Suited Up

by Jimmy Akin on August 24, 2006

in Benedict XVI

The outrage potential of some radical Traditionalists can, at times, be bewildering. Rather than look at a picture that surprises them and try to think of the most charitable explanation for that picture, apparently, their reactions are set on default to "See! More evidence that Neo-Church is out to get us all!"

Take this picture of two elderly brothers spending some downtime together, a snapshot that I find simply adorable, and test your default reaction to it:

B16suit

Evidently the photograph was published in the European magazine Point de Vue on February 15, 2006 (at least according to the attribution given the picture by the radical Traditionalist site Tradition In Action). In any event, the picture is likely to be a post-election photo of Pope Benedict XVI, perhaps taken when he visited Germany last year.

(UPDATE: Comboxers have dated the photo to a 2004 retreat the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and his brother took together.  See the combox for more information.)   

The RadTrad site’s reaction:

"Either during his trip to Germany last year or in Italy — the magazine Point de Vue did not specify a place for this recent photo — Benedict XVI meets his brother Fr. [sic; it's Msgr.] Georg Ratzinger at a piano to dicuss some scores of Mozart.

"Both the Pope and the priest are wearing suits. One can see that Fr. [Msgr.] Georg chooses a more relaxed open shirt, while his ‘conservative’ papal brother Joseph keeps his closed. Although the photo is not very clear on this detail, it seems that Benedict is wearing a tie.

"At any rate, Pope Ratzinger [sic] wears a well tailored double-breasted blue-grey suit.

[...]

"At least Joseph Ratzinger maintains the ‘tradition’ of wearing suits. It should confirm some conservatives in the fact that Benedict maintains old customs…."

GET THE STORY.

Horrors! Shouldn’t a pope know better than to wear anything but a white cassock during his personal time? After all, hasn’t every pope since St. Peter done so?

Oh, wait. White papal clothing was introduced by Pope St. Pius V, who decided not to wear "traditional" papal finery during his downtime but to continue to ordinarily wear his white Dominican habit. Future popes continued wearing a white cassock until it became "traditional." And, speaking of St. Peter…. Didn’t he once strip down to his skivvies while fishing on the Sea of Tiberias and have to dress quickly and swim to shore so he could meet the Lord (John 21:7)?

But don’t tell TIA any of this. Their default setting might overload.

(POST-PUBLICATION NOTE:  It is likely that the photo is pre-election, rather than post-election, but the general point remains the same:  There is nothing wrong with a pope, cardinal, or priest not wearing Traditional Clerical Garb during his personal time. Granted, doing so can be prudentially advantageous, especially if a priest is "on call." But doing so purely for the sake of Image can actually be prideful [Matt. 23:2-7].)

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Great parody there, Michael Shannon!

There you Akinback Catholics go again, ADORING a picture. Is not that a graven image you are adoring? From this picture we know that, no doubt, George knows better than to argue with his brother now because he is now infallible.

In Germany often priests wear suits and ties. Usually White shirt with black (or dark) suite and tie.

What does it matter what he wears. Are we that conflictet???? We should be more concetrating on more importend things. A Priest is always a priest no matter what he wears. He has the right to be human too. We don't where our wedding dress for the rest of our lifes do we?? I love our dear Holy Father and his way of bringing us closer to our Lord and that is more importend than what he wears.
God bless

Rosemarie,
At German universities priests in the 50s and 60s did not wear clerical collars but regular black suits. That's why Father Ratzinger is wearing a suit.

JR,
You are just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. Cardinal Ratzinger usually wore a plain black cassock to work at the CDF. What in the world is wrong with that? Basically, every bishop, archbishop, cardinal, or pope is a priest. Are you really that ignorant?

To be fair, an argument might be made that wearing simple priest's clericals in inappropriate for a Cardinal. This is the only debating point left on this issue, assuming we are right that this is pre-election Cardinal Ratzinger wearing a Northern European collar.
Also I am surprised that priests in the Alp region would wear Northern European clericals, but I guess maybe they do. Different definitions of "Northern Europe" I guess.

