What would you think if President Bush went to China and quoted Mao's Little Red Book? Then what if Pope Benedict met with Jews and quoted the blasphemous Talmud? Well, that's what happened recently in France, according to Zenit News. The article calls it a "subtle revolution," noting how popes and saints had formerly banned and burned the book. (The hideous things it says about Our Lord and His Sweet Mother are beyond repeating here.)
Just when we think the pope is taking a step towards Tradition...
Please lay of our Holy Father.
After all he is only human.
I believe that Pope St Peter demanded the observation of the abrogated Mosaic Law 20 years after Christ recinded it.
St Paul straightened him out on this, one year later.
Give someone some time to straighten out His Holiness on the Talmud thing.
St Peter was only human to, and the greatest Supreme Pontiff ever.
God bless you.
The opinion of the Fathers, according to my Haydock Bible, is that St. Peter was guilty of "a venial fault of imprudence." It was his behavior, and not his doctrine.
The Church had thoroughly straightened out the Talmud issue, but Pope Benedict will have none of it.
We have become so used to popes doing unthinkable things for so long now, nobody cares. It was announced that he will have a rabbi speak at the upcoming synod-- outrageous. Our Holy Father is a dear old man but a complete modernist. He truly believes that all religions are equal, as did his predecessor. Pray for the cleansing to begin!
It's better to say that he has modernist leanings. The First Vatican Council declared that the papacy, in addition to being perpetual, cannot fail in Faith, according to Our Lord's prayer for St. Peter.
It is an absolute mystery how to reconcile what we see with what we know to be true by Faith. Kind of like the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist, no?
"Our Holy Father is a dear old man but a complete modernist."
Larry,
Would a complete modernist sign into Church law "Summorum Pontificum"?
We may not understand everything that the Holy Father is doing and why, and we can disagree with what he does as Supreme Pontiff, when not teaching in matters of faith and morals, but a complete modernist he is not.
God bless you
Dan,
Read history. Who were the popes buddies during Vatican II. What did the message of Fatima have to say about this very period of history? His freeing of the old Mass is in hope that a new hybrid Mass will develop someday. The writing is on the wall.
According to St. Pius X, it is characteristic of a Modernist to play both sides of the fence, for they are dual minded:
(Pascendi, no. 18) "Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully."
A "complete modernist" would never support the Gregorian Mass the way that our Supreme Pontiff has.
Pope Benedict is most definitly not playing two sides of the fence and he is most definitely not dual minded.
His single conscious mission is to save souls.
One side
The only side.
I can speak for myself.
Since his ascension to the Throne of Peter I have become an infinitely better Catholic.
I actually know, in my own limited way, what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is now, and I have a much firmer grasp of sin.
I owe this in great part to the work of the Holy Ghost working through His Holiness.
Man alive, it seems like you enjoy making a hobby of bashing the successor of Peter.
Cripes.
There are a lot of other real people to be mad at.
I know that there is a certain satisfaction in being angry at competant authority, but do not aim this anger at His Holiness.
We have Father McBrien for that.
Dan,
There are two discussions going, namely, the Talmud issue and the modernist issue. Let's settle the second one first. We can't call the pope a Modernist, as this is saying that he has lost the Faith. The First Vatican Council was clear that Our Lord's prayer for St. Peter applies to all the popes; hence, his Faith cannot fail. The pope could, however, be given to erroneous thinking.
The first issue, the Talmud issue, is highly significant in that it illustrates how His Holiness has once again publicly challenged the authority of several of his predecessors. His Holiness is very intelligent, is in full control of his faculties, and is deliberate in his public actions. This was not an act of frailty; it's not as if I have been off digging for dirt in his closet. Pope Benedict effectively nullified several long-standing Magisterial acts. He also dishonored all the martyrs who have perished at the hands of Talmudists, including victims of Bolshevism. In the annals of unimaginable papal acts, this one ranks alongside Pope John Paul's kissing the Koran.
Would it be better just to ignore incidents like this? I see reporting it as being important for the salvation of souls, and for the defense of the papacy and Tradition. While you express indignation over my questioning Pope Benedict, who will express indignation for the popes of old who were actually flouted? Souls who hear only approval of Pope Benedict may slowly drift away from Tradition, or may come to regard the popes and Doctors of old as having a parochial or medieval mindset. Such souls are on the precipice of falling into grave error.
Another way to deal with such incidents is to avoid the direct approach but to provide strong doses of Tradition as an antidote. This is good for souls and avoids upsetting folks, but doesn't sound the alarm as clearly as it could be sounded.
Cyprian,
I agree with everything you say.
I guess I got off the track and was addressing the "complete modernist" comment, made by Larry.
I am completely confused as to why the Holy Father supports the Talmud.
I think that the Holy Fathers heart is the right place.
As was Pope John Paul II.
I am, though, very confused as to why they have tended to apparently embrace some of the things that their predecessors have condemned.
Puzzling.
But I am a simple peasant and not the Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ on earth.
The Pope's overturning of precedent might follow from some of the concepts he espoused before being elevated to the Chair. In his 1998 book "Milestones" he says, "Revelation now appeared no longer simply as a communication of truths to the intellect but as a historical action of God in which truth becomes gradually unveiled." This is basically evolution of doctrine. For a more complete discussion, see http://waragainstbeing.com (read the introduction page, then Article 12 "The Quintessential Evolutionist").