More on Fr. Farinella: what he really wrote

Did you see my article about Fr. Paolo Farinella?  He is the Italian priest who said that in lifting the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops, Pope Benedict perpetrated a "rape" of the Church.

A reader, and old friend, sent a translation of the whole thing.

Here is the note my friend sent.  We should take a look at it before getting to actual translation.

As requested.

I think you should publish this hateful thing in its entirety. It is good to shine bright sunlight on the rot.

I also think you should mention, for your non-Italian based readership, that La Repubblica has long been a clearing house for this type of hate-filled anti-Church drivel.  The editor/founder, Eugenio Scalfari, has publicly called His Holiness “a thoroughly second-rate thinker.”

Is it not interesting how Don Farinella is perfectly free to be a “conscientious objector” to the magisterial pronouncement of the Pope in Summorum, and yet the Lefebvrists are mysteriously not free to be “conscientious objectors” to the Council?  (Of course, neither position is acceptable.)  At the end, after declaring that the Pope has abandoned the Catholic faith, he declares himself free to not recognize the authority of the Pope, in exactly the same way as the radical splinter groups like the SSPV did.  Fundamentally, the devil’s bag of tricks is pretty small.

Also, I would appreciate it, if you do publish this, if you could just mention that I tried to be very literal, and that no translation can really do justice to the vicious and sarcastic tone of this vile screed.  Some of the expressions (arrampicarsi sugli specchi, truppe cammellate) are pregnant with sarcasm in a way that doesn’t come out in English without a lot of explanatory notes.

That is a good preabmble.

Keep in mind my observation that, now that the implications of the news is really hitting the dissenters and progressivists, the real vitriol will start pouring out.

Let’s read Fr. Farinella’s observations. Mind you that what I sent was a bit unclear, insofar as the divisions of the article and translator’s comments are concerned, but you are smart and can sort it out. 

The Pope, the Lefebvrists, the Council

by Don Paolo Farinella

Is the Pope still catholic?

I should feel satisfaction in saying “I told you so”, but instead I feel bitterness and anger.  On September 14, 2007, opposing with all my might the introduction of the pre-conciliar Mass desired by the current Pope, I wrote in (the newspaper) “24 ore” a pamphlet  (Return to the Old Mass, Gabrielli Editore) in which I declared myself a conscientious objector, and, while everybody else played around with the legends about the “Mass in Latin”, I demonstrated that the explicit goal of the Pope was the abolition of the ecumenical council Vatican II.  Some people spoke of “exaggeration”.  Today, those who did not believe (me) at the time have the proof, and I hope no-one will reduce what his happening to merely internal affairs of the Church which have no interest for the rest of the world.

a) The return to opposition to the council

The revocation of the excommunication of the four schismatic Lefebvrists bishops is a rape perpetrated by the Pope against the Church, because, of his own initiative, he approves the position and defines that Vatican II never happened.  The Pope in fact does not ask the Lefebvrists beforehand for any act of acceptance of the teaching of the council as a condition for the revocation of the excommunication, but simply readmits them as if nothing had happened, taking a position against the Popes who suspended them a divinis (Paul VI) and excommunicated them as schismatics (John Paul II).  Either the Lefebvrists were schismatics, or the Pope who excommunicated them did so illicitly, since the conditions of the excommunication have not changed.  Or, the current Pope has made a mistake, a very big one.  On the same day of the revocation of the excommunication (January 24, 2009), the head of the schismatics, Fellay, in two different communiqués to his followers, writes:

[WHAT FARINELLA WRITES IN HIS ARTICLE, AS IF IT WERE A QUOTATION OF BISHOP FELLAY:]

“We are ready to write the Creed with our own blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, we accept and make our own all the councils up to the First Vatican Council.  Yet we can but express some reservations concerning the Second Vatican Council a council “different from the others.” In all this, we are convinced that we remain faithful to the line of conduct indicated by our founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, whose reputation we hope to soon see restored.

