https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/09/one-pope-refuses-apostolic-blessing.html?m=1 Some people noticed that the Apostolic Blessing was given at the end of Benedict XVI's letter, a privilege reserved for the pope (regular priests can impart this blessing at death or on three occasions during each year). Let the speculation begin! Was it an intentional hidden message, a mistake, or simply the right of a pope emeritus???
It is possible that Benedict knew that when he stepped down, those opposing him would elect a heretic. His message may be that while Francis is a validly elected Pope, that we should look to him and those who came before him for Truth and sound teaching.
Remembering Cardinal Brandmüller’s criticism of Pope Benedict’s resignation Maike Hickson https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...llers-criticism-of-pope-benedicts-resignation Cardinal Walter Brandmüller September 20, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, two letters from Pope Benedict XVI to an unnamed German cardinal were leaked. In these letters, the retired Pope defends himself against criticism of his decision to resign. In 2016 and 2017, it was Cardinal Walter Brandmüller who wrote his own public criticism of this papal resignation. “The resignation of a Pope is possible and has happened. But it is to be hoped that it never happens again,” were Cardinal Brandmüller’s specific and earnest words. As today Katholisch.de – the news website of the German bishops – points out, Cardinal Brandmüller, as a Church historian and former President of the Papal Commission for Historical Sciences, rebuked Pope Benedict XVI in a 2017 interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Cardinal Brandmüller said in that interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that “the ‘papa emeritus’ as a figure does not exist in the entire Church history.” It did “not only astonish the cardinals,” he adds, “that a Pope now comes and tumbles down a 2,000-year-old tradition.” For him, at the time, the news of Benedict's resignation seemed to be a pre-Lenten “carnival jest.” Earlier, in the summer of 2016, Cardinal Brandmüller made even more detailed remarks. At the time, there had been a discussion going on concerning Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s claims of a “continued mystical participation in the papacy” from the retired Pope. Brandmüller responded to this in an essay for the Italian journal Stato, Chiese, e pluralismo confessionale and said that such talk belongs to the realm “of uplifting speculations of religious poetry.” “A two-headed papacy would be a monstrosity,” adds Brandmüller. In his view, even if Canon Law permits it, it is “not necessarily morally permissible” for a Pope to resign. For such a step to be taken, there should exist clear objective reasons that aim at the good of the Church. Since the primacy of the Petrine Office is of a mere legal nature – unlike an ordained sacramental office – his resignation also effects legal aspects of the Petrine Office, explains the Cardinal. Thus, the retired Pope is “not any more Bishop of Rome, not Pope, and also not a Cardinal.” Cardinal Brandmüller regrets that Pope Benedict’s resignation gave a wrong impression, namely that “the unique and holy” office of the Pope has now been leveled down to one similar to a democratic office. Such a “secular-political understanding” contains the further danger of future calls for other Popes to resign. “It is possible that a Pope resigns, and it has been done. But it is to be hoped that it will never happen again,” said Brandmüller. For a resignation to be licit and also morally permitted, there has to be a just reason for it. “A bond that is so close such as the one between Pope and Church, must not be dissolved arbitrarily,” the Church historian explains with reference to an earlier discussion of this matter back in the time of Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303). In order to be able to ascertain that a Pope has made a free and thus valid decision to resign, Cardinal Brandmüller proposes the College of Cardinals be involved in the process. Furthermore, the German prelate also reflects upon the specific status of such a retired Pope. Such a Pope could, for example, become a Cardinal without an active or passive right to elect another Pope and he should therefore take again his family name, instead of keeping his papal name, so as to avoid the impression that there are “two Popes.” Additionally, the question of the clothing of the retired Pope, his residence, and his later burial – as well as his social and media contacts – should all be clearly regulated so that “any danger for the unity of the Church would be excluded,” according to Brandmüller. The Gänswein speech of May 2016 – in which the archbishop spoke about an “expanded petrine ministry” with regard to the retired Pope Benedict XVI – caused an extended debate in Germany as to how such a papal resignation could and should look, and what a retired Pope should do. Church historians and journalists consider the current situation and confusion concerning two Popes to be “an unending story.”
I would read that differently. I interpret it as an almost complete return to the Old Mass, but being open to a limited amount of organic change, which has always happened. If I recall, Archbishop Fulton Sheen favoured the introduction of a limited amount of vernacular. Cardinal Sarah is also limited to the bounds of trying to achieve what is possible. It might take decades, even longer, to restore the Mass to its former glory. His modest proposal of ad orientem got nowhere.
I think Poor Micahel is like many people totally lost in the midst of this mess in the Church and hasn't a clue what to make of things.. When he was a young man in New York he pottered about with the occult and his appartment got haunted by a demon. I think this stays with him. He is fascinated with all this. I always loved 'Spirit Daily', I read it every day, but at the moment I find it often infuriating. 'Mystic Post' is a lot worse but. I have nearly decided to stop reading it several times. 'Sprit Digest' is very good about Church matters thought it is very political in tone.
Yes I used to read Spirit daily avidly but no more. It has become problematic and yes he gets very into the preternatural. Sometimes rather strangely I think.
