Brian, I'm sorry but I don't know this phrase. What does it mean? I am sorry that one feels that Truth is uncharitable. I simply don't understand this thought. (edited to add) Then Jesus and John the Baptist would be considered uncharitable for speaking the Truth. It is in the Church's interest to uncover and expose the Truth. The good Cardinal Robert Sarah said this in his address:
Brian, Not really. One side continues to push an agenda which is clearly the work of the devil. In addition, I am sad to admit that they often do it in a very sneaky and deceptive way much like what appears that Pope Francis and his cohorts are doing but this other side is only providing more ammunition to Pope Francis and his cohorts. In March, I came across the following video entitled "Where will the synod lead us to?" from September of 2015. I posted about this in March and highlighted the same quotes that I will provide below the video along with the same thoughts of my own about these quotes. In March, I received one like and no replies about this. This spoke volumes to me and I wondered if we are truly in search of the Truth. I realize that I included a statement about Our Lady of Garabandal which many on MOG do not believe but still. From the video I give you the following two quotes from Bishop Athanasius Schneider. At the 37:28 min. mark: "It is our duty, our first duty to be faithful to the words of God, to the revelation and when we are observing that the truths of God, not our opinion but the truths of God, his words, are in danger to be changed, we have to - we have to stand up and raise our voice. Otherwise, Christ will judge us - 'why have you been silent', 'why have you not confessed me in front of the - of man'." At the 38:30 min. mark: "And the Second Vatican Council taught that the faithful has the duty even, not only the right, but the duty to manifest their desires to the hierarchy when it is some - an issue belonging to the faith and very important for the Church, for the benefit of the Church. And so we are - we have with this filial appeal only fulfilled what the Second Vatican Council taught. And so we have joined a good number of bishops - the filial appeal of the faithful. And so we have to be really one Church as one family; the faithful, the priests, and the bishops, and the Pope - we are one family. And this filial appeal was signed not only by lay people but priests, bishops, cardinals signed this filial appeal. It is a very beautiful manifestation of our spirit of family in the Church." So based on what Bishop Athanasius Schneider has stated above, I think that the Second Vatican Council was fruitful and I am reminded of what Our Lady of Garabandal stated in regard to this council which can be found on the following links, http://whatisgarabandal.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-thomas-fahy-beautiful-positive-and.html and https://whatisgarabandal.wordpress....ive-and-comforting-garabandal-and-vatican-ii/
I cannot comprehend this. What are you saying that the change was due to then, if not Vatican II? Cardinal Sarah has mentioned the devastating effects of Vatican II, in the article I quoted from earlier. The quotes below are quite explicit:
Of course consider the source here. Linked to on Spirit Daily In Private Letters, Benedict Rebukes Critics of Pope Francis By Jason Horowitz Sept. 20, 2018 ROME — The remarkable letter last month calling on Pope Francis to resign for allegedly shielding an abusive American cardinal also served as a public call to arms for some conservative Catholics who pine for the pontificate of the previous pope, Benedict XVI. For years now, they have carried his name like a battle standard into the ideological trenches. Benedict apparently would like them to knock it off. In private letters published on Thursday by the German newspaper Bild, Benedict, who in retirement has remained studiously quiet through the controversies over Francis’ fitness to lead the church, says that the “anger” expressed by some of his staunchest defenders risks tarnishing his own pontificate. “I can well understand the deep-seated pain that the end of my pontificate caused you and many others. But for some — and it seems to me for you as well — the pain has turned to anger, which no longer just affects the abdication but my person and the entirety of my pontificate,” Benedict wrote in a Nov. 23, 2017, letter to Cardinal Walter Brandmüller of Germany. “In this way the pontificate itself is being devalued and conflated with the sadness about the situation of the church today.” Requests to representatives of Benedict and Cardinal Brandmüller for comment and authentication were not returned early Thursday. Bild provided the letters in their entirety to The Times. Cardinal Brandmüller is one of the few cardinals who signed a 2016 letter of “dubia” — from the Latin for “doubts” — demanding clarification from Francis about his apparent willingness to open the door for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion, which the signatories argue is against church law. The dubia letter received worldwide attention and served as a de facto declaration of independence from Francis, and its signatories, first among them the American cardinal Raymond Burke, have enthusiastically embraced the letter by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, which called on Francis to step down. Archbishop Viganò claimed that Benedict had imposed sanctions on Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, for sexual misconduct, but that Francis had lifted those penalties. Francis’ defenders say there is no evidence that sanctions were placed on Cardinal McCarrick, who resigned in July, and point to ample evidence that he did not behave