Benedict XVI discourse from the White House

Here is the Holy Father’s talk from the White House.   My emphases and comments.

Mr. President,

Thank you for your gracious words of welcome on behalf of the people of the United States of America. I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit this great country. My visit coincides with an important moment in the life of the Catholic community in America: the celebration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the elevation of the country’s first Diocese – Baltimore – to a metropolitan Archdiocese, and the establishment of the Sees of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville. Yet I am happy to be here as a guest of all Americans. I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society. America’s Catholics have made, and continue to make, an excellent contribution to the life of their country. As I begin my visit, I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal and hope for the Church in the United States, and strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.  [My constant refrain here at WDTPRS has been to point out that Benedict is working to reinvigorate Catholic identity.  This will serve to help Catholics know who they are and therefore live properly (this is the ad intra component) and therefore, as a consequence, have more to contribute in the public square (the ad extra) component.  Faithful Catholics are being shoved off of the public square unless they "go wobbly".  The Holy Father is therefore also aiming to put some calcium back into the backbones of some more prominent public Catholics.]

From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. [Natural law, which cuts across all faiths.] The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations.

In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America’s Catholic community, but with other Christian communities and representatives of the many religious traditions present in this country. Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. [Catholics must also have their voice in the public square.   But they first must have something Catholic to say!] As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. [Right.  Freedom must not be seen as mere liberty to do what you want, but rather to do what is right.] Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. [There it is!] In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that "in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation", [This is something that Catholics must come to unerstand.  Again, liturgy is the tip of the spear in reminding Catholics of the deep truth of this.  Save the liturgy - save the world.] and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent "indispensable supports" of political prosperity.

The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27). She is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling, and the hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders [! - Such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- CA) who with a broad smile kissed the Pope's ring at the White House?] and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.

For well over a century, the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. On Friday, God willing, I will have the honor of addressing the United Nations Organization, where I hope to encourage the efforts under way to make that institution an ever more effective voice for the legitimate aspirations of all the world’s peoples. On this, the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the need for global solidarity is as urgent as ever, if all people are to live in a way worthy of their dignity – as brothers and sisters dwelling in the same house and around that table which God’s bounty has set for all his children. America has traditionally shown herself generous in meeting immediate human needs, fostering development and offering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress. In this way, coming generations will be able to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can flourisha world where the God-given dignity and rights of every man, woman and child are cherished, protected and effectively advanced.

Mr. President, dear friends: as I begin my visit to the United States, I express once more my gratitude for your invitation, my joy to be in your midst, and my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America!

Ironically, as the Holy Father was being driven to the White House, the Supreme Court upheld 7-2 the legality of execution by lethal injection.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion.

I particularly enjoyed Pres. Bush saying that "each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary".

I suspect that the President and Holy Father will be speaking about issues of religious liberty in those areas where the US has been active militarily.

I liked the FoxNews coverage of the event.  They commenters (with one exception) were quite and let us hear and see what was going on.

We had the opportunity in this unparalleled event to hear the Marine Corps Band play the Anthem of the Holy See, with Ruffles and Fluishes, and then join with the Army Men’s  Chorus for The Battle Hymn of the Republic at the White House in front of the President of the United States and the Vicar of Christ.

It doesn’t get better than that.

 

Here are some video excerpts:

[flv]08_04_16_B16_WhiteHouse01.flv[/flv]

And another from TG24 in Italian:

[flv]08_04_16_B16_WhiteHouse02.flv[/flv]

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to Benedict XVI discourse from the White House

  1. Cliff says:

    Wow Fr. Z, quick response! I also found the president’s Latin endearing.

  2. Diane says:

    I was so glad to be able to read this during my lunch hour. I don’t know abotu anyone else, but it is painful to not be able to soak all of this up as it is happening. Thank God for blogs, EWTN and many other resources that recap it all for us.

    I like how he wove George Washington into his speech and went to the core of what our founding fathers intended. It has gotten so lost these days.

  3. Jeff Pinyan says:

    I’m looking forward to His Holiness’s address to the Bishops later today.

  4. Flambeaux says:

    Ironic, how, Fr. Z?

  5. Dan J says:

    I am glad that someone caught onto the fact that Nancy Pelosi who decides to go against the teachings of the Church all of the time decides to act like she is a faithful Catholic and go and kiss the ring of Peter, can someone say hypocritical woman … hmm. I would like to see what the press makes out of the President’s speech.

  6. Small request, Father?

    Because of the pattern by which I read news, your blog is the most likely place that I will first see the full text of a papal statement like this one.

    With other things you quote, where you add emphasis and intersperse your comments, I always find your additions very helpful to my understanding.

    I know it’s your blog, and you should run it your way, but when it’s the Holy Father, is there any chance that you’d consider moving your in-line commentary down to the bottom of the post? The Pope’s remarks are so clear that your comments are making it harder for me to get what he’s saying.

    Thanks!

  7. Ioannes says:

    If lethal injection is constitutional, I hope the Supreme Court declares it so. It’s the job of the electorate and its representatives to change the statute or Constitution if either is immoral.

  8. Aelric says:

    Perhaps Ms. Pelosi ought to read Lk. 22:48

    48 And Jesus said to him: Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?

  9. Cosmos says:

    Wonderful words from the Pope.

    On the “irony” of the Supreme Court Decision… I am taking a Shakespeare from a prominent Catholic Natural Law professor, and cannot help but notice that yet another group of previous Christians simply did not see war, the death penalty, etc., in anything resembling the modern Catholic paradigm. I understand that the Church has shifted/developed its teaching in this area at one level or another, but I am slightly miffed by the constant emotional/rhetorical appeal of those who embrace this anti-capital punishment position. It as if the new-teacching is supposed to be self-evident and completelt satisfying to any balanced person. It seems to me, like billions of Christians before me, that capital punishment is understandable and in line with a robust understanding of the state and even charity. I will accept the Church’s nuanced teaching, but do I have to feel it instantly and instinctually?

  10. Eric says:

    Anybody know where one could find a transcript of President Bush\’s remarks to go along with Pope Benedict’s? Thanks

  11. Diane says:

    Aerlic: Perhaps Ms. Pelosi ought to read Lk. 22:48

    48 And Jesus said to him: Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?

    In a related matter is how Benedict tolerated that kiss. From St. Augustine on “Patience”:

    That, namely, must be patience put up with, which must not be in haste put away. Of this patience Himself afforded and showed an example, when, before the passion of His Body, He so bore with His disciple Judas, that ere He pointed him out as the traitor, He endured him as a thief; and before experience of bonds and cross and death, did, to those lips so full of guile, not deny the kiss of peace.

  12. Tom says:

    Father Z wrote: “My constant refrain here at WDTPRS has been to point out that Benedict is working to reinvigorate Catholic identity. Again, liturgy is the tip of the spear in reminding Catholics of the deep truth of this. Save the liturgy – save the world.”

    Father, Popes Paul VI and John Paul II worked to reinvigorate Catholic identity. Pope John Paul II travelled the world to reinvigorate Catholic identity.