+J.M.J+
Oh, and in my last post I did not mean to imply that the current Vicar of Christ falls under the same category as a priest who "lives miserably in sin". My point is: If even sinful priests deserve respect because of their office, how much more does the Pope deserve respect, whether he's sinful or not!
In Jesu et Maria,

+J.M.J+
>>>More trad bashing? "Radical Traditionalists"-so I guess they are "Radically Catholic" and actually Love all the church stood for(snip)
If only you loved the pope that much (as tradition dictates), you wouldn't judge him so harshly and rashly. You would then be even more truly "traditional".
Whatever happened to Papa a nemine judicatur - "the Pope is judged by no one"?
BTW, have you ever read the Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena? In it, God the Father tells her that people must never judge priests, even if they are not virtuous. Here is a sample:
"You should love them therefore by reason of the virtue and dignity of the Sacrament, and by reason of that very virtue and dignity you should hate the defects of those who live miserably in sin, but not on that account appoint yourselves their judges, which I forbid, because they are My Christs, and you ought to love and reverence the authority which I have given them."
How much more would this apply to the Vicar of Christ? You want traditional Catholicism? Well, that's it!
>>>I am getting to think that many here are actually jealous they dont believe or adhere to all of the church teachings before they were "reformed"
Oh, so you think it's all just jealousy. It couldn't possibly be because people here are getting tired of hearing all this pope-bashing, so offensive to pious ears. It wouldn't have anything to do with your uncharitable attitude toward the Pontiff, which is about as contrary to the sensus Catholicus as anything can get. No, no, no; we're all just jealous of you, John. Right. Keep telling yourself that.
>>>Sorry but there really is no "downtime" for the vicar of Christ. Whether this was pre election or not, he was still a high ranking Cardinal who many looked up to.
But if it was "pre election" then he wasn't the Vicar of Christ at the time. So it does matter.
>>>I personally dont have any issues with him wearing a suit on a retreat, but he obviously worre suits to Vatican II day in and day out
How do you know this?
Also, from everything I've read about the man many of his views have changed since the Second Vatican Council, tending to become more "conservative". So even if it were true that he didn't wear his clericals forty years ago, how does that logically prove anything about how he is today? Can't people change? I'd hate to have people judge me today by things I did just twenty years ago; I've changed a lot since then so that would be very unfair.
>>>so he is not one to care about wearing clericial garb, much like the nuns of today who dont believe they should distinguish themselves from the laity
I dislike seeing nuns in tacky schoolmarm outfits as much as you do. Yet I also see a big difference between a nun who *never* wears a proper habit and a priest or cardinal who *usually* wears his clericals but perhaps doesn't put them on for a brief time during a personal retreat.
Besides, I have become convinced that he is wearing Northern European clericals under that jacket, which would make your whole complaint moot.
In Jesu et Maria,

Janice: Maybe I'm reading your last statement about "traditionalists" out of context ... BUT ... Janice?
Ya needs ta chill.
Catholicism, as has been pointed out, is a religion of Tradition. Calling all traditionalists "stupid" is irresponsible, especially since you don't define the word. Also? 'S'prob'ly against Da Rulz.
Just sayin'.

John,
Or you might add, I guess it is too much to require a "faithful" Catholic to respect the Vicar of Christ.

More trad bashing? "Radical Traditionalists"-so I guess they are "Radically Catholic" and actually Love all the church stood for before it started to be more like the secular world, instead of the church demanding that the secular world try to be more like she.
I am getting to think that many here are actually jealous they dont believe or adhere to all of the church teachings before they were "reformed"
Sorry but there really is no "downtime" for the vicar of Christ. Whether this was pre election or not, he was still a high ranking Cardinal who many looked up to.
If this was downtime-as now it is stated below the picture on a retreat-the picture was obviously taken by someone there who made the picture public.
I personally dont have any issues with him wearing a suit on a retreat, but he obviously worre suits to Vatican II day in and day out so he is not one to care about wearing clericial garb, much like the nuns of today who dont believe they should distinguish themselves from the laity
Thank Goodness our Police and Fireman wear those hot and heavy uniforms to save peoples lives when on the job-I guess it is to much to ask a nun to wear a habit today when teaching or a priest to look like one

Call me liberal, but I'm not shocked that Father Georg (sp?) is wearing an open dress shirt, per se, insofar as this was supposed to be a retreat, and in private (private, meaning not completely out of sight of anyone, but private in the sense of indoors, not before the broader public); a music room in some retreat center counts as "private" to me.
He's dressed to be comfortable, hanging with his brother. Oh, the horror of it all!
(I wouldn't even be shocked if he had dressed this way "in public" -- and charity and justice forbid inferring anything derogatory from that -- but that's not even at issue here.)