as if he were under such limitations. Neither the current pope nor his predecessor has commented. Part of Archbishop Viganò’s motivation in publishing his letter was to come to the rescue of Benedict, who he felt was unfairly maligned by Italian journalists friendly to Pope Francis, according to Marco Tosatti, the Italian journalist who helped the archbishop draft the letter. For years, the dissenting cardinals and their supporters have sought to align their cause to Benedict, who promised to remain “hidden to the world” after his 2013 resignation, which he attributed to his waning health and energy. Francis, 81, has made congenial visits to see Benedict, 91, creating white-robed photo opportunities that give the impression of a total lack of tension. But Benedict, the first pope to resign in almost 600 years, refused to fully renounce the papacy, taking the title “pope emeritus” and continuing to live in the Vatican. “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ — there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this,” he said during his last general audience. For many supporters of Francis, Benedict’s status casts an unwelcome shadow over Francis and gives license and comfort to his enemies, though the former pontiff has kept a very low profile. Defenders of Benedict say that by living away from the public eye behind Vatican walls, he is actually avoiding the creation of a rival power center. But in private, even Benedict’s most adamant supporters express frustration with him for quitting and allowing the election of Francis, a more pastoral, less doctrinaire pontiff who they think is ruining the church. They blame Benedict for lacking fight and throwing in the towel in the face of mounting pressure inside the Vatican, especially after he received a 300-page dossier by three cardinals that many in the Vatican believe details an extensive gay lobby within the church. In an interview in October of last year with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Cardinal Brandmüller expressed that frustration publicly. “The figure of ‘pope emeritus’ does not exist in the entire history of the church,” he said. “The fact that a pope comes along and topples a 2,000-year-old tradition bowled over not just us cardinals.” He said that he had an interesting dinner party to celebrate a German carnival holiday on the day of the pope’s retirement in 2013. “We were just having our aperitif and were waiting for a missing guest when a journalist called with the question: Have you heard already? I thought the news was a carnival joke.” Benedict, who is soft-spoken but can also be prickly, was not amused. He wrote in his letter to Cardinal Brandmüller that “Out of this conflation a new agitation is gradually being generated,” which he said could inspire more books like “The Abdication,” by Fabrizio Grasso, which argues that having one or more popes emeriti could fragment papal authority. (In his book, Mr. Grasso wrote, “Even for those with little imagination, it’s not hard to imagine a possible near future with more than one emeritus pope and, consequentially, an exclusive papal club, which could be no other than a proto-parliament of the Vatican State.”) Benedict wrote, “All this fills me with concern, and it was precisely because of this that the end of your F.A.Z. interview so unsettled me, because it would ultimately promote the same mood.” The letter was his second in an exchange with Cardinal Brandmüller. The first, dated Nov. 9, 2017, was even sharper, coming as an immediate reaction to the German cardinal’s newspaper interview. “Eminence!” he began. “You said that with ‘pope emeritus,’ I had created a figure that had not existed in the whole history of the church. You know very well, of course, that popes have abdicated, albeit very rarely. What were they afterward? Pope emeritus? Or what else?” He cited the case of Pius XII, who feared capture by the Nazis and prepared a resignation in case that occurred. “As you know, Pius XII had prepared a declaration in case the Nazis were to arrest him, that from the moment of the arrest he would no longer be pope but once again cardinal,” Benedict wrote. “In my case it would certainly not have been sensible to simply claim a return to being cardinal. I would then have been constantly as exposed to the media as a cardinal is — even more so because people would have seen in me the former pope.” He added, “Whether on purpose or not, this could have had difficult consequences, especially in the context of the current situation.” It is not clear what Benedict meant by “the current situation,” but some have interpreted it to mean the dismay among many of his followers about Francis. Benedict seemed to be saying that as a former pope, he was protected from such politics. “With ‘pope emeritus,’ I tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely not accessible to the media and in which it is completely clear that there is only one pope,” he wrote. “If you know of a better way, and believe that you can judge the one I chose, please tell me.” After Cardinal Brandmüller apparently begged Benedict’s forgiveness and explained how much pain his resignation had caused him and like-minded conservatives, the pope emeritus wrote the second letter. He concluded it by saying, “Let’s pray, as you did with the end of your letter, that the Lord comes to the aid of his church. With my apostolic blessing I am, Your Benedict XVI.” Katrin Bennhold contributed reporting from Berlin
I am honestly unable to see where Cardinal Sarah clearly supports the ordinary form. And by being very critical of Vatican II, it necessarily means that he cannot be 'clearly supportive' of it. What do you feel are the good things that have occurred?
