In case you haven't heard, tolerance is a one-way street. Of course, if you're a member of the NewChurch, that's just fine. From inventing Holy Thursday ceremonies that include women to "praying" in a mosque as the head of the Church, modern Catholics have been only too happy to assist the enemies of the Church in their efforts to destroy it.
But now we have a real fight on our hands, one that cannot be spun as the product of ecumenism by Rome. Shmuel Rabinovitch, the rabbi who polices the goings-on at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, has laid down the law to PB16 on the eve of his trip to the Holy Land, declaring publicly that PB16 must not wear his pectoral cross while visiting the Wailing Wall. Here are two articles from Jewish newspapers on the controversy:
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/17/1003767/rabbi-no-crosses-at-western-wall
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237114844980&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
This is not the first time Rabinovitch has demanded that such "insulting and provocative" symbols be removed. Here is a link to an article from 2007 regarding his bullying of 14 Austrian bishops and their pectoral crosses: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124235
In his latest insult to Catholics, Rabinovitch makes the claim that PJP2 did not wear his pectoral cross when he visited the Wailing Wall in 2000. The link to this picture makes it clear that PJP2 did in fact wear his pectoral cross and that Rabinovitch is either stupid or a liar: http://www.note2god.com/uploads/news/id14/pope_kotel2.gif
But 9 years later we have an entirely different situation, not to mention pope. PB16 is still in hot water for the whole SSPX/Bishop Williamson affair. PB16 already has apostatized with his treacherous visit to the Blue Mosque in Turkey in 2006, but even the Muslims did not demand that he remove his cross. Then again, maybe the Muslims are just better at PR, for I cannot imagine how any Muslim, let alone a pagan or even a Christian, can take seriously anything PB16 says after being photographed in a mosque, praying with a "religion" that denies Christ. Anyway, here is a link to a series of pics of PB16 visiting the Blue Mosque: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6197064.stm
I'll admit to a sort of grudging respect for Rabinovich. He's managed to "offend" Jewish women's groups who have sought to revolt against Jewish customs at the Wall. We'll see very soon whether PB16 is as generous to the Jews as he was to the Muslims.
R. Catesby
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
New Foreskin for an Old Penis
Through an act of charity gone horribly wrong (and being terribly busy at work) I have been unable to provide timely updates. I would apologize for the lack of activity on this blog over the last month or so, but as there is no one who reads and learns from my words, I will move on.
Much of each person's degree of success depends on the order in which he appears in the great play of life. If you are a salesman who follows in the footsteps of a mediocre predecessor, you will get high marks for your abilities; treat a woman with even the most basic respect after her encounter with a modern male and you will be hailed as the perfect gentleman. It seems few people have any "big shoes" to fill any more.
PB16 is a man who is benefiting from this weakness of our culture: To wit, his letter to Catholic bishops made public March 12, 2009. In this letter the pope alternately reassures and scolds mildly everyone involved in the debacle concerning the lifting of the excommunications of the Society of St. Pius X and the simultaneous--and irrelevant--problem of one of Bishop Williamson's comments about the Holocaust. You may check out the pope's letter here to get his words in the proper context: http://www.whotv.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-vatican-holocaust-denial-text,0,7832675.story
PB16 follows four very weak popes, starting with John 23rd. More importantly, he follows John Paul II, who never met a scandal he wouldn't tolerate, except, of course, the SSPX. By any sensible standard, PJP2 was as weak a pope as could be imagined. Conservative Catholics will read this letter and be heartened that a pope actually addressed a letter to bishops and dared to criticize them (and those who think like them) for being unwilling to extend their hands in friendship with the SSPX. Some "Traditionalists" (a stupid word that serves only to marginalize authentic Catholics) might even be tempted to see PB16's words as proof and comfort that he intends to use the SSPX to help restore sanity to a Church long gone mad. But he gives away his true motive in lifting the bogus excommunications in the 6th paragraph, just far enough down so that most educated people and all journalists will by then have stopped reading. He recalls similar organizations that formerly rejected Vatican II and ultimately "changed their interior attitudes" that "enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and [break] down rigidity." From hell, Orwell is smiling approvingly, and Rousseau giggles in the corner.