In the same way, in the talks that will follow with the Roman authorities, we wish to examine the deep causes of the present situation, and, in finding and appropriate remedy, to reach a solid restoration of the Church. … Our Fraternity wishes to be able to help the Pope ever more to put an end to the unprecedented crisis which is currently shaking the Catholic world. … We are also happy that the decree of January 21 2009 recognizes as necessary “meetings” with the Holy See; these meetings will allow the FSSPX to set forth the basic doctrinal reasons which it considers to be the source of the Church’s current difficulties.  In this renewed climate, we have the firm hope to quickly reach a recognition of the rights of the Catholic Tradition” (Menzingen 24 gennaio 2009. Bernard Fellay).

[WHAT BISHOP FELLAY ACTUALLY WROTE:]

“We are ready to write the Creed with our own blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of faith of Pius IV.  We accept and make our own all the councils up to the First Vatican Council.  Yet we cannot but express some reservations concerning the Second Vatican Council which intended to be a council different from the others. (cf. Addresses by John XXIII and Paul VI)  NB how Farinella, by omitting the words in italics, and citation of the Popes,  makes it seem like “different from the others” is tendentious assertion of the Lefebvrists, rather the Popes’ own definition of the Council.  In all this, we are convinced that we remain faithful to the line of conduct indicated by our founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, whose reputation we hope to soon see restored…."

NB: We also hope enter into these “discussions” – which the decree recognizes as “necessary” – on the doctrinal questions which are opposed to the perennial teaching of the Magisterium  (au magistere de toujours).  We cannot fail to recognize the unprecedented crisis which is shaking the Church today: the crisis of vocations, the crisis of religious practice, of catechism, of the frequenting of the sacraments.  Before us, Pope Paul VI spoke of an infiltration of the “smoke of Satan” and the “self-destruction” of the Church.  John Paul II did not hesitate to say that Catholicism in Europe was almost in a state of “silent apostasy”  A short time before his election to the Papacy, Benedict XVI himself compared the Church to a “ship that was taking on water from every side. All of these words in italics are omitted by Farinella, who seems to want us to believe that the “crisis” exists only in the minds of the FSSPX and the “apostate” Benedict XVI, not, of course, in his immediate predecessors, whom Farinella alone truly loves and understands.
So also, in these discussions with the Roman authorities, do we wish to examine the deep causes of the present situation, and, finding therein an appropriate remedy, to achieve a solid restoration of the Church.

[BACK TO THE ARTICLE]

b) Someone is shamelessly lying

Those like the Vatican Press Office, and the president of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, who talk about a gesture of clemency and magnanimity on the part of the Pope, lie, knowing that they are lying, because they know all too well that the problems here are doctrinal, and have to do with only one question: “Is Vatican II at least a council like the others, the acceptance of which is essential to be Catholic, or else is it ad libitum, that is, at the discretion of each persons sensibilities, being only a minor council for a select group?”.  How can one reconcile the declarations of the head of the Lefebvrists, who, on the same day as the excommunications were revoked, publicly declared that they will never accept the Vatican II and its teaching for “basic doctrinal reasons” ?

There are no alternatives: either the Pope is lying, or the head of the Lefebvrists is lying, or they are both lying.  If the Lefebvrists can lay aside and disdain an ecumenical council, is it licit for a Catholic, while remaining Catholic, to refuse for doctrinal reasons the teaching of Benedict XVI, if he considers it harmful to the Catholic faith?  I think here we see can see pretty clearly what Don Farinella really wants out of all of this.

If the Lefebvrists can be re-admitted into the Catholic Church without having to explicitly accept the teaching of an ecumenical council, why does the Pope not make a similar “gesture of mercy” towards those Catholics who have been thrown out of the Church for “excessive progressivism”, guilty of considering the Council unfinished business? What place in the Church do the liberation theologians have, who have been persecuted, demeaned and driven out?  If the Council is not definitive, why use ‘two weights and two measures’ ?

Can I insist that my theological positions, diametrically opposed to those of the Lefebvrists, must have the same citizenship rights within the Church, thus putting an end to an ostracism and isolation that have lasted more than a quarter of a century?  Since all of the “prophecies” which I wrote in 2007 and earlier are coming true, should the bishop not ask for pardon and restore to me my dignity as a full-fledged Catholic which I believe I deserve?