    To borrow your term, Pope Paul VI enacted a “Marshall Plan” to “reinvigorate” the Church. Pope John Paul II enacted a Marshall Plan to reinvigorate the Church. You have written often of Pope Benedict XVI’s “Marshall Plan” to reinvigorate the Church…to reinvigorate Catholic identity.

    Pope Paul VI’s Marshall Plan failed. Pope John Paul II’s Marshall Plan failed.

    Pope Benedict XVI’s Marshall Plan, at least regarding the Latin Church, will fail unless the centerpiece of said Marshall Plan revolves around the Pope’s (and Latin Church’s) return to the Traditional Latin Mass.

    Father, I agree with your theme…”Save the liturgy – save the world.”

    But at least regarding the Roman Liturgy…save (and return to) the Traditional Latin Mass — save the World.

    Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic visit to the United States failed to reinvigorate Catholic identity. The same applied to Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic visits to the United States.

    The same will apply to Pope Benendict XVI’s Apostolic visit to the United States…unless the Holy Father promotes the Traditional Latin Mass to Catholics (Roman Rite) in America.

    Pax.

  13. Gregg the obscure says:

    Excerpts from this statement would make great dustjacket blurbs for Archbishop Chaput’s upcoming book “Render Unto Caesar”. He’s saying much the same thing that Leo XIII said in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, but using more of the medicine of mercy than that of severity.

  14. Paul Priest says:

    I think there was a lot more charitable , compassionate, understanding and inspirational ‘irony’ in this speech than you have provisionally perceived, Father.
    All too often [and deeply regrettably], Catholic Americans inadvertently, through indolence of intellect and lack of insight, become American “Catholics”.
    There is a vast difference between authentic national pride and a wilful [if somewhat naiive] indifference and oblivious ignorance of the needs, sentiments and interests of one’s neighbour : I’m sure it is with the deepest of sadness; yet with a heartfelt sincerity; that His Holiness feels compelled to gently coerce the listener to recognize this.

  15. RBrown says:

    Father, Pope Paul VI . . . worked to reinvigorate Catholic identity.

    He did? Boy, you could have fooled me.

    To borrow your term, Pope Paul VI enacted a “Marshall Plan” to “reinvigorate” the Church.

    If the real Marshall Plan had been anything like the “Marshall Plan” of Paul VI, Europe would still be starving.

    Pope Benedict XVI’s Marshall Plan, at least regarding the Latin Church, will fail unless the centerpiece of said Marshall Plan revolves around the Pope’s (and Latin Church’s) return to the Traditional Latin Mass.
    Comment by Tom

    I would say that it hinges on the return to Latin liturgy and mass ad orientem. In so far as the neither are to be found in the way the Novus Ordo is commonly celebrated, then I would agree about the importance of the use of the 1962 Missal.

    BTW, a common complaint about JPII is that he had no adminstrative inclinations, thus no plan, Marshall or otherwise.

  16. Christian says:

    “Ironically, as the Holy Father was being driven to the White House, the Supreme Court upheld 7-2 the legality of execution by lethal injection. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion.”

    I see not irony here. Opposition to Capital punishment is all well and good but it is NOT a teaching of the Church. It NEVER has been and NEVER will be because nothing in either Scripture or Tradition bans the practice in principle.

    I am personally against the death penalty in modern, developed, democratic states because I do not see any need for it. The risk of executing and innocent person is too great. I do, however, object to the Church becoming openly associated with opposition to the practice, it is nothing more than a political opinion. The present US law does not contradict Natural or Divine Law.

  17. Tom: But at least regarding the Roman Liturgy…save (and return to) the Traditional Latin Mass—save the World.

    I don’t think you have read very carefully what I have been writing for months on this blog and in the press, and in the interviews I have done with any number of outlets.

    I think the use of the older form of Mass will have a profound effect. You seem to be saying that I think the older form should replace the newer form.

    Can you find anywhere where I have written that?

    Someone who would attribute that to me simply hasn’t been paying attention.

  18. Cacciaguida says:

    Actually, the lethal injection decision was 7-2 only on the outcome. The decision was fragmented as heck, with no opinion “of the Court” properly speaking. Here’s who voted how, copied directly from the slip opinion:

    ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which KENNEDY and ALITO, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined.

    Me again: I would echo those who have pointed out that the issue for the Court was not whether lethal injection is a good idea, or whether the death penalty is a good idea, but whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits lethal injection. Those who oppose it, or who oppose the death penalty in general, are as free as they were yesterday to lobby to abolish them.

    As a Catholic lawyer, I’ve always found bizarre the idea that a constitution is inadequate unless it abolishes everything bad, or authorizes judges to do so.

  19. Cristhian says:

    That was a very deep speech. First of all because he use the strategy of Pius XII “Talk about the issue but dont talk about the people who did it.”, so the message is clear if you read and listen with attention.

  20. ben says:

    Wasn’t it the diocese of Bardstown that was created 200 years ago, and not the diocese of Louisville?

  21. Sam Schmitt says:

    Tom,

    What makes you so sure that Paul VI and John Paul II have “failed”? 30 or 40 years is an awfully short time for the Church. By your standard any pope is doomed to failure since the chances of the traditional Latin mass becoming normative in the next 30 or 40 years are pretty slim (unless, perhaps, it is mandated and the ordinary form forbidden, but we don’t want to make that mistake again).

  22. Chris says:

    Did anyone else notice that the woman sang the protestant version of the Pater Noster???

  23. Adam says:

    Ben,
    The Diocese of Bardstown was indeed founded 200 years ago but within a few short years (35 or so) it had been moved to Louisville. The diocese is still honored as the same one, because it was under the same bishop (Benedict Flaget) that it moved and that it was founded. Both our cathedrals (the one in Bardstown and in Louisville) were blessed by Flaget in some way, not to mention they both still stand. Bardstown was thought to have been a place that was going to grow but when its growth came to an abrupt halt and Louisville’s continued, the Pope saw that the change made sense.

  24. Mark says:

    I too noticed the irony of “Judy” Pelosi kissing the ring of Peter.

    I would have loved it if the Holy Father had called a private meeting with all the so-called practising Catholics in Congress to remind them of the Church’s Doctrinal Teachings. Perhaps he offered a little seminar:

    A Catechesis for Congress – A Short Course on the Non-Negotiables of the Catholic Faith.

    Just a thought…

  25. James Leach says:

    I agree with Pelosi politically. America is a pluralistic society, and Catholic
    views about abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia should not be imposed by
    the federal government. Instead of comparing her to Judas, she should viewed
    as Thomas More standing up for one’s conscience. Any Catholic can disagree with
    the Magisterium conscientiously.

  26. Gregg the obscure says:

    “Catholic views about abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia should not be imposed by
    the federal government.”

    Well, they shouldn’t be imposed because they’re specifically Catholic. They should be imposed forcefully because they are humane and universally true and the opposing views are everything but humane and true.