One thing about traditionalists is that they're stupid. How many of these posts have made is absolutely CLEAR that the picture was taken BEFORE Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope? How many more of them many it absolutely CLEAR that Cardinal Ratzinger was wearing a northern European CLERICAL COLLAR? And yet, you so-called traditionalists continue to whine and moan about his state of dress. For God's sake, don't you have more important things to complain about, like your own hypocrisy and the problems in your own sectarian conventicles?

J.R.
Thanks for clearing that up. If it is as you state the entire argument for, or against, cardinals wearing business suits is irrelevant.

J.R.,
Jerad Weber, I refer to something that happend months ago, and I'm not sure if it was you or the other Jerad. Sorry about misspelling your name above though.
Did you do that intentionally? (It's Jared, not Jerad!)

FI,
The man sitting is Georg Ratzinger, brother of Pope Benedict. He is a retired priest who seems to be dressed as a layman. As Rosemarie points out, that he is retired is likely a significant fact.
The man standing next to him is Pope Benedict XVI himself, though probebly from before he was elected. He was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger then. If the posters in this combox are right he is not wearing a tie but a northern European clerical collar.
Jerad Weber, I refer to something that happend months ago, and I'm not sure if it was you or the other Jerad. Sorry about misspelling your name above though.

+J.M.J+
>>>if I am not mistaken the gentleman next to Cardinal Ratzinger (pre election?) is none other than his brother a priest. It looks to me he is wearing an open shirt
I believe his brother Georg is retired. Granted, he still has Holy Orders, but he's not an active priest anymore. Perhaps that explains why he's not dressed as a priest here; wearing clericals would perhaps give others the impression that he is still an active priest.
Who knows how they do these things in Europe, anyway.
In Jesu et Maria,

The man at the piano has an open shirt. Some are saying that is cerical dress in that region and that it is just not buttoned up. Perhaps that is the case. The man next to him seems to be wearing a tie? Is that his brother who is a priest?
Assume for a minute both men are priests and both are in business suits. I am not saying that is the case. I am wondering why some think it is wrong to question, yes even mildly criticize, priests who dress that way?
Is a business suit a way many men relax at home? I am not saying priests cannot wear whatever they choose at home I am simply wondering why relaxed dress is a rather formal secular suit?
My questions are made because I can see the point of those who are wondering why a cardinal would be in a business suit. I also am surprised anyone would be upset that anyone one would wonder why a cardinal or priest would want to wear a business suit.

JR Stoodley: Dude, you're forgiven ... for whatever it was. However, I don't take lightly when people misspell my name!!!
It's J-A-R-E-D!!!
Of course, I'm completely kidding. Carry on.
--Jared (who hasn't read through this whole thing and really has no intention of doing so)

I mean the word "know-nothings"

Is this an accepted use of the work "know-nothings"? The way I use it, it means menbers of the 1850's American Party. Anti-Catholic Nativists they were.
I think it is safe to say that some who call themselves traditionalists are as bad as all that, while others are quite faithful, and there are all sorts of positions in between. I have a friend who calls himself a traditionalist (I tend to stear clear of labels) and he is more "traditional" than me in some ways and less in others. He has personal faults (at least as it appears to me) that I do not while I have problems with things he is strong on.
My point is, these labels are misleading in that the diversity of ideas within the Church is near infinite yet generally only three or four labels are used to describe the different schools of thought. To some degree this kind of classification is necessary, but it can be abused, especially if you venture to condemn a whole group.

You traditionalists are frauds and know-nothings.
I just had a flash back to my days as a child growing up in the Catholic Church. Let's all sing Kumbaya!
Kumbaya my lord. Kumbaya. Kumbaya my lord. Kumbaya.
Really, remarks like that are very uncharitable. Let's save our venom for the real enemy, shall we.
Frauds and know-nothings, indeed.