From my point of view, I foresee and predict (as is said in the law: nunc pro tunc) that Benedict XVI’s next move will be a declaration that the Tridentine Mass must be regarded as the “ordinary form”, and the reformed Mass of Paul VI as the “extraordinary form” , this in order to reach within a reasonable time of about ten years the abolition of the latter, and the restoration of the Tridentine climate, to go out to the re-conquest of the modern world with the troupes of the traditionalists, trusted warriors of the restoration of medieval Christianitas.

c) Anti-Semitism as a theological foundation

Of the schismatic bishops, suspended a divinis, a certain Richard Williamson, had the impudence to deny the Holocaust on the very eve of his readmission to Catholic communion, which, by kind concession of the Pope, coincided with the eve of the Day of Remembrance of the Shoàh.  Nothing happens by chance, everything has a meaning and a symbolism.  Following the reactions within and outside the Church, the Vatican, the Italian Episcopal Conference, and the other “interested parties” manned the barricades to ‘make square the circle’ , without realizing that this is impossible.  For the Lefebvrists, anti-Semitism is a characteristic note of their theology, according to which the Jews are “deicides”, for eternity, unless they convert and recognize Jesus Christ as their Messiah and God.  In the letter of apology sent to the Pope by the confederate and head of the Lefebvrists, Bernard Fellay, he asks forgiveness of the Pope, but not of the Jewish people and all of the Jews who died in the concentration camps at the hands of the Nazis.  “The patch is worse than the tear” .  The Lefebvrists completely reject the conciliar document “Nostra Aetate” which speaks in positive terms of the Jewish religion, and in which is rejected for the first time the “deicide” as a fault of the whole people of Israel, assigning the responsibility only to the “Jewish authorities and their followers” at the time of Jesus (n. 4/866).

d) Popes make mistakes

In the Catholic Church, from a Catholic point of view, the Lefebvrists and Vatican II cannot coexist.  If they come in, It must go out; if It remains, they cannot enter.  In my opinion, in fact, the difficult part of the problem has not yet been resolved, and this reconciliation will bring more ruptures that anyone can imagine.  I pray that the Pope will retread his steps and take up again the Catholic faith which he has knowingly abandoned on the doorstep of the  Lefebvrists’ Fraternity.  Otherwise, we consider ourselves dispensed from recognizing his authority, as the Lefebvrists, have refused and continue to refuse authority  of John XXIII, Paul VI, and in part of John Paul.   All of this demonstrates that confusion reigns in the leadership of the Catholic Church, proves that Popes often infallibly make mistakes. Big time.

Remember folks, in the days ahead you will hear a mantra surrounding the theme that the Pope only excersises his ministry of unity when he tries to reconciled the left.

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.

37 Responses to More on Fr. Farinella: what he really wrote

  1. J Long says:

    wow, no words can describe my sadness regarding what has been written.

    Its time for the Church to take action against this people, and remove those who are only Catholic in name.

  2. Andrew, UK and sometimes Canada says:

    “Benedict XVI’s next move will be a declaration that the Tridentine Mass must be regarded as the “ordinary form”, and the reformed Mass of Paul VI as the “extraordinary form” , this in order to reach within a reasonable time of about ten years the abolition of the latter, and the restoration of the Tridentine climate, to go out to the re-conquest of the modern world with the troupes of the traditionalists, trusted warriors of the restoration of medieval Christianitas.”

    Somehow, I don’t think so. And, if it were so, what would be so bad about Christianity taking over the world?

    And I’m sick to the teeth of hearing this “medieval Christianity=BAAAD” equation. I have an entire doctoral dissertation (completed this year, God willing) showing otherwise. The medieval Church was more flexible and open than anything we know today but always within the bounds of orthodoxy. Oh, and it seems that people wanted to take part in the Church rather than some false assertion of widespread, omnipresent compulsion.

  3. Prof. Basto says:

    Can. 1373 A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

    *******
    From my point of view, I foresee and predict (as is said in the law: nunc pro tunc) that Benedict XVI’s next move will be a declaration that the Tridentine Mass must be regarded as the “ordinary form”, and the reformed Mass of Paul VI as the “extraordinary form” , this in order to reach within a reasonable time of about ten years the abolition of the latter, and the restoration of the Tridentine climate, to go out to the re-conquest of the modern world with the troupes of the traditionalists, trusted warriors of the restoration of medieval Christianitas.