  27. Vox Borealis says:

    James Leach,

    Uh oh…

  28. Jim says:

    I agree with Pelosi politically. America is a pluralistic society, and Catholic
    views on abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia should not be imposed by any
    federal or state statute. Instead of being compared to Judas, she should be
    compared to Thomas More who held to his conscience’s dictates rather than
    parliamentary decree. All Catholics have the right and obligation to disagree
    even with the Magisterium when a properly formed conscience mandates it!

  29. TJM says:

    Jim, your St. Thomas More point is the opposite of what you suggest. St. Thomas More resigned his office as Chancellor rather than participate
    or enforce evil laws. I guess by that logic, Ms. Pelosi, an alleged Catholic, should resign as Speaker. Tom

  30. Vox Borealis says:

    So, James Leach and Jim are the same people, posting under different names, right? Even slightly reworded, the post presents a troubling understanding of Catholic conscience.

  31. Michael says:

    “America is a pluralistic society, and Catholic
    views about abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia should not be imposed by
    the federal government.”

    Why not? Is it because, as St. Thomas teaches, the state may tolerate an evil (he was speaking of other religeons, as I recall) if preventing it would cause greater harm to the common good than it would prevent? Or is it because you do not believe that the Church has the moral authority to declare these actions morally evil?

    “Instead of comparing her to Judas, she should viewed
    as Thomas More standing up for one’s conscience”

    Except that the analogy does not hold up. St. Thomas Moore had a properly formed conscience. Nancy Pelosi … does not.

    “Any Catholic can disagree with
    the Magisterium conscientiously.”

    On a practical level, I suppose you are correct. Disagreement is not preventable, after all. Still, if you are saying what I think you are saying though, its called Heresy will result in eternal damnation unless one repents.

  32. JP says:

    James Leach dishonors the memory of St. Thomas More, who died a martyr for adhering to the Catholic faith in the face of threats and usurpations of the Church’s prerogatives by the secular power. If St. Thomas More had listened to James Leach and followed Nancy Pelosi’s example, he’d not be a martyr and wouldn’t be a canonised saint.

    So, America is a pluralistic society, and Catholic views about abortion, homosexual “marriage,” and euthanasia should not be imposed by the federal government, eh? Why stop there? What about Catholic views on race? Should all those nuns and priests and laity have stayed home during the 50s and 60s rather than take part in the civil rights movement? Since American is a pluralistic society, mustn’t we allow people and institutions and governments to racially discriminate if they wish? That must be what you believe, James, since you think it is wrong for laws to be enacted in the U.S. that agree with Catholic teaching.

    Lastly, it’s impossible for a “properly formed” conscience to disagree with the Magisterium on killing unborn babies, homosexual mockery of marriuage, and killing people for being sick, disabled, or elderly

  33. Volpius says:

    And pray tell how can you be sure that your conscience is properly formed and is not rather corrupted by sin? God gave us shepherds for a reason you know.

    As for Pelosi been like St. Thomas More, well that would be funny if it wasn’t such an insult to his memory, St Thomas More was executed for the Catholic Faith, he allowed the teaching’s of the Magisterium to form his conscience, I pray that Pelosi will do the same.

  34. Chironomo says:

    “…and Catholic views on abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia should not be imposed by any federal or state statute…”

    However, it’s perfectly OK if Nancy Pelosi’s views on these issues are imposed by federal and state statutes?…come on! In order for that to be true, these would have to be neither allowed nor banned… a form of anarchy that is enethema to Democracy.

  35. Larry Brooks says:

    Well Fr. Z you got it on the web first! I looked for the Pope’s speech and you are first. I watched the ceremony on EWTN. I was particularly struck by the wonderful speeh by President Bush. I have never heard an American President more clearly state this great Nation’s reliance on faith and religious belief and prayer; truly magnificent. I was so impressed that I was not really focused by the time His Holiness spoke so I was happy to find his words on your blog. Pardon if I ignored the red and read the black!

    I really see no irony in the Supreme Court’s action this A.M. because it does not refute Church teaching as such. Perhaps it is sad that the Court would release the decision at that particular mooment.

    While I saw the Secretary of State, Ms. Rice and other members of the Cabinet I did not see any members of Congress or did I miss something? At any rate it was wonderful to witness history being made on our soil! It was truly a great moment and President Bush is to be congratulaed and THANKED (by e-mail; snailmail or whatever for demonstrating his admiration of Pope Benedict.

  36. Chris Molter says:

    Let us hope that Ms. Pelosi’s meeting with the Holy Father causes her to reconsider her positions that are anathema to Catholic teaching. Not holding my breath, though.

  37. Justin says:

    Tom – seriously, it’s becoming cumborsome how non-Catholics come and tell us all that is wrong in our Church and how Christ and his Vicar will fail his Church. There must be other non-Catholic blogs where you can gleefuly spout your anti-catholic rhetoric.

  38. Mary says:

    I guess I can find this out later on a computer that has speaker, but what *is* the Holy See’s national anthem?

  39. Geoffrey says:

    Why is there so much debating and bickering going on? The Vicar of Christ is visiting this country. Let us thank God for that great blessing. Laudetur Iesus Christus! Viva il Papa!

  40. Michael Christopher says:

    Jim,
    Your support for Ms. Pelosi’s politics is simply weird. Her views are simply opposed to what is logical as well as moral. Gay marriage leads to a deadend. Marriage is for procreation and education of children, not merely sexual release. Abortion by the same token destroys human life. Euthanasia further diminishes the meaning of the human person. These things violate the natural law not simply Church teaching. They also smack of the very things we fought to overcome when they were imposed by the state in Germany and Japan as well as Russia China etc. IN short you are supporing the very essence of Atheism and that is an imposition of the Atheist religion on us by law. A very bad idea indeed.

  41. jarhead462 says:

    Nancy “The Mask” is as Catholic as the Dali Lama

    Semper Fi!

  42. Michael says:

    “Tom – seriously, it’s becoming cumborsome how non-Catholics come and tell us all that is wrong in our Church and how Christ and his Vicar will fail his Church. There must be other non-Catholic blogs where you can gleefuly spout your anti-catholic rhetoric.”

    Making a statement regarding the effectiveness of the Holy Fathers prudential decisions renders one a “non-Catholic?

  43. Paul Priest says:

    No Michael – having opinions [and acting accordingly in ways] which are diammetrically opposed to everything the Church – The Mystical Body of Christ – deems absolutely necessary for authentic adherence to one’s Baptismal identity in regards to Life, Love and Truth [The Person of Christ] – renders one outside the communion of the faithful. People can be as bemusingly hostile and antagonistic towards His Holiness as they wish – providing it’s against him as a person or his ‘brand’ of catholicism – but when they contravene catholic doctrine and morals with their own pragmatic relativism, sacrilegious liturgical disrespect or conspiracy with the culture of contraception or death – well they’re on a hiding to nothing !