John,
If I get a vote in the next conclave, I'll vote for you to be pope. In the meantime, I'll trust the Holy Spirit and listen to the one He gave me.

My understanding is that in Germany, diocesan clergy tend not to wear clericals as often as in many other places, and aren't addressed as 'Father'. The Ratzinger brothers probably wore clericals a lot more than their colleagues.
But really, folks, why all the shock-horror? They are wearing perfectly decent, modest, gentlemen's clothing. From some of the reactions you'd think they'd been caught in ladies' underwear.

Moron? So charitable from you
Pre-election or not it really does not matter, if I am not mistaken the gentleman next to Cardinal Ratzinger (pre election?) is none other than his brother a priest. It looks to me he is wearing an open shirt
I guess that with the nuns today dressing however they like and with all the freedom allowed to the clergy and laity alike-the decline in vocations has been drastic not to mention the quality of seminary candidate
Spend a bit of time in a seminary with what is allowed today and tell me if what is being taught today and allowed today is all good. St Thomas? Dont even mention him. Karl Rahner? Hans Kung? Great!

If the Pope feels to "uncomfortable" wearing his cassock-then we have the wrong man as Pope
John,
You are a moron. The photo is pre-2005, when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected. He is wearing a clerical shirt. He has always identified himself as a priest and proudly so. What is your problem? Well, I know what it is. Just another pope-bashing, "traditionalist," who wouldn't know tradition if it came up to him and shook his hand. You traditionalists are frauds and know-nothings.

Rosemarie,
I don't know that anyone could have stated it any better. I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said in each of your last three posts. And thank you in particular for the allocution from Pope St. Pius X.
MO,
I, too, am sorry if I have offended you. I still believe, however, that you are missing the point when you state that the only reason for my criticism is some perceived support of SSPX. SSPX is, frankly, not the issue here.
My question above about universalism was genuine, although I will understand if you do not care to answer on this post, as it is somewhat off topic. But I do believe that different people mean different things by universalism, and that many saints (including the one quoted above) have written things that would be wrongly lumped with the heresy of universalism these days.
For what it is worth, the next question that I wanted to ask you was whether I have correctly interpreted the two fundamental bases for your criticisms of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI in the following:
1) They have not followed the non-infallible teachings of previous popes and/or ecumenical councils. (I say non-infallible because I am not aware of any argument, at least from you, that they have changed anything that had previously been held by the Church to be infallible.)
2) They have not followed private revelation.
It seems that all of your criticisms can be boiled down to these two points, but I would like to know if there is anything else.
If, on the other hand, you continue to feel that we have drifted too far afield, I will respect that judgment and wish you the best.

+J.M.J+
Forgive me for posting one more time on this, but I just want to be perfectly clear about what I am criticizing, so as to offset any confusion. I specifically have in mind John's earlier statement:
If the Pope feels to "uncomfortable" wearing his cassock-then we have the wrong man as Pope
I stand by my assertion that this is rash judgment of the Pope's heart and intentions. I'm not of the opinion that no Pope can ever be criticized for anything (I just mentioned St. Catherine of Siena above, after all!) Yes, a Pope can be criticized, but it must be done humbly and charitably and only when one has absolute certainty that he has done something wrong. But saying something like "we have the wrong man as Pope" is out of line.
In Jesu et Maria,

+J.M.J+
Oh, and when I wrote above:
It really bothers me whenever self-professed Catholics trash the Holy Father, whether they are "progressives" wishing that JP2 would die or "traditionalists" judging the pope's heart and motives based on outward appearances.
I did NOT mean to say that *all* traditionalists trash the Pontiff. I KNOW they don't all do that. I'm just taking issue with those who do. If they truly want to be traditional Catholics then they should give the Pope the due honor Catholics have traditionally given him, rather than assuming the worst about him and judging him without full knowledge.
In Jesu et Maria,