    Nice idea. The TLM in every parish as the ordinary form. The Pauline and prone-to-abuse form turned into an extraordinary form restricted to ageing hippies. Christianity conquering the modern world. Woundn’t that be great??? .

    *****

    I won’t add other toughts of my own regarding the most vile parts of the article, for I am supremely angry right now. But someone should consider applying the canon I quoted above. Boy, this priest deserves a just penalty. Too bad we did away with the auto-de-fé.

  4. frv says:

    “In the Catholic Church, from a Catholic point of view, the Lefebvrists and Vatican II cannot coexist. If they come in, It must go out; if It remains, they cannot enter.” What a “dogmatic” statement from one who defines himself as “progressivist”! What a consistency among all liberals. It will be so glorious to see the day when indeed, after tough theological dialogue and the insistence of the Holy Spirit, “they come in”, and “the Council remains”. What will people like him do when they see that indeed, THE TWO CAN COEXIST! Deus providebit!

  5. chironomo says:

    It doesn’t take an intellectual giant to see the difference between the SSPX and “Excessive Progressives” (That’s a good term… even rhymes!)… in the case of the SSPX, their “fault” is wanting to interpret the documents of the council literally (as they should be), and in some instances question the positions of some documents in light of the Church’s tradition. In the case of the EP’s, their “fault” is in wanting to interpret the documents according to their own theology and desires, questioning the validity of what the documents actually say on the basis of a theology of rupture which they believe was “intended” by the council. To try and argue these positions as analogous is at least intellectually fraudulent, at worst it is intentionally deceptive. Probably the latter is the case here.

    Pray for our Pope…

  6. Ann says:

    I am glad to see our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI seeking to bring those who have been separated by their desire to defend orthodoxy (however in error some of their choices may have been–I cannot agree with their rejection of Vat II and yet I can understand their rejection of Vat II when it is equated with the “spirit of vat II” movement to abolish everything traditional and orthodox and replace it with feminism and lots of really strange innovations).

    I was pleased to read what the Bishop Fellay wrote. I thought it expressed loyalty to the Pope and concern over the remaining abuses of vat II that interfere with their ability to accept the council. So much foolishness was done in the name of Vat II and not corrected that I can see how a group for whom this foolishness seemed blasphemy (and I personally think much of it was, but not intentionally on the part of the enthusiastic participants) would reject the council that had led to such objectionable behaviors.

    I like the idea that this extreme side may be able to bring what is good in its charism back into the church. The same as I hope for unity with the Orthodox and other Eastern Rites for the good that they can bring with them. The Church will be stronger for it.

    And I don’t feel sorry at all for the innovative, feminist, modernist, and other groups who seem to want to remake Catholicism into a secular sort of gathering place who are likely to be marginalized by the inclusion of these groups. But in this country there are many religions from which to choose and if they do not want to be Catholic then they are free to choose a religion to their liking rather than try to ruin Catholicism for those of us who prefer being Catholics.

    I like being Catholic, and I teach my children our traditions and encourage them to know that we do these things because we are Catholic and not some other religion and that we are Catholic because we follow Truth.

  7. Ed says:

    I don’t see the importance of Don Paolo Farinella.

    Do his comments merit a front-page recognition?

    Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and I’ll take his word for his intentions, as the only content that merits my serious attention.

  8. Gil says:

    A trembling over me that the Holy Spirit will move HH

    Benedict XVI to obliterate VCII !!!!

    PRAISE HOLY ALMIGHTY STRONG IMMORTAL GOD, PLEASE LET IT BE TRUE!

    Gil

  9. John says:

    The attacks are vile but the lack of support from the Church hierarchy, with some excetions, is really depressing. But its worth recalling that most of the followers of Jesus were no shows on Gogotha as well. The Pope must suffer. We must pray for him that the evil aimed at him will be repulsed to the detriment of his and the Church’s enemies.

  10. Ligusticus says:

    “Those like the Vatican Press Office, and the president of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, who talk about a gesture of clemency and magnanimity on the part of the Pope, lie, knowing that they are lying…”

    Ehm…EHM…. Don Farinella is parish priest at an ancient church some hundred meters far from…Genoa’s cathedral. Who is Genoa’s Archbishop?

    Guess who??