  44. Justin says:

    “Making a statement regarding the effectiveness of the Holy Fathers prudential decisions renders one a “non-Catholic?”
    I just assumed he was a non-Catholic from his vitroil against the Popes. But even if he was a Catholic – well saying that the Holy Father is wrong is one thing (although one should always be humble in the face of the Vicar of Christ who possesses grace and wisdom from the Holy Spirit). Speaking of the collapse of the Church on the other hand makes a mockery of Christ’s promises – that’s not Catholicism. That’s what the Protestants do.

  45. Le Renard says:

    Michael,

    I believe the person in question said precisely:

    “There must be other non-Catholic blogs where you can gleefuly spout your anti-catholic rhetoric.””

    With respect to what you’ve said, Catholics (unfortunately) can spout as much anti-Catholic rants as much as as non-Catholics.

    Just look at ultra-traditionalist websites that have declared Pope John Paul II & Pope Benedict XVI as heretics.

  46. Peter says:

    Once said of Senator Liberman: “All Yarmulka, no Torah.”

    Now to be said of Senator Pelosi: “All ring kiss, no Catechism.”

  47. Angelo says:

    The Holy Father stated:
    “In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations.”
    =====================================================================
    From the zeal & love of the Catholic Faith of Queen Isabel & Christopher Columbus to the Franciscan & Jesuits missionaries, the driving force in the discovery, exploration, settlement & evangelization of the New World was the desire to plant the seeds of the Catholic Faith in America. The fruits of the evangelization of the New World began to materialize almost immediately with the arrival of the Franciscans to the shores of the Americas. They were the first to denounce racial slavery that was becoming prevalent. The destiny of American was to be Catholic until the incursions of the Anglican & Calvinists derailed that destiny. Each year, Catholics commemorate the heroic efforts of the eight Jesuits martyrs by making a pilgrimage to the Shrine of the North American Martyrs in Auriesville, New York; each year they make a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Fr Padilla the first
    Franciscan martyr on American soil. And let us not forget St. Junipero Serra & the Franciscan Missions of California; Fr Antonio Margil, Apostle of Central America, Mexico and Texas; and the Franciscan Missionary State in North Florida and the Franciscan Martyrs of South Carolina.
    No, it was these missionaries who forged the soul of this nation and it was the Holy Catholic Faith which was its inspiration.

  48. Bruce says:

    “Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. [Right. Freedom must not be seen as mere liberty to do what you want, but rather to do what is right.] ”

    “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” – G.K. Chesterton

  49. RBrown says:

    I agree with Pelosi politically. America is a pluralistic society, and Catholic views on abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia should not be imposed by any federal or state statute. Instead of being compared to Judas, she should be compared to Thomas More who held to his conscience’s dictates rather than parliamentary decree.

    Your approach would also have supported slavery in 1860.

    All Catholics have the right and obligation to disagree even with the Magisterium when a properly formed conscience mandates it!
    Comment by Jim

    By definition, a properly formed conscience never disagrees with the Magisterium.

  50. Michael says:

    “I just assumed he was a non-Catholic from his vitroil against the Popes. But even if he was a Catholic – well saying that the Holy Father is wrong is one thing (although one should always be humble in the face of the Vicar of Christ who possesses grace and wisdom from the Holy Spirit). Speaking of the collapse of the Church on the other hand makes a mockery of Christ’s promises – that’s not Catholicism. That’s what the Protestants do.”

    You and he must have some history then. I was not aware of it. What he wrote – on this thread – comes nowhere near “vitroil against the Popes”. You may have some special insight due to your history that allows you to know what he really means when he says that Pope Paul VI’s attempt to reinvigorate the Church failed, but I certainly would not characterize his statements as you have.

  51. Ken says:

    I just returned from the White House and post-event celebrations — it is like a well-dressed March for Life here in D.C.

    To see dozens of the bishops/cardinals wear their cassocks, zuchettos, etc. is quite impressive — and even several priests on the White House lawn were in cassock and collar.

    The president’s staff and military ought to be commended for playing the musix the pope likes, and not their own preferences. They Bach’ed on, and it was beautiful.

    If only the Archdiocese of Washington would do that tomorrow…

  52. RBrown says:

    So, James Leach and Jim are the same people, posting under different names, right? Even slightly reworded, the post presents a troubling understanding of Catholic conscience.
    Comment by Vox Borealis

    His concept of conscience can be used to justify anything that anyone ever wants to do.

  53. ben says:

    Adam,

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Bishop Flaget was truly a great man. He is one of the most important leaders in the history of the Church in America. Weren’t something like 1/3 of the current doicese’ in the country carved out of what originally belonged to Bardstown? Don’t her daughters include such stars as Detroit, Chicago, Cincinatti, Milwaukee and St. Paul?

  54. RBrown says:

    Why not? Is it because, as St. Thomas teaches, the state may tolerate an evil (he was speaking of other religeons, as I recall) if preventing it would cause greater harm to the common good than it would prevent? Or is it because you do not believe that the Church has the moral authority to declare these actions morally evil?
    Comment by Michael

    I think the text from St Thomas re tolerance of evil concerned whether or not the state should take measures to stop prostitution.

  55. Jason L. Keener says:

    Jim stated, “America is a pluralistic society, and Catholic views about abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia should not be imposed by the federal government.”

    I wholeheartedly disagree.

    While the Catholic Church rightly teaches about the evils of abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia, these are not strictly issues of the Catholic Faith or religion. Any Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist, or agnostic of good will can understand that abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia are gravely harmful to the common good of society. One then doesn’t have to be a Catholic, or a person of any faith background, to understand this.

    Moreover, the government should most definitely outlaw abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia because they are evils contrary to the common good. While we live in a pluralistic society, our governmental leaders impose their ideas, wills, and laws on us all of the time. That is why we elect them!

    If we accept our government’s right to criminalize and punish offences like speeding, drunk driving, stealing, and rape, why would it be so illogical for the government to also rightfully legislate on matters like abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia—matters that are just as or even more harmful to society?

  56. I am glad that someone caught onto the fact that Nancy Pelosi who decides to go against the teachings of the Church all of the time decides to act like she is a faithful Catholic and go and kiss the ring of Peter, can someone say hypocritical woman … hmm. I would like to see what the press makes out of the President’s speech.
    Comment by Dan J
    Perhaps Ms. Pelosi ought to read Lk. 22:48
    48 And Jesus said to him: Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?
    Comment by Aelric
    I too noticed the irony of “Judy” Pelosi kissing the ring of Peter.
    I would have loved it if the Holy Father had called a private meeting with all the so-called practising Catholics in Congress to remind them of the Church’s Doctrinal Teachings. Perhaps he offered a little seminar:
    A Catechesis for Congress – A Short Course on the Non-Negotiables of the Catholic Faith.
    Just a thought…
    Comment by Mark

    I hope all of you are also willing to ridicule other Catholics.