+J.M.J+
I wouldn't say there have been "countless" bad popes. Of all the Successors to St. Peter, relatively few have been truly "bad." (Antipopes don't count because they were not true popes).
Nevertheless, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and our spiritual father, so good or bad he deserves our love and respect. St. Catherine of Siena rebuked the pope at her time for being in Avignon, yet she still called him her "sweet Christ on earth." She had the filial love for him which is characteristic of the Saints and of all good Catholics, for that matter.
It really bothers me whenever self-professed Catholics trash the Holy Father, whether they are "progressives" wishing that JP2 would die or "traditionalists" judging the pope's heart and motives based on outward appearances. Pope-bashing among Catholics is a modern novelty; it is NOT Catholic tradition.
In his Allocution of May 10, 1909, Pope St. Pius X said:
"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone."
Love for and fidelity to the Pope is a basic characteristic of Catholics. If you don't believe me then believe Pope St. Pius X.
In Jesu et Maria,

We have had many bad popes in our history, even having 3 men claim the papacy with Bishops on one side or the other pledging allegiance to one or the other until a council was held to decide the "real pope" with the seat vacant for 3 years. It so happens the man who "was Pope" heading into the council was none other than the first Pope John XXIII who was later deemed a heretic and had to escape for his life. There have been countless bad popes as they are human as you and I

I confirm what MO has said about internet debate. While lack of charity in any forum is unacceptible, it is far easier to lose track of that of that with the anonymity of the internet.
I myself have written things hear that I would never have said in "real life." Partially the increased courage has helped me express things I never felt comfortable discussing in person, especially when it comes to disagreeing with someone. On the other hand I have in haste or stupidity or lack of patience written things I have regretted (sorry again Jered if you read this and remember that post).
When a person writes something dumb here it shows his or her weakness but does not necessarily reflect their general personality or how they would behave in person.

I will bow out of this very interesting debate now by apologizing sincerely to anyone I may have offended.
I stand by my statement regarding Internet debate; I imagine if we were all placed in a room face to face, the above conversation would have taken a much more civil course.
I also feel that there are very real problems present in today's Church among the hierarchy, and I will not soften that view despite what others may perceive as support for the SSPX.
Anyway, I do again apologize to anyone I offended, especially to Mr. Akin for having initiated perhaps the most sidetracked blog comment ever, and I hope we can agree to pray that God's will will be accomplished in the end.

Error has no rights, since one is not morally free to espouse error. On the other hand a government should not force people to practice a religion that they (wrongly) reject. I do not think that is contradictory.
MO, you wrote to bill912
Bill--reverse the stakes.
You've grown up with nice, "tolerant" teachings about religious freedom, all religions "have some truth," "ecumenism is good," English Masses with female altar servers, female lectors, Communion in the hand standing, priest versus populum, a nice, quick and easy "Liturgy of the Hours," etc., etc.
Then, over the course of 5 years, a pope gives a new Missal with the Mass in Latin, ad orientem, adding numerous prayers referencing the Blessed Mother and the saints, makes the Divine Office much longer and in Latin, begins to teach that other faiths have very serious and fatal errors to overcome, bans female lectors and altar servers, mandates Holy Communion on one's knees on the tongue at an altar rail, brings back the complete fast from midnight, restores Holy Days of Obligation, and teaches the Faith undiluted.
Can I take a guess, that, given that hypothetical, you and your traditionalist-bashing friends would not be the first to submit in holy obedience?
I am not bill, but as far as I recall I agreed with all of his posts, and I for one would rejoice if what you propose happened. It is our job to obey, even when we do not want to. Indeed, it is when obedience means abandoning our own will that it becomes meaningful and meritorious. Since I presume you attend a licit indult mass, I do not accuse you of disobedience. I just want to point out that it is the place of the Pope to decide certain things, and the part of the laity to obey these directives even if they would have done differently, and would be pleased if things changed to the way they would prefer.
I like to think about it using the monastic model. You want your Abbot to do things one way, but you are under an Abbot largely because you want to abandon your own will and in humility submit it to an authority which (by your oath of Obedience in Religious Life or by the structure of the Church in the case of the Papacy) you can be sure represents the will of God for you. Even if the Abbot or Pope makes bad decisions, you may be sure that their commands to you are God's will (since God wants you to obey) unless of course they order you to actually sin, which is quite rare.

I have to agree with Janice when she says: "The state has NO right to compel persons to practice a religion against their will"
The Church has always taught this, but it is not the complete picture. The state though, DOES have the right - and the moral obgligation - to supress false religions.
And, by the way, St. Thomas Aquinas was also one of thos quaint backwards people who taught that error has no rights.

