footnote indicating that he would be taking a break. The post was titled “Popes and the Southern Hemisphere – curiosities” and you can see a slash at the very end where the footnote used to be. That footnote was deleted shortly before the post attacking Damian Thompson went up, therefore enabling you to claim that there was only one way that Thompson could have heard about NC taking a break and that his tweet was therefore unbelievably malicious. But thanks to search engine caches, you can never really delete something from the internet, and they provide a pretty good timeline of when things were modified. Not only do I remember the footnote from that 3/15 post because I was reading RC regularly at the time, but I noticed that it was deleted, and saw a screencap of the original on Twitter confirming that I wasn’t just imagining things. Incidentally that footnote had nothing to do with Thompson’s tweet in the end, but someone at RC deemed it troublesome enough that it had to go before you could draw your conclusions about Thompson. Perhaps you yourself didn’t modify that post, but the fact is that it was modified several days after it was written, and right before you attacked Thompson. I am not in the habit of defaming, and I always make sure to have my facts straight before I publicly criticize anyone’s behavior.
—
As for the people who are saying that Damian Thompson’s tweet was out of line “no matter what”, I find that very unreasonable. He was reacting to RC’s post titled “The Horror” (the one that prompted Dawn Eden’s investigation), which Thompson says is the only article from Rorate that he had ever read at the time of his tweet. As far as I can tell, RC never tweeted about NC’s mother or linked to the post on Twitter. His tweet closely paraphrased this famous quote: “…a period of silence on your part would be welcome.” attributed to Harold Laski. Maybe telling someone who you think is way out of line to essentially “shut up” is blunt, but once I understood the proper context I didn’t think the tweet was a serious offense by any means. Had I been in RC’s shoes, I probably would have jumped to similar conclusions initially–the timing was quite unsettling. However, publicly attacking someone without bullet-proof facts (and even worse, modifying facts to fit your conclusion) is a serious matter. Coincidences do happen. They were wrong about Thompson, and are probably wrong about many of the conclusions they have drawn about Pope Francis, which are even tougher to verify.
Anyway, I’ll let this rest, now. I don’t want to veer off topic, but had to defend what I said before, every bit of which I still stand by. Sadly, the good RC does is outweighed by the bad, and given their antics, I don’t trust them. It’s unfortunate.
@Fr Angelo,
No, you didn’t answer my objections. I was going to provide a comprehensive explanation why, but it is clear that your pre-existing animosity toward Rorate Caeli and your pre-existing friendship with Dawn make you emotionally unable to objectively consider neither the matter of the TLM in Buenos Aires nor of Gonzalez’s intentions.
I shake the dust off my feet.
I am sorry to see you go, Cassandra.
That is the typical passive-aggressive stuff that RC specializes in. If one disagrees, there must be a moral problem or an emotional one.
Nothing I have said here is inconsistent with the principles I have held for a very long time, or with my previous criticisms of the traditionalist movement.
I am not the one who made this personal, and I will not be dragged into what others have mistakenly taken personally.
It has been 24 hours since Father Angelo said everyone should take fingers off triggers, yet several more shots have been fired, mostly at Rorate Caeli. Are y’all almost done shooting messengers while claiming innocence?
Provided the government doesn’t ban high capacity magazines…. i’ve got a few rounds left.
Never got the point of these kind of posts. You don’t like what people are doing. Such is your right. But the whole “woe is me” and “my opponents are so eeeeevvvvvvviilllll” schtick gets pretty old fast, and it was old when I started blogging back in 2002.