    I notice that not one person mentioned the vote of Judge Roberts, a Catholic whose vote contradicted Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. The conservatives are waging an unjust war that is killing thousands of innocent people, yet pro-conservative (politics) Catholics are never willing to hold them accountable to Catholic teaching. There are numerous Republicans who are practicing homosexuals, who employ fellow practicing homosexuals, yet their obligations to Catholic teaching are not held for ridicule. Does anyone mention that Harriet Myers turned her back on the One True Faith?

    Clinging to the anti-abortion mantra (I’m not advocating abortions) while our country, fellow Catholics are walking around unclothed, hungry, imprisoned, sick without healthcare is no better than “cafeteria Catholics” selecting what they wish.

    “…I particularly enjoyed Pres. Bush saying that “each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

    I trust not a evangelical, who changes religious affiliation with the blowing of the wind. Go ahead, ask the president, “What do you think of the Catholic teaching regarding the Ever Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption into heaven.” After hearing his answer, tell me how he is such a great conservative holding to Christian teachings.

  57. Matthew says:

    Thanks, Fr. Z., for the mp3 of the Marine Band. I just wish EWTN hadn’t talked over it. :-P

  58. CK says:

    I am so touched that President Bush gave the “red carpet treatment” to our Holy Father, Pope Benedict. He doesn’t do that for just anybody. :) I so enjoyed the Battle Hymn of the Republic and hearing Pope Benedict XVI say God Bless America.

  59. JP says:

    Christopher said: I hope all of you are also willing to ridicule other Catholics.

    It’s not ridicule, it’s appropriate criticism of a Catholic political leader’s disregard for Catholic teachings and universal moral obligations.

    I notice that not one person mentioned the vote of Judge Roberts, a Catholic whose vote contradicted Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life.

    Did it? There’s nothing in Catholic teaching that says lethal injection must be classified as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.” Nor is there anything is Catholic teaching that says a nation may not make use of the death penalty – quite the contrary.

    The conservatives are waging an unjust war that is killing thousands of innocent people.

    Whether or not the war is unjust, it’s not “the conservatives” who are waging it — it’s the United States of America and allies. Also, perhaps one reason Catholics of a conservative political persuasion don’t hold “the conservatives” accountable for waging an unjust war is because they may not believe it is an unjust war.

    our country, fellow Catholics are walking around unclothed, hungry, imprisoned, sick without healthcare

    Not sure which country you live in. Usually people in the U.S. walk around clothed, except for nudists. Anyway I don’t know of any Catholics who agree with what the Church says about abortion but who aren’t also involved in feeding the hungry or caring for the sick. However, I’ve met a few Catholics who pretty much think feeding the hungry and caring for the sick (or getting the federal government to do it for us so we won’t have to do it ourselves) are really what matter, whereas unborn babies should continue to be slaughtered.

    After hearing his answer, tell me how he is such a great conservative holding to Christian teachings.

    President Bush isn’t especially conservative, politically speaking, and while it’s hardly news that he’s not a Catholic (belief in the Immaculate Conception has never been a calling card of political conservatism, as far as I know), he is certainly a Christian.

  60. Tom says:

    Father Z wrote: “I don’t think you have read very carefully what I have been writing for months on this blog and in the press, and in the interviews I have done with any number of outlets. I think the use of the older form of Mass will have a profound effect. You seem to be saying that I think the older form should replace the newer form. Can you find anywhere where I have written that?”
    Father, I did not state on this thread that you believe that the “older form should replace the newer form.

    I will reiterate: Father Z has not stated that the Traditional Latin Mass should replace the Novus Ordo.

    I will also reiterate: Father Z has not stated that Pope Benedict XVI’s “Marshall Plan” involves replacing the Novus Ordo with the TLM.

    Again…Father Z has not insisted that the Traditional Latin Mass should replace the Novus Ordo Mass.

    That said, I agree with you in principle regarding liturgy…Save the Mass — Save the world.

    Liturgy will save the world…but only when said liturgy (at least regarding the Latin Church) is the Traditional Latin Mass.

    Again…I am aware, Father, that you have not stated that the TLM should replace the Novus Ordo.

    I believe that the TLM should replace the Novus Ordo.

    That is the only plan…the only “Marshall Plan” that can possibly succeed.

    The Novus Ordo liturgy cannot “save the world”…it can’t even “save” the Latin Church.

    Therefore, I believe that to “save” the Latin Church and world, the Pope must return to the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass that he was ordained to offer.

    Again…I realize that Father Z has not stated that the Novus Ordo must replace the Traditional Latin Mass.

    It is my opinion that the Traditional Latin Mass must replace the Novus Ordo to stabilize the Latin Church.

    I believe that my opinion is based upon sound principles.

    Finally…to be certain that I am not misunderstood…

    I reiterate that Father Z has not stated that the TLM must replace the Novus Ordo.

    I also reiterate that Father Z has not stated that the Holy Father’s “Marshall Plan” involves replacing the Novus Ordo with the Traditional Latin Mass.

    Pax.

  61. Louis E. says:

    Catholic teaching is correct on same-sex marriage and euthanasia but
    completely mistaken on abortion rights…but only those who believe it to be right in all things are faithful Catholics.Those who do not have no call to describe their own positions as consistent with Catholicism.

    Those who believe that Catholicism teaches correctly should follow its precepts but not enforce them on those who do not believe;the belief that Catholicism always perceives natural law correctly is strictly a Catholic belief and not part of natural law itself.

  62. Antiquarian says:

    It might also be pointed out that His Holiness has also given not the slightest hint that he believes the TLM must, should, or will replace the Novus Ordo. I hope that those who are advocating that are at least aware of how unlikely any such action is at present.

    Criticizing the Pope’s “Marshall Plan” because it isn’t what ours would be if we were Pope seems like a rather fruitless exercise to me. And criticizing his actions while visiting the US, liturgical or otherwise, because we would act differently strikes me as a lack of touch with reality– at best.

  63. Tom says:

    I wrote: “Father, Pope Paul VI . . . worked to reinvigorate Catholic identity. ”

    RBrown replied: “He did? Boy, you could have fooled me. BTW, a common complaint about JPII is that he had no adminstrative inclinations, thus no plan, Marshall or otherwise.”

    I know what you mean.

    But incredibly, Pope Paul VI believed that the Novus Ordo and post-Vatican II liturgical reform would reinvigorate Catholic identity.

    I believe that Pope Paul VI was a holy man who, unfortunately, spurred a liturgical disaster that will plague the Latin Church for decades to come.

    Regarding Pope John Paul II, his “Marshall Plan” followed the course paved by Pope Paul VI.

    Pope John Paul II was committed to the Novus Ordo, which he claimed had led to a new liturgical springtime within the Latin Church.

    Pope John Paul II also believed that his series of apologies and approach to ecumenical/interreligious activities would reinvigorate the Church.

    Pope John Paul II, while a holy man, presided over a Church that despite his claims of a new liturgical “springtime,” had collapsed.

    Neither Pope Paul VI nor John Paul II reinvigorated Catholic identity throughout the Latin Church.