    Well, it’s Angelo Cardinal Bagnasco.

    Did he take some action so far, against him (after an impressing collection of similar ‘pronouncements’ by Fr. Farinella , who btw has been presiding over lots of totally distorted/invented ‘liturgies’ for years now) ?

    No, he didn’t. Not even a public admonition. Let alone a suspensio a divinis.

    And note: Cardinal Bagnasco was personally chosen by Pope Benedict as President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference (CEI) . He’s publicly perceived by the Italian mainstrem media as ‘hardliner’ (was previously Italian Military Ordinary, and he’s formally a retired Lieutenant General), ‘most loyal to the Pope’ .

    That’s the Church in Italy. Nothing to add.

  11. Dan says:

    “Someone is shamelessly lying”

    yes Fr. Paolo Farinella is. this whole article made me sick.

  12. r7blue1pink says:

    This leaves a big HMMMMMM in my mind… pray pray pray.. the cloak of Red martyrdom is upon us..

  13. ED says:

    Just look at the enemies of JESUS (both within and without) the Church raging and we can thank POPE BENEDICT for reviving the CATHOLIC FAITH!!!!

  14. Mitch says:

    I would write him back and advise him not to bite his tongue, for it is full of acid…Of interesting note from his almost Royal Proclamation is the future Ordinary Form Mass will be the Tridentine. The only part worth mention or thought. An upset progressive is always worse than an upset traditionalist.

  15. Jeff Pinyan says:

    Both the SSPX and Vatican II can and do and will continue to co-exist in the Church. The “spirit” of Vatican II, on the other hand, has got to go.

  16. Maynardus says:

    Wow! I think you’re right, Father. I’m not sure what the boiling point for vitriol is, but we seem to have reached it!

  17. Memphis Aggie says:

    This is a sign of contradiction that helps demonstrate the real mercy in the Popes act. The over the top reaction is illuminating.

  18. R&R says:

    Like it or not, Fr. Farinella has a point. It will be of utmost importance that Pope Benedict be able to navigate the theological turmoil with clarity. In other words, Vatican II is a permanent part of the Magisterium (fact) and dissenting from Vatican II en masse is a breach of the Church’s teachings.

    If this is not clear, then what is to prevent all the liberals from dissenting freely against the Church’s teachings with impunity? Don’t win a battle but lose a war here, SSPX (and Benedict).

  19. yep says:

    Libs seems to love JPII and Paul VI more than BXVI. That can only mean he is better than his scandalous predecessors.

    Another flaw is with the “Popes can make mistakes” remark. What if the previous Popes made the mistakes instead of BXVI? Why can’t it be Paul VI for letting all that ambiguity in the council exist or letting them create the New Mass? Why can’t it be JPII in any number of occasions including the initial excommunications? No? You, Mr. Lib, would rather see rampant liturgical abuse, teachings of how people can be saved without the Church, more scandalous activities involving kissing false religions books or inviting them to worship their false gods, which scripture calls demons, on sacred ground and of course sitting down with protestants and other false religions and never trying to explicitly convert them to the Catholic faith but have this ambiguous “I’m okay, you’re okay” type of “dialogues.”

  20. TJM says:

    yep, I think applying the term “scandalous predecessors” to Paul VI and John Paul II is way over the top. They were both decent, holy men. Although I don’t care much for Paul VI’s “liturgical reforms” that does not make him sandalous in my mind. What is scandalous are the ill chosen words in this diatribe by “Father” Farinella. He should be disciplined in my view. Tom

  21. Luigi says:

    Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, one of the four SSPX bishops whose excommunications Pope Benedict lifted last week told The Remnant in 2005 “I will say, one day the Church should erase this Council. She will not speak of it anymore. She must forget it. The Church will be wise if she forgets this council.”

    Of that possibility, a poster here offers: PRAISE HOLY ALMIGHTY STRONG IMMORTAL GOD, PLEASE LET IT BE TRUE!

    Careful what you ask for. If an ecumenical council like Vatican II can simply be “obliterated,” or erased, so can the twenty that preceded it. Upon what will you hang your hat then?

    Those who have the theological wherewithall and the conviction of faith necessary to debate in good conscience and humility the doctrial weight and meaning of those “ambiguous” portions of the Council documents that need clarification- a necessary function of the hermenuetic of continuity – will do so.