******!!! Leaked letters: Benedict XVI rebukes criticism of resignation The former Pope apparently wrote the letters in response to criticism from Cardinal Brandmüller Benedict XVI rebuked a cardinal who criticised his decision to resign and take the title Pope Emeritus, leaked letters reveal. In the letters – which were leaked to the German newspaper Bild, who then passed them to the New York Times – Benedict says he can understand the “deep-seated pain” his resignation caused. However, people’s anger at his decision is devaluing his entire pontificate, leading to it being “conflated with the sadness about the situation of the Church today.” The New York Times says that the letters were addressed to Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the four ‘dubia’ cardinals, who had recently criticised Benedict’s resignation in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. “The figure of ‘pope emeritus’ does not exist in the entire history of the Church,” the cardinal said. “The fact that a pope comes along and topples a 2,000-year-old tradition bowled over not just us cardinals.” In his first letter, dated November 9, 2017, Benedict responds: “Eminence! You said that with ‘pope emeritus,’ I had created a figure that had not existed in the whole history of the Church. You know very well, of course, that popes have abdicated, albeit very rarely. What were they afterward? Pope emeritus? Or what else?” He referred to the case of Pope Pius XII, who had prepared a resignation in case he was captured by the Nazis. “As you know, Pius XII had prepared a declaration in case the Nazis were to arrest him, that from the moment of the arrest he would no longer be pope but once again cardinal. “In my case it would certainly not have been sensible to simply claim a return to being cardinal. I would then have been constantly as exposed to the media as a cardinal is — even more so because people would have seen in me the former pope.” “Whether on purpose or not, this could have had difficult consequences, especially in the context of the current situation,” he added. Benedict added that he chose the title ‘pope emeritus’ to make it clear that he no longer holds the Petrine office. “With ‘pope emeritus,’ I tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely not accessible to the media and in which it is completely clear that there is only one pope,” he wrote. “If you know of a better way, and believe that you can judge the one I chose, please tell me.” In his second letter, Benedict said that a “new agitation is gradually being generated” which could inspire more books like Fabrizio Grasso’s ‘The Abdication’, which envisions a situation where multiple popes emeritus could dilute papal authority. “All this fills me with concern, and it was precisely because of this that the end of your F.A.Z. interview so unsettled me, because it would ultimately promote the same mood.” He concludes the letter: “Let’s pray, as you did with the end of your letter, that the Lord comes to the aid of his Church.” http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...enedict-xvi-rebukes-criticism-of-resignation/
I had no intention to deceive. I thought my post was clear that it was about the bad changes post-Vatican II. I don't think I questioned the validity of every pope. I was asking honest questions about what I had read, in what I believe to be a non-aggressive manner. Our Blessed Mother did say that 'the one who should speak will fall silent'. I have said this before and I will say it again - I will never leave our beloved Catholic Church.
Is he saying he chose the title Pope Emeritus to keep the press off his back? What difference would it make had he used the title Bishop Emeritus? Wouldn't any Bishop Emeritus of Rome automatically be a former Pope? Living in Vatican territory, protected by Vatican security and sharing a secretary with the reigning Pope is what keeps the press off his back. How would calling himself Pope Emeritus have spared him media attention had he chosen to live in Turin, Munich or anywhere else outside Vatican territory? Also, there's nothing to prevent us having three or four living Popes in the future should successive Popes opt to retire while other Popes Emeritus are still living.