    Unfortunately, Pope Benedict XVI, a holy man, will also fail to reinvigorate Catholic identity unless he returns to the Traditional Latin Mass — the Mass that he was ordained to offer.

    Catholic identity will continue to fade as long as Popes, bishops and priests remain attached to the Novus Ordo…not to mention ecumenism and interreligious “dialogue” that features prayer and worship with heretics, schismatics and non-Christians.

    The bottom line is obvious regarding Latin Churchmen: They must either return to the TLM and the Tradition associated with the TLM…or continue to preside over the collapse of the Latin Church.

  64. JP says:

    Louis said: Catholic teaching is correct on same-sex marriage and euthanasia but completely mistaken on abortion rights.

    There is no such thing as “abortion rights,” and I’m very sorry that you believe that it is okay to kill unborn children. Why do you object to things that violate the natural law such as homosexual mockery of marriage and killing sick, disabled, and elderly persons, but you don’t want to outlaw the horrendous crime against humanity known as abortion? If you’re going to reject the natural law in one crucial area, you may as well reject it in toto.

    Those who believe that Catholicism teaches correctly should follow its precepts but not enforce them on those who do not believe

    If that means Catholics should not try to change unjust, invalid laws, such as laws that permit abortion, then you are mistaken. It is impossible to follow Catholic precepts but refrain from seeking to bring our laws into conformity with justice — for to refrain means one is not following Catholic precepts.

    the belief that Catholicism always perceives natural law correctly is strictly a Catholic belief and not part of natural law itself.

    You’re probably referring to church infallibility. No, it’s not a part of the natural law — it’s a part of the divinely-revealed deposit of faith. Not everything that is true can be discerned through natural reason.

  65. JP wrote:
    It’s not ridicule, it’s appropriate criticism of a Catholic political leader’s disregard for Catholic teachings and universal moral obligations.
    Ridicule/appropriate criticism of a Catholic…whatever you want to call it, JP. My point is that only so-called “liberals” are held to appropriate criticism, whereas Republicans, for example, Judge Roberts not towing the Catholic line regarding killing – is that not one of the Commandments? – is not used as an example. No comment upon the homosexual characteristics of many in the Republic party, while they cling to “christianity?”

    “There’s nothing in Catholic teaching that says lethal injection must be classified as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
    Of course, there is not, but that is not the point. The point is that he just voted in favor of killing people, which is against Catholic teaching.

    “Also, perhaps one reason Catholics of a conservative political persuasion don’t hold “the conservatives” accountable for waging an unjust war is because they may not believe it is an unjust war.”
    They may not believe it to be an unjust war, but the Holy Father, who I hold in much higher regarding when in comes to morals than politicians or lay Catholics, has a different opinion.

    “our country, fellow Catholics are walking around unclothed, hungry, imprisoned, sick without healthcare…Not sure which country you live in. Usually people in the U.S. walk around clothed, except for nudists.”
    The subject is touchy enough without semantics. So, in the United States, there are no struggling families that are in need of clothing? Go to the poor areas, look at the people. Then, show me their stylish dress. Show me the sons of crack whores that are dressed nicely, with food on the table, a school book in their hand…

    “Anyway I don’t know of any Catholics who agree with what the Church says about abortion but who aren’t also involved in feeding the hungry or caring for the sick.”
    You must know only the great Catholics. I go to a very conservative parish. They request help to feed the poor at a local women’s shelter, not every parishioner shows. Not 10% show. When it comes to Mission Sunday, they drop a buck in the kitty, then go to a home stock full of non-necessities and a refrigerator that has spoiled food in it.

    “However, I’ve met a few Catholics who pretty much think feeding the hungry and caring for the sick (or getting the federal government to do it for us so we won’t have to do it ourselves) are really what matter, whereas unborn babies should continue to be slaughtered.”
    My point is taken out of context. The point is that these are all important Catholic obligations, however too large a segment of Catholics only see their politicians through abortion.

    “he (President Bush) is certainly a Christian.”
    Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. I don’t tow the christian line that Baptism is all you need to be a Christian. You must believe the dogmas of the One True Church. If we can’t have cafeteria Catholics, then we can’t have cafeteria Christians. He is a member of a faith community, nothing more.

  66. JP says:

    Christopher said: My point is that only so-called “liberals” are held to appropriate criticism, whereas Republicans, for example, Judge Roberts not towing the Catholic line regarding killing – is that not one of the Commandments? – is not used as an example.

    The same God who gave Israel the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” also gave several commandments telling them circumstances when the death penalty should be applied, and when and how they should wage war. Even St. Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said the sword that the magistrate carries is not just costume jewelry. Justice Roberts did nothing that violates Catholic teaching, which maintains that there are just causes when the State or individuals may take human life.

    No comment upon the homosexual characteristics of many in the Republic party, while they cling to “christianity?”

    Homosexuality is a bad thing no matter the party affiliation. However, generally speaking, it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are officially committed to legalising sodomy and instituting a perverse mockery of marriage.
    The point is that he just voted in favor of killing people, which is against Catholic teaching.

    Not according to the Catechism it isn’t. Anyway, he didn’t vote in favor of killing people, he ruled that lethal injection is not “cruel and unusual punishment.” As I said, there is nothing in the Catholic faith that requires that one believe lethal injection to be cruel and unusual punishment.

    They may not believe it to be an unjust war, but the Holy Father, who I hold in much higher regarding when in comes to morals than politicians or lay Catholics, has a different opinion.

    Yes, he has a different opinion, and one that cannot be disregarded. But he’s also pointed out that Catholics might have grounds to disagree with him on that matter.

    You must know only the great Catholics. I go to a very conservative parish. They request help to feed the poor at a local women’s shelter, not every parishioner shows. Not 10% show. When it comes to Mission Sunday, they drop a buck in the kitty, then go to a home stock full of non-necessities and a refrigerator that has spoiled food in it.

    Doesn’t sound like your parish is all that conservative to me (though I do wonder how you know so much about the contents of their larders . . . .).

    I don’t tow the christian line that Baptism is all you need to be a Christian.

    It is de fide that anyone who has received valid, Trinitarian baptism is a Christian. If you’re concerned about cafeteria Catholics and cafeteria Catholics, you should take a personal inventory.

    You must believe the dogmas of the One True Church.

    Yes, if you have reached the age of reason and are not unculpably impeded in some way.

  67. Goodness, Ms. Pelosi’s actions this morning were indeed noticed by someone. There’s a very frightening story on the AP wire right now, saying that she’s apparently going to receive communion tomorrow. SOMEBODY’S wires are crossed with this one, and I really hope it isn’t true. Should this happen, most everything we have struggled to do to save the flock in America (well I’m just an assistant organist, so I guess I haven’t actually done THAT much) will have been in vain, and our work will be immeasurably harder to continue.

    Pray, pray, pray, that the Holy Father is somehow made aware that a contingent of openly and unabashedly pro-abortion politicians will be receiving the Eucharist tomorrow. Leave it to the liberal Democrats to politicize yet another event that should be considered apolitical.