Dear Fr. Angelo Blessed Easter,
I have never posted before but you know me well. The first time I read anything from Rorate Caeli was when pope Francis was elected. I was horrified by New Catholic even if he himself had not written nor said the things I read from his posts but I was infuriated none the less. Even my (anti-Semitic = against the NWO Zionist Jews) Godfather who is hard core traditionalist and reads Rorate Caeli as favored Catholic news site said to me, “the very name of New Catholic is disturbing to me”. It would seem this poor convert has little to no understanding of pastoral pedagogy. I know well that VAII had its problems and after the council there are still problems lingering but I think you are right in saying traditionalism is not the way to heal the wound but as an ordinary consequence it leads to criticism in some, resentment in others but for “the many” it most certainly raises suspicion of the hierarchy of the Holy Roman Church and their authoritatively binding decisions (very dangerous). It is clear that not all fall this way but for many unsuspecting traditionalist this is truly what happens. Who of you posting on this blog think that the majority of Catholics for the history of the world have been the intellectually proficient, capable of discerning subtle distinctions in complex arguments over things that happen in the Church? I would like to suggest that the traditionalism that you Fr. Angelo have defined seems to be accurate philosophically and should be understood as such but hard for some to interpret. The questions raised from books like Brunero Gherardini are not easy to understand because it’s not written for the common lay person, again “the many” but for the theological and philosophical elite ecclesiastics who might prudently know what to do with the conclusions. As I was saying and what I think Fr. Angelo is trying to do is warn against the danger of traditionalism as an ideology not warn against faithful Catholics who love the Latin mass, (like I do) or traditional morals and company but the underlying danger that is fruit of constant criticisms that turn many people who agree in such a principle into raving peasants with torches ready to burn down the castle. Fr. I know you are a humble Priest as well as a prudent one (I saw this for a full year) at the same time you have a very passionate character. I might suggest that the way you respond to some of the comments be at the highest degree of charity and maybe you might help the readers more this way. Tell them the truth like I might believe the Rorate Caeli wants to do, but let it not be without Christ. Reclaim that true compassion for the faithful like I know you have (ex. When you started hearing confessions more frequently even during lunch at MIM Sunday because you saw an edifying priest in Texas salve over the confessional). Don’t give up the fight against the dangers of traditionalism, modernism, freemasonry and Marian minimalism etc.… But this argument is delicate give it some more thoughtful attention.
For all those who like reading Rorate Caeli and the remnant even if they were right (as I know they are on a few points) it’s like a time bomb. I would propose that the ultimate and logical conclusion for so many of their followers could be a dangerous one with convictions that lead to decent of will for “the many” not all.
Blessed Easter to everyone,
A poor sinner
So, Kevin….you’re saying that you’ve been reading the “evil schtick” since 2002, and you’re still reading it? Am I the only one here that sees a problem with that picture?
Marie, you don’t need to read something daily to know that people have the same gimmicks over the years. New Catholic and friends combine traditional devotions, investigative reporting, with some good ol fashioned woe is me snark with a combox notorious for having the outrage meter jacked to 11 perpetually.
Thank you for this post! It was very thoughtful and true.
Father, Writing on my phone, so sorry abou yping errors.
I think Radical Traditionism is better to describe what you’re talking about. All radical traditionalist reject or stand in judgement over the authentic magisterum of the Pope and the Council. Not all traditionalists do.
Traditionalism is a movement. I think those people ars Traditionalists who identify themselves with the movement, as those people are Charismatics who identify themselves with it. Raising one’s hands ad praying spontaneously does not mean one is considers oneself a charismatic, butchrismatics will tend to do this. Prefering the TLM and assisting at it does not make one a Traditionalist, but Traditionalists will tend to do that. But identiying oneself with the Charismatic movement maes one a Charismatic. Identifying oneself with the Traditionalist movement makes one a Traditionalist. I might agree with you on every issue, but it is not insignificant that I have chosen to identify myself with the Traditionalist movement, and you have not. Perhaps an SSPX friend would question my Traditionalism, but that is an internal debate among people who shre a lot in common. As Charismatics will have diverse opinions about the relationship of the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” experience with confirmation; Traditionalist will have different opinions about the authority of Tradition in relation to the liing magisterium.
My own belief, as one Traditionalist, is that the Catholicism is a received religion, and that the organically developed customs and traditions of the Church, especilly those of immemorial origin, bind also the living magisterium. It is thus that Crd Ratzinger questiond whether the Church could ban living forms of worship that were once deemed holy and could consder them forbidden and harmful. I consider the Magisterium, and esp. The Pope to be the guardian and arbiter of genuine Tradition. His office is to preserve what we have received and prune out those innovations that have little merit. In exercising this job, I don’t believe anyone can judge him. Certainly no one can overrule his juridical decisions. We must submit t the Pope even when hi prudential judgements are wrong. But since Tradition is forever linked t his office, e are free to point out t him when and where his decisons constitute rupture. We cannot judge his magisterium or authority, but we can hold the private belief that his decisions fail in some way, and we can point out this belief in moderate and respectful ways, with the hope that the rupture will be healed.