A winnowing, the sheep going one way the goats another. A Sign of the TImes. How awful to wake up in hell and wonder how you got there. But hopefully when they see the Holy Sacrifice of the mass being put an End too they will wake up to the truth. I hope so , I really, really do hope so.
Would that have been on the point of obedience? I ask because I have no idea. I think we must accept that there is room for variation within orthodoxy. The Catholic Church is not rigorist, and it would not be in keeping, in my opinion, with her tradition to insist that the Old Mass must be restored immediately and exactly as it was before Vatican II. It may well be, in time, but it would be an error to make this an absolute pre-condition. There are many perfectly orthodox Catholics who would not be ready to accept the EF of the Mass. It would be tragic to create unnecessary division for the sake of excessive haste. I think that simply having the priest face towards God rather than the people would alone create a considerable increase in reverence. If it became a common practice, other reversions to tradition might quickly become popular.
I have a quote from Bishop Sheen somewhere and will look it up and post it. Give me some time. I also think that there will be some folks who disagree with me in the matter, and I am not willing to have a whole can of worms opened AGAIN, but I question the Apostolic Succession if there is disobedience. I will find the quote.
Sg, To answer your question above, all I am saying here is that I am not certain of this and that the Rorate Caeli article is not proof of such. It may very well be the case but the Rorate Caeli article does not mention the Vatican II Council at all. I think in Mario's post above he provided even more proof that "Cardinal Sarah clearly supports the ordinary form". With that said, I do realize that Cardinal Sarah favors the Extraordinary form but ultimately my point with you from the beginning of this discussion is that you are only focusing on the negative in both of these articles that you highlighted, that is the RC article and the CWR article. I don't think that it helps the Church to focus only on the negative especially when there are clergy like Cardinal R. Sarah and others who are diligently working on making positive changes in the Church. Yes, the resistance that they are receiving is at an all time high under the current pontificate but I don't think that I am wrong when I state that you appear to think that everything since the Vatican II Council has been bad for the Church and maybe you can provide proof which shows otherwise? To answer your other question above, you should read my following post #9223 . No, but I think that we all need to be very careful that we don't appear to be promoting the messages of others who are. I also believe that it is very dangerous for any Catholic to appear to be damning everything that has occurred in the Church since Vatican II. I am suggesting that you look for the good or you will appear to be at odds with the Church and all of the good clergymen who have continued to fight for the Truth. I apologize about this if your intention was not to deceive but I standby my opinion that your post was not very clear. I said that you questioned the validity of every pope since Vatican II, you created the following thread, http://motheofgod.com/threads/pius-xii-himself-said-he-was-the-last-pope.11408/ and defended this position. I am glad that you will never leave the Catholic Church but I think that it is also important that we don't defend positions which would encourage others to do so.
This is a slippery slope for everyone. There are many things we do not know and may never know. God knows—and in His own time He will reveal it—or not. The important thing is charity! People of deep faith and good will see what has happened since VII and see a diabolical influence. That is not devilish. That is just putting facts together through observation. Please let’s all be careful calling out each other on these things. We are all agreed the s devacantists are misled and dangerously wrong but I don’t see SG endorsing the sedevacantist position. Let us give each other a lot of slack here. Just sayin’.
Isn't there a distinction between 'illicit' and 'invalid'? In other words, a disobedient bishop might be deemed illicit, but he'd still be a valid bishop and a true heir of the Apostolic Succession? And thanks for looking that matter up. There is no hurry.
You make a worthy point, DeGaulle. I was at Holy Mass a week or so ago, at at church I haven't visited in years. The Holy Mass was valid, but contained so many illicit acts I felt like screaming. And so, when SgCatholic encourages us to return to the TLM, I can understand why. On the other hand, I have mentioned my own pastor who celebrates the Novus Ordo with great reverence. One can immerse oneself in the presence of the Eternal Sacrifice without distraction. It brings to mind three passages from SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM which I brought up during my diaconate training; my questions were not adequately answered. It was almost a moment of embarrassment. 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. 2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. 54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution. Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. 116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as distinctive of the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. Obviously, Latin was to still to be given a predominant place in the Novus Ordo. Liturgically speaking, the Council is not at fault. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
I would love a NO Mass that has more Latin. The Orthodox Christians of the East have had a liturgical language for centuries, and they have kept their faith with no problems, even under Islam. The vernacular push came from Protestantism. Just saying. A return to Latin at least in part would be good.
gracia, A mass like the following said by Padre Pio perhaps, . Glenn just posted this video on his Garabandal thread. Thanks again Glenn.
I think Carol clarified her point about posts that encourage OTHERS on a slippery slope, rather, as being less than saintly. Let us not forget that division is from the devil. I have seen too many posts that lambaste the Popes since VII, including them and the works of their papacies in a general negative light. Generalizations. Picking and choosing what to post and highlight. It is bordering on sedevacantism to negate so much of what has been done in the Church since 1965 without investigation. By investigation, I mean scholarly research, not just blanket posts from biased websites and blogs. I think that is what is meant here.
Concern trolling gets people off the focus of their group, and focused on the one who has introduced some concerns, and these concerns can be inflammatory.