    Here’s the story via Fox News : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351520,00.html

  68. Matt Q says:

    She probably is going to Receive. She is so screwy in her thinking she really thinks she’s fine. A-DUH. When she kissed the Pope’s hand today I really thought we were going to see a flash of lightning. LOL Who does she think she’s kidding?!

    Well, maybe she’ll get a conversion out of it… and MAYBE NOT!

  69. Bill says:

    If these pro-abortion politicans receive Holy Communion from the Holy Father, his words will have lost all credibility. Actions speak louder than words.

  70. Tom says:

    Justin wrote: “Speaking of the collapse of the Church on the other hand makes a mockery of Christ’s promises – that’s not Catholicism.”

    Somebody on this thread mocked Jesus Christ’s promises?

  71. Tom says:

    Justin wrote: “Speaking of the collapse of the Church on the other hand makes a mockery of Christ’s promises – that’s not Catholicism. That’s what the Protestants do.”

    Justin, the Latin Church is not in a state of liturgical and spiritual collapse?

    You mean that the writings of Monsignor Klaus Gamber and Michael Davies, two men held in high regard by a man named Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (our Holy Father) mock Christ’s promises?

    Would you say that Monsignor Gamber and Michael Davies were, for example, Protestants for their having insisted that the post-Vatican II Latin Church had collapsed liturgically and spiritually?

    Justin, you do not believe that the Latin Church is in a state of collapse?

    Wow! Where have you been, Justin?

  72. Tom says:

    A poster named Justin has attacked me viciously and accused me of having “mocked Christ’s promises” for my having argued that the Latin Church is in a state of liturgical and spiritual collapse.

    Imagine what Justin must think of the following remarks uttered by Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (our Holy Father), who has made it clear that the Latin Church is in a world of hurt:

    “Lord, your Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In your field we see more weeds than wheat. The soiled garments and face of your Church throw us into confusion… Satan laughs, for he hopes that you will not be able to rise from that fall; he hopes that being dragged down in the fall of your Church, you will remain prostrate and overpowered.”

    Regarding the state of post-Vatican II Latin Church liturgy, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (our Pope) declared that many priests “put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things.”

    I believe that I have made my point.

    I find it bizarre that Justin believes that such a statement “mocks Christ’s promises.”

    The undeniable reality is that the Latin Church, regardless of what Justin believes, is clearly in a state of liturgical and spiritual collapse.

    Any number of holy Catholic Churchmen and laymen have demonstrated clearly that the Latin Church has collapsed.

    Why Justin believes that said argument mocks Jesus Christ is beyond me.

    I contend that Jesus Christ desires us to realize that the Latin Church has, in fact, collapsed

    By facing the reality that the Latin Church has collapsed, we are then compelled to work to restore the Traditional Latin Mass to return the Latin Church to Her greatness.

    Justin, I’m sorry that you felt the need to attack me.

  73. Tom says:

    Sam wrote: “What makes you so sure that Paul VI and John Paul II have “failed”? 30 or 40 years is an awfully short time for the Church. By your standard any pope is doomed to failure since the chances of the traditional Latin mass becoming normative in the next 30 or 40 years are pretty slim (unless, perhaps, it is mandated and the ordinary form forbidden, but we don’t want to make that mistake again).”

    Sam, the facts are clear to me that the Pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II failed to usher in the new “liturgical springtime” that each Pope in question insisted was the primary goal of his respective Pontificate.

    Rome and a great many Latin Church bishops insisted repeatedly that despite “shadows” here and there, the post-Vatican II liturgical reform had led the Latin Church into a new liturgical and spiritual “springtime.”

    The reality is…and it’s simply undeniable…that the Latin Church has collapsed as the result of failed Papal policies (supported by bishops) that ravaged the Roman Liturgy.

    The lion’s share of the Latin Church’s problems are the result of the Novus Ordo.

    Post-Vatican II Rome’s ecumenical and interreligious policies, that have led to prayer and worship with heretics, schismatics and non-Christians have also spurred the collapse of the Latin Church.

    Said policies are, of course tied to Novus Ordoism.

    Yes, Sam, each future Pope who remains tied to the Novus Ordo cannot possibly reinvigorate Catholic identity.

    Unfortunately, the reign of Pope Benedict XVI, for example, will suffer the same fate as Popes Paul VI and John Paul II suffered collectively…that is, the collapse of the Latin Church will continue during Pope Benedict XVI’s reign.

    Only Pope Benedict XVI’s return to the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass that he was ordained to offer, would initiate the process necessary to lift the Latin Church from Her state of collapse.

    With few exceptions, the only Latin Church communities that will prosper during Pope Benedict XVI’s reign are Traditional Latin Mass communities.

    The same applies to future Popes who would insist that the Novus Ordo remain the Mass of 99 percent of Latin Catholics.

    By and large, only Traditional Latin Mass communities, today and in the future, will prosper as long as the Novus Ordo remains the Mass encountered by the majority of Latin Catholics.

    During the past 40 or so years, we have dealt with holy men who, unfortunately, have made tragic decisions regarding Roman liturgy and, for that matter, ecumenical and interreligious practices.

    We must pray that Pope Benedict XVI returns to the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass that he was ordained to offer.

  74. RBrown says:

    But incredibly, Pope Paul VI believed that the Novus Ordo and post-Vatican II liturgical reform would reinvigorate Catholic identity.

    What evidence do you have for thinking that?

    I believe that Pope Paul VI was a holy man who, unfortunately, spurred a liturgical disaster that will plague the Latin Church for decades to come.

    If by holy man, you mean a saintly man, then I’ll offer this: In order to be a saint, a someone must manifest prudence–for a bishop pastoral prudence. If a very pious man is named a bishop, and his actions all but destroy the diocese, then it cannot be said that he is a holy man.

    Regarding Pope John Paul II, his “Marshall Plan” followed the course paved by Pope Paul VI.

    And what plan was that? There was no reform of the liturgy, no reform of the religious life, no reform of the priesthood, no reform of the seminaries (except for exiling the Proportionalists).

    Pope John Paul II was committed to the Novus Ordo, which he claimed had led to a new liturgical springtime within the Latin Church.

    I only heard him mention the new springtime in the context of the future.

    Pope John Paul II also believed that his series of apologies and approach to ecumenical/interreligious activities would reinvigorate the Church.

    Disagree. He thought the reinvigoration of the Church would come somewhere in the distant future, the New Springtime of the Church.

    Pope John Paul II, while a holy man, presided over a Church that despite his claims of a new liturgical “springtime,” had collapsed.

    Neither Pope Paul VI nor John Paul II reinvigorated Catholic identity throughout the Latin Church.

    Unfortunately, Pope Benedict XVI, a holy man, will also fail to reinvigorate Catholic identity unless he returns to the Traditional Latin Mass—the Mass that he was ordained to offer.
    Comment by Tom

    Already commented on that. Reinvigoration is tied to Latin liturgy and mass ad orientem.