    Those who have neither will simply wish the Council away.

  22. Brian2 says:

    I wouldn’t read much into the praise of Paul VI or JP II. Popes become more popular with liberals when they are dead or not yet elected. It is only the living ones they don’t like. One sees the same phenomena with former presidents: after they are out of office a while, their reputations get rehabilitated as people move on to blaming the new guy for everything.

  23. yep says:

    No they were perfectly scandalous. Thogh JPII more than Paul VI. Why? Here’s why.

    JPII: Kissed a book that people have died rather than kiss, invited pagans to worship demons on sacred Church grounds, had on more than one occasion scantly clad women perform in front of him (Circus performers), said that schismatics could be called martyrs, did little to nothing in correcting bishops and staving off liturgical abuse and anything he did do there was no force behind it, asked John the Baptist to protect Islam, kneels down and kisses the ring of pro-abortionist non-bishop Rowan Williams, etc. All of these actions were not repented for and some happened more than once. Very scandalous to the faith because they directly effect faith or morals.

    Paul VI was just very weak, allowing for ambiguity in the council or (maybe just not seeing it) and allowing liberals to manipulate it – though he averted some liberal manipulation. The commission that fabricated the Novus Ordo had as its head a man who said that “we must strip from the Mass prayers that are an obstacle to protestants” this commission had six protestant observers whose input was taken into consideration. These too are also very scandalous to the faith. Though I suppose Paul VI was more of weak person who succumbed a lot of times. Now JPII, although very pious and doing other good things also had horrible things mixed in; the libs loved those horrible things too.

  24. scholastic says:

    >>Ifthis is not clear, then what is to prevent all the liberals from dissenting freely against the Church’s teachings with impunity?<<

    And that would represent a change for the current status how?

  25. Michael J says:

    R&R,

    Do you really consider the statement:

    “Yet we cannot but express some reservations concerning the Second Vatican Council which intended to be a council different from the others.”

    to be equivalent to :

    “dissenting from Vatican II en masse” ?

  26. Steve K. says:

    R&R-

    “If this is not clear, then what is to prevent all the liberals from dissenting freely against the Church’s teachings with impunity?”

    What do you think has been happening for the past 40 years, if not exactly this? They already do dissent freely, and with impunity. There have been a handful of excommunications in 40 years (like the case of Fr. Bourgeois), that is all.

  27. Gil says:

    Luigi said:
    “Of that possibility, a poster here offers: PRAISE HOLY ALMIGHTY STRONG IMMORTAL GOD, PLEASE LET IT BE TRUE!”
    Careful what you ask for. If an ecumenical council like Vatican II can simply be “obliterated,” or erased, so can the twenty that preceded it. Upon what will you hang your hat then?”

    I believe there have already been three “obliterated” councils, but we still have Holy Tradition, His Holiness, and the Holy Roman Catholic Church to hold to.
    Pax et bonum
    Gil

  28. “From my point of view, I foresee and predict (as is said in the law: nunc pro tunc) that Benedict XVI’s next move will be a declaration that the Tridentine Mass must be regarded as the “ordinary form”, and the reformed Mass of Paul VI as the “extraordinary form” , this in order to reach within a reasonable time of about ten years the abolition of the latter, and the restoration of the Tridentine climate, to go out to the re-conquest of the modern world with the troupes of the traditionalists…”

    What a total tease… One could only hope for such a thing!

    ~cmpt

  29. Luigi says:

    I believe there have already been three “obliterated” councils, but we still have Holy Tradition, His Holiness, and the Holy Roman Catholic Church to hold to.
    Pax et bonum
    Gil

    By all means, Gil, please point out for me which perfectly valid ecumenical councils were “obliterated.” (Your word, BTW) Thank you.

  30. The Translator says:

    Ed number one – the reason I felt this was worth the time and trouble to translate, and encouraged Fr Z. to publish it, is “to expose the rot”, as I said above. Regardless of the specifics of Don Farinella’ attack, the language that he stoops to using (raping the Church, accusing the Pope of deliberately lying) should be instructive to us all. This is, sadly, what the people who hate the Pope, the MP and the trad. Mass are like. They will stop at nothing, they will say anything. All of us need to be aware of this, and do what we can to defend ourselves, the Church and the Pope from their hatred and vitriol. Starting with daily prayer for the Pope.