S V2 part of tradition? Undoubtably, as a supreme act of magisterium, itinterprets and establishes tradition in some ways. I think that it has to be considered, as it specifically was meant to be, magisterial contnuity with tradition. Where texts are obscure or, on the surface, difficul to view in continuity, I think it is appropriate for us to interpre them through the lense of tradition, and to ask the Magisterium to clarify them in the light of Tradition. I don’t believe it is appropriate to ignore them, although I accept that many of my fellow Traditionalists do. This is an ongoing internal debate. I don’t consider the Spirit of V2 to be part of Tradition, and this has had an impact as vast or more to th Council texts (the Novus Ordo, for instance, inculcates a spirit that is beyond the Sacrosanctum Concilium). Here I think, except where the “spirit” has fund its way into the liturgy or papal magisterium, that it is safe o just ignore it.
Joseph Anthony,
Of course Catholicism is a received religion. I think you and I can agree that that is not under dispute.
The organic development of customs and traditions means that some may be left behind. It is not just “innovations” that are pruned, it can also be layers added, so old as to no longer be considered innovations, that are pruned. (See the analogy of the fresco that Pope Benedict gives in The Spirit of the Liturgy.) Likewise, organic development, if it is development at all, will sometimes include innovation. That is Tradition/tradition.
It seems that your assumption is that what is older is somehow more venerable, and yet we know that primitivism is not a principle of organic development. The Roman Rite developed out of the primitive liturgy by way of both continuity and discontinuity. Traditionalism, in my view, does not adequately deal with the fact—not the mere possibility, but the fact—of innovation in Tradition that is carried out under the direction and authority of the magisterium.
The great thinker and writer of the 18th century, Samuel Johnson, stated that “patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel.” The ultra chauvinist questioning the love of one’s country in another is a classic way to defame the other and dismiss his points. Today, claiming that another man somehow exhibits antisemitism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Some of the best Catholic layman in the country, namely, Patrick J. Buchanan and Joseph Sobran (RIP) endured the charge from “friends” like Bill Buckley. And you, dear Father, as well as Dawn Eden and Mark Shea, have similarly leveled this specious charge against your fellow Catholics. In a word, “shame” on you for falling prey to the tactics of the revolutionary left. Today, you would probably label the great saints of the past, such as St. Gregory and St. Max. Kolbe, anti-Semitic because of their writings, or you would dismiss them as being “unenlightened.” I guess the Church got this question wrong for nearly 2,000 years until the enlightened time of Vat. II and Nostrae Aetatae. But, then again, if we go down that path, then Vat. II was a rupture and not in continuity with the past.
—Benedict XVI
Pingback: But They Couldn’t Call Her A Kike
If you have any character at all, you would take this specious, judgmental and pejorative post down immediately. This is utterly shameful, and from a priest no less!
Definition of PEJORATIVE
: a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle : a pejorative word or phrase
Father,
Mark Shea mentions “lovers of the EF”, and then suggests they “smash it flat”… forgive me if the question is obtuse, but what does “EF”stand for? The only thing I can think of, the old Mass, makes no sense…. be love of it a traditionalist calling card or no. I couldn’t imagine “smashing flat” either form of the Mass. Perhaps I have missed something…
MrV,
“EF” is short for “Extraordinary Form,” which is to say, the Traditional Latin Mass. And thus “OF” is short for “Ordinary Form,” or the Novus Ordo Mass.
“In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. 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.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
These terms are also used for Ministers of Holy Communion – Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
I think I found the phrase you referenced. As you can see he was referring to antisemitism –
“It is pure filth and every Catholic, but most especially every lover of the EF, should smash it flat.”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/04/why-would-a-catholic-from-a-jewish-background-feel-unwelcome.html
In Christ,
Marian
The comment section has already painted Dawn Eden as a CPA (Convert from Protestantism Apologist), who is engaged in a conspiracy with other CPA’s…
Dear Father. Please post the entire quote. You know I wrote that I was not yet ready to say the CPAs were engaged in a conspiracy.
Fr. Angelo – I believe you want to be fair. Here are two of your claims followed by a clarifying statement (there have been others) from RC explaining that they are actually not, due to recent high volume, able to moderate comments thoroughly.
From you: “…The comments are always moderated. Nothing gets through until it has been manually approved by the blogger…”
And you again: “…I read Rorate Caeli and the comments. I know what goes on over there. And I happen to know that the comments are heavily moderated…”
From RC: “…The main reason for this is that, because of the huge number of comments we had been receiving lately (hundreds daily), the moderators had not been able to exercise reasonable and timely control, and many unworthy comments ended up being approved, and good comments ended up being deleted by accident…”
Read the comments from, say, six months ago or a year ago.