Thus the title of today's post. For all the talk, nothing has changed at Rome: For modern Catholics, Pentecost began on the date that Vatican II closed. The new Mass is the expression of their ersatz religion, and any attempt to minimize its status, not to mention having equal status with the ancient Mass, is met with a vulgar viciousness reserved for no other threat. How pathetic that the pope needs to remind Catholic bishops that Church history is 2000 years old and did not begin in 1965 (see paragraph 3)!
The allure of legitimacy trips up most people; the desire to fit in and conform at any cost kills the righteous spirit. St. Paul understood this when he rebuked St. Peter for not sitting with Gentiles, and it is instructive that PB16's Lenten letter, in which he refers to Galatians, totally omits that specific episode. It also is sad that a pope ridicules St. Paul for committing "rhetorical excesses." One wonders if he even tries to understand St. Paul. I am more convinced than ever that the journey the SSPX is taking with Rome is nothing more than a death march, and the worst part is that they will be asking for the pope's blessing at each step along the way.
R. Catesby
P.S.: The title of today's post comes by way of a dear friend who is a professor of the history of religion, with an emphasis on early Christianity. He also describes himself as a pagan and an atheist, which makes him only slightly less religious, though perhaps more informed, than, say, Cardinal Mahoney.
Much of each person's degree of success depends on the order in which he appears in the great play of life. If you are a salesman who follows in the footsteps of a mediocre predecessor, you will get high marks for your abilities; treat a woman with even the most basic respect after her encounter with a modern male and you will be hailed as the perfect gentleman. It seems few people have any "big shoes" to fill any more.
PB16 is a man who is benefiting from this weakness of our culture: To wit, his letter to Catholic bishops made public March 12, 2009. In this letter the pope alternately reassures and scolds mildly everyone involved in the debacle concerning the lifting of the excommunications of the Society of St. Pius X and the simultaneous--and irrelevant--problem of one of Bishop Williamson's comments about the Holocaust. You may check out the pope's letter here to get his words in the proper context: http://www.whotv.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-vatican-holocaust-denial-text,0,7832675.story
PB16 follows four very weak popes, starting with John 23rd. More importantly, he follows John Paul II, who never met a scandal he wouldn't tolerate, except, of course, the SSPX. By any sensible standard, PJP2 was as weak a pope as could be imagined. Conservative Catholics will read this letter and be heartened that a pope actually addressed a letter to bishops and dared to criticize them (and those who think like them) for being unwilling to extend their hands in friendship with the SSPX. Some "Traditionalists" (a stupid word that serves only to marginalize authentic Catholics) might even be tempted to see PB16's words as proof and comfort that he intends to use the SSPX to help restore sanity to a Church long gone mad. But he gives away his true motive in lifting the bogus excommunications in the 6th paragraph, just far enough down so that most educated people and all journalists will by then have stopped reading. He recalls similar organizations that formerly rejected Vatican II and ultimately "changed their interior attitudes" that "enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and [break] down rigidity." From hell, Orwell is smiling approvingly, and Rousseau giggles in the corner.
Thus the title of today's post. For all the talk, nothing has changed at Rome: For modern Catholics, Pentecost began on the date that Vatican II closed. The new Mass is the expression of their ersatz religion, and any attempt to minimize its status, not to mention having equal status with the ancient Mass, is met with a vulgar viciousness reserved for no other threat. How pathetic that the pope needs to remind Catholic bishops that Church history is 2000 years old and did not begin in 1965 (see paragraph 3)!
The allure of legitimacy trips up most people; the desire to fit in and conform at any cost kills the righteous spirit. St. Paul understood this when he rebuked St. Peter for not sitting with Gentiles, and it is instructive that PB16's Lenten letter, in which he refers to Galatians, totally omits that specific episode. It also is sad that a pope ridicules St. Paul for committing "rhetorical excesses." One wonders if he even tries to understand St. Paul. I am more convinced than ever that the journey the SSPX is taking with Rome is nothing more than a death march, and the worst part is that they will be asking for the pope's blessing at each step along the way.
R. Catesby
P.S.: The title of today's post comes by way of a dear friend who is a professor of the history of religion, with an emphasis on early Christianity. He also describes himself as a pagan and an atheist, which makes him only slightly less religious, though perhaps more informed, than, say, Cardinal Mahoney.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