  75. pennys worth says:

    When i saw Nancy Pelosi kissing the Holy Father’s ring, the word “hypocrite” came to mind. However, my hope and prayer was that holding the Pope’s hand was the transference of a great grace of conversion to her. Our Holy Father may have been praying for her as he greeted her warmly–just as Jesus accepted Judas’ kiss of betrayal.

    On another point: i am sick and tired of hearing all the whining, crying, complaining and lack of faith of these so-called ‘traditionalists’ who want the Latin Mass and reject the English Mass. These people are, at the very least, objective heretics in refusing to believe Jesus Christ’s promise to send His Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Jesus said to His apostles, “He who hears you, hears me.” The Catholic Church is the “bulwark and pillar of truth” and was inspired by the Holy Spirit at the Vatican II Council, to have the Latin Mass translated into the vernacular of the nations in which it was to be celebrated. There are many rites in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, each of which celebrates the Mass in their language. The English speaking nations should have been given a Mass in their own language, when the first missionaries of the Catholic Church evangelized them. And, at last, we can understand every word in the celebration of the English Mass, rather than referring to a Latin-English missal! So, please, stop the negativity, believe Jesus when He says, “He who hears you, hears me.” Concentrate on the essence of the Mass which is the re-presentation of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, not the accidentals of mere human words, which can never express the unspeakable, incomprehensible mysteries present on the altar.

  76. Prof. Basto says:

    I was impressed by the President’s remarks.

    He specifically picked up the “dictatorship of relativism” theme, and that was great.

  77. Tom says:

    I wrote: “But incredibly, Pope Paul VI believed that the Novus Ordo and post-Vatican II liturgical reform would reinvigorate Catholic identity.”

    RBrown replied: “What evidence do you have for thinking that?”

    Pope Paul VI did not launch the most monumental liturgical “reform” (upheaval) in Church history simply to pass time.

    Pope Paul VI insisted repeatedly that the liturgical “reform” would reinvigorate Catholic identity…would reinvigorate the Church.

    Vatican II proclaimed that the liturgical “reform” would impart an increased vigor to the life of the Faithful.

    In 1969, Pope Paul VI declared that the liturgical reform would “help to make the Mass more than ever a school of spiritual depth and a peaceful but demanding school of Christian sociology. The soul’s relationship with Christ and with the brethren thus attains new and vital intensity.”

    Pope Paul VI believed that the “reform” would increase Catholic identity among the Faithful…would enable the Faithful to attain a new “intensity.”

    Unfortunately, that has not been the case during the past 40 or so years.

  78. RBrown says:

    I wrote: “But incredibly, Pope Paul VI believed that the Novus Ordo and post-Vatican II liturgical reform would reinvigorate Catholic identity.”

    RBrown replied: “What evidence do you have for thinking that?”

    Pope Paul VI did not launch the most monumental liturgical “reform” (upheaval) in Church history simply to pass time.

    If you know anything about Paul VI, you know that international politics was behind almost everything he did, including the liturgical changes.

    Pope Paul VI insisted repeatedly that the liturgical “reform” would reinvigorate Catholic identity…would reinvigorate the Church.

    He also said that as long as Cardinal Mindzenty lived, he would be primate of Hungary. We all know what happened there.

    Vatican II proclaimed that the liturgical “reform” would impart an increased vigor to the life of the Faithful.

    Acc to JRatzinger Vat II and the Montini liturgical reform are not the same thing.

    In 1969, Pope Paul VI declared that the liturgical reform would “help to make the Mass more than ever a school of spiritual depth and a peaceful but demanding school of Christian sociology. The soul’s relationship with Christ and with the brethren thus attains new and vital intensity.”

    Pope Paul VI believed that the “reform” would increase Catholic identity among the Faithful…would enable the Faithful to attain a new “intensity.”

    Unfortunately, that has not been the case during the past 40 or so years.
    Comment by Tom

    A true liturgical reform would have accomplished those things, Unfortunately, Paul VI was more interested in Ecumenism with the Protestants (i.e., international politics, esp the politics of Euro Unity) than in Catholic identity.

  79. RBrown says:

    On another point: i am sick and tired of hearing all the whining, crying, complaining and lack of faith of these so-called ‘traditionalists’ who want the Latin Mass and reject the English Mass. These people are, at the very least, objective heretics in refusing to believe Jesus Christ’s promise to send His Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Jesus said to His apostles, “He who hears you, hears me.” The Catholic Church is the “bulwark and pillar of truth” and was inspired by the Holy Spirit at the Vatican II Council, to have the Latin Mass translated into the vernacular of the nations in which it was to be celebrated. There are many rites in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, each of which celebrates the Mass in their language. The English speaking nations should have been given a Mass in their own language, when the first missionaries of the Catholic Church evangelized them. And, at last, we can understand every word in the celebration of the English Mass, rather than referring to a Latin-English missal! So, please, stop the negativity, believe Jesus when He says, “He who hears you, hears me.” Concentrate on the essence of the Mass which is the re-presentation of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, not the accidentals of mere human words, which can never express the unspeakable, incomprehensible mysteries present on the altar.
    Comment by pennys worth

    First, Vatican II never said that the norm should be mass in the vernacular.

    Second, your denigration of the importance of liturgy contradicts Vat II.

    2. For the Liturgy, “through which the work of our redemption is accomplished”,1 most of all in the Divine Sacrifice of the Eucharist, is the outstanding means whereby the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.

    Third, if you’re going to run around accusing people of being heretics, then it might be helpful for you to have some faint understanding of your subject.

  80. pennys worth says:

    RBrown:

    I suggest you re-read my post slowly, calmly and objectively, and, difficult though it may be, do not impose your erroneous and prejudiced interpretation on my post. 1. Wrong! I did not say Vatican proclaimed that the norm of the Mass (capital letter \”M\” please) should be in the vernacular. 2. Wrong again! Where you erroneously read that I denigrated the importance of the Mass is out in space somewhere but not what I wrote. Perhaps, your myopic view of the Liturgy considers the Mass in LATIN as the end all and be all of the sacred Liturgy and, heaven forbid, if the English speaking peoples prefer to celebrate the Mass in English which they understand very well! 3. Wrong, a third time: \”Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be held…The 1983 Code of Canon Law. Vatican II was inspired by the Holy Spirit which, for 2000 years has guided the Church in all its Ecumenical Councils. Every proclaimation of the Catholic Divine Faith and Doctrine of a valid Council is infallible. A Catholic, be they traditionalist, liberal, conservative or whatever, who knowingly rejects an infallible teaching of the Church is a heretic, is self excommunicated, latae sententiae. The traditionalists have been infamous for rejecting Vatican II as an infallible Council, rejected the Novus Ordo, rejected all popes since Pope Paul VI, ordained their own priests, bishops and set up their own schismatic church. According to Canon Law, that is heresy. O, I did say \”objective heretics\” as opposed to \”subjective\” since we may not judge the interior knowledge and intentions of the person at fault and his relationship with God. RBrown, peace be with you.