I think we have to take the good man at his word....esp. since he's the one in the eye of the current hurricane. Very savvy!
I'm not doubting his word. I'm trying to make sense of what he said. It would help, I suppose, if we had the context. It looks like Cardinal Brandmuller gave an interview where he said something about Pope Benedict taking the title "Pope Emeritus"; the Pope Emeritus wrote to the Cardinal; the Cardinal replied with some kind of apology; and the Pope Emeritus replied to the Cardinal. Is that what happened, or have I added or subtracted something to/from the story?
I think what is upmost in the mind of Benedict is the protection of the Papacy itself. He knows that that is the real goal of the attacks. The walls were closing in on that during his papacy and he was too fragile in his make up to fight what was getting out of control. So he does not want anyone attempting to use him now as any focus for any new attempt to divide this follow-up papacy no matter the individual involved since the individual is only the mechanism to reach the supreme goal of eliminating the Church from the top....no papacy; no authentic church. Benedict also probably realizes that no matter how bad things appear he's weathered enough attempts or attacks over the decades to know that one person's time is limited....esp. when they are up in age and not physically in shape and even talking about also resigning. So now it's up to Francis with his own God given free will to be the one to "wield the keys" or not and then hold that responsibility before God. Benedict did his best and had his own deep reasons for doing what he did. He was thinking always for the continuance of the papacy itself rather than what could not be predicted for the future.
A very chariable response. I wish I could go along with it. He was never a stupid man, he knows who and what these people are. The best I can think of is that they have him tied down somewhere in chains. I wouldn;t put it past them.
It is so difficult. It's perfectly understandable that people are so angry about the governance of the Church and the people so responsible. However, I now find myself questioning the integrity of every cleric I see or read about. One could easily slip into paranoia. They can't all be working for satan. The notion they might be is one satan is actually trying to implant. These are truly terrible times. I can't offer any solutions. Apart from that one can only really trust Our Lord and His Mother, and the saints that have gone before us. Every man on this planet is potentially damnable. That is the Reality. But also potentially Saveable...Every man, thanks be to God.
A twisted attempt to enlist Benedict as 'defending' his successor. Note the usual weasel words, the anonymous 'some' and the 'seemed' usage. The biggest giveaway is the pathetic and dishonest attempt to link the 'current situation' with a document that seems to have emerged in 2017.
I am puzzled after reading the good cardinal's address. Nowhere does he criticize the Novus Ordo itself, but he lambasts those who recklessly implemented it with their own misguided intentions (some which were evil I dare say). Sarah has this to say about Pope Benedict: Pope Benedict XVI clearly explained that the purpose for his decision to have the two missals coexist was not only to satisfy the wishes of certain groups of the faithful who are attached to the liturgical forms prior to the Second Vatican Council, but also to allow for the mutual enrichment of the two forms of the same Roman rite, in other words, not only their peaceful coexistence but also the possibility of perfecting them by emphasizing the best features that characterize them. He wrote in particular that “the two Forms of the usage of the Roman rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal…. And then he personally states: Now it is enough to pick up the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy again and to read it honestly, without betraying its meaning, to see that the true purpose of the Second Vatican Council was not to start a reform that could become the occasion for a break with Tradition, but quite the contrary, to rediscover and to confirm Tradition in its deepest meaning. In fact, what is called “the reform of the reform”, which perhaps ought to be called more precisely “the mutual enrichment of the rites”, to use an expression from the Magisterium of Benedict XVI, is a primarily spiritual necessity. And it quite obviously concerns the two forms of the Roman rite. The particular care that should be brought to the liturgy, the urgency of holding it in high esteem and working for its beauty, its sacral character and keeping the right balance between fidelity to Tradition and legitimate development, and therefore rejecting absolutely and radically any hermeneutic of discontinuity or rupture: these essential elements are the heart of all authentic Christian liturgy. I think it is a mistake to look to Cardinal Sarah as an example of one who would say the one sensible thing to do would be to throw the Novus Ordo in the trash heap and solely return to the TLM. Anyone who thinks that, should read once more the complete text of his address. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