  31. Gil says:

    Luigi:
    “By all means, Gil, please point out for me which perfectly valid ecumenical councils were “obliterated.” (Your word, BTW) Thank you.”

    1 – Nicea 325 corrected Nicene Creed in 391

    2 – Lateran V 1125 Set off Luther, not implemented

    3 – Basel 1431 repudiated,”Deposition of Eugene IV
    schism at Basel

    I’m not a scholar..the above were repudiated.

    Benedicite Deus
    Gil

  32. Gil says:

    Luigi:
    Mea culpa, Lateran V was 1513-1517 0:-{

    Benetictum
    Gil

  33. Luigi says:

    Gil wrote:

    1 – Nicea 325 corrected Nicene Creed in 391

    2 – Lateran V Set off Luther, not implemented

    3 – Basel 1431 repudiated,”Deposition of Eugene IV

    Seriously, Gil? These are your examples of valid ecumenical councils that have been obliterated? I’m no scholar either, BTW. Now that we have that out of the way : )

    1 – Constantinople in 381 amplified / completed (pick one) the Nicene symbol. The Council of Nicea was hardly obliterated in the process.

    2 – Though not terribly effective in bringing about reform in the Church, it did give us lasting teaching on the nature of the soul, among other things. Obliterated? No.

    3 – Basel is not consider numbered among the ecumenical councils of the Church. Imagine that – a council that “deposed” the pope.

    If these are supposed to serve as precedence for the notion that Vatican II will be “erased and forgotten” as SSPX Bishop Bernard Tissier desires, or that Benedict XVI will “obliterate” the Council as you have prayed, I rest my case.

    Pray for a winning lottery ticket, Gil. You stand a much better chance of receiving the answer you want. Of course you could always pray instead for people of good will to implement the Council faithfully and authentically.

    Pax tecum.

  34. Gil says:

    Luigi:
    “If these are supposed to serve as precedence for the notion that Vatican II will be “erased and forgotten” as SSPX Bishop Bernard Tissier desires, or that Benedict XVI will “obliterate” the Council as you have prayed, I rest my case.

    Pray for a winning lottery ticket, Gil. You stand a much better chance of receiving the answer you want. Of course you could always pray instead for people of good will to implement the Council faithfully and authentically.”

    Thanks for the wise counsel. I’d split the winnings with you and the poor.
    Source used was Catholic Encyclopaedia (below).
    “A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.”
    Pax de Christi Tecum
    Gil

  35. Luigi says:

    Hi Gil:

    “Thanks for the wise counsel. I’d split the winnings with you and the poor.”

    LOL! One and the same, my friend. One and the same… : )

    As for the Catholic Encyclopedia quote, perhaps it is hairsplitting, but “a council, Ecumenical in its convocation” is not the same as a council that is in the reality of its content Ecumenical in nature.

    For example, Vatican II was Ecumenical in its convocation according to the decree issued on Jan 25, 1959. Had the bishops of the East failed to participate in the Council once convened (for example) thereby leaving the “approbation of the whole Church” wanting, or had the popes (John XXIII or Paul VI) failed to confirm its teachings, it would have failed to be a valid Ecumenical council in the reality of its content. (Forgive the clumsy words. I think you know what I mean.)

    As we both know, neither of these things, nor anything else, happened to effetively strip VII of being Ecumenical as convoked. Vatican II is as much an Ecumenical Council of the Church as Trent. If the rug can get yanked out from under the former, (or simply be obliterated as you say) it can happen to the latter.

  36. Gil says:

    Luigi:
    /”As we both know, neither of these things, nor anything else, happened to effectively strip VII of being Ecumenical as convoked. Vatican II is as much an Ecumenical Council of the Church as Trent. If the rug can get yanked out from under the former, (or simply be obliterated as you say) it can happen to the latter.”/

    Thanks, our chat was quite delightful.
    Domine, ad adjuvandum me festina
    Gil

  37. Luigi says:

    Thank you, Gil. You’re a gentleman. I enjoyed our chat as well. God bless you, brother.