MO,
Forgive me, I did not know your friend had written a book on von Balthasar.
But perhaps we are getting into a matter of semantics here. Would you consider the person who wrote the following to be a universalist?
"All-merciful love can thus descend to everyone. We believe that it does so. And now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can become infinitely improbable--precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul....[F]aith in the unboundedness of divine love and grace also justifies hope for the universality of redemption, although, through the possibility of resistance to grace that remains open in principle, the possibility of eternal damnation also persists."

If you would get your facts right, for once, it would be a relief.
And presumably you've come to enlighten all of us.
But, unlike the 1986 conference, which Cardinal Ratzinger did not agree with and did not attend, the groups will pray separately.
They prayed separately in Assisi as well.
Remember? The Jews didn't want crucifixes in their rooms, so Pope John Paul had them covered or removed.
As to your "points" about charity, etc., your thoughts are in line with those of the SSPX, sedevacantist, traditionalist movement.
No, they aren't, and I'll point you to the debates I've had with SSPXers who've declared me a rabid SSPX critic (ironically) if it would help drive that point home.
Therefore, I am permitted to think that you are at one with them.
And I am permitted to think that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, but that really won't serve the cause for Truth.
As an aside, criticizing Assisi, Koran kissing, Bugnini's attempted abrogation of the Pian Missal, and similar actions do not make anyone "one" with the SSPX. How you would draw such a conclusion astounds me. I doubt then-Cardinal Ratzinger appreciated the Koran-kissing, we know he didn't like Assisi, we know he has reservations about the "banal on the spot fabrication" that is the NOM (HIS words from his book on the liturgy, NOT mine), and, based on the 1987 interview I alluded to earlier, we know he has seen the Third Secret from Fatima and has admitted that it deals with a loss of the Faith at the high levels of the Church.
Sounds like your new battering ram is the current Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. You had best e-mail him and tell him how refreshing it would be if he would convert to your own brand of Catholicism.
What conservative Catholics have done is no better with regards to defining their own Church, calling it "obedience" to the Holy Father, and maligning those who dare step out of line and point out a problem.
I find it amusing that you're still trotting out the old saw: "Error has no rights." WRONG.Better tell that to a few saintly popes of yore. I'm sure that, from their place in Heaven, they'll be glad to know that a 21st century Catholic living in a Church where 75% of adherents do not attend the Holy Sacrifice each week knows so much better.
In sum, error has to have some rights or education cannot occur.
No. Christian education is not educating someone in error. Educating someone in the Muslim or JEwish or Buddhist or Protestant faith would be error. Catholicism is the Faith which claims objective Truth.
In other words, people cannot be coerced into a faith, but must accept it of their own volition.
Freedom from coercion is not the same as "religious liberty."
Pius IX himself was in error and was reacting to an historical situation in which he found himself, i.e., the loss of the Papal States and his temporal authority.
I'm simply fascinated that you don't see the double standard you just strolled into.
You are now claiming that a beatified pope renowned for his tireless work against modernism, liberalism, and other heresies "was in error."
No, Blessed Pius was not in error.
But I had best slink away back to the outskirts of that SSPX chapel I don't attend. If I open my mouth again, I'll be accused of getting my facts wrong, or disobeying the pope, or not adhering to the "Declare John Paul a saint and Church doctor instantly" party line, or treading schismatic ground, etc. ad nauseam.
What an astonishing double standard. Some might go so far as to call it hypocrisy.

I'm going to jump in here and just remind you that Our Lady didn't give a deadline beyond the secrecy part. She DIDN'T say that Russia would be converted in 40 years and there would be peace in 10. Similarly, the early Christians hoped that Christ would return in their lifetime - but He didn't give us a deadline, either.
The two are not comparable.
Our Lady said that if Her request was NOT honored, Russia would spread her errors.
Russia has spread her errors. You do the math.

He wasn't altering the Rosary. He was just offering another set of meditations. An option. And you are aware of the 7-decade Franciscan rosary, right? Just because it's not as popular doesn't mean it's illegitimate as a form of prayer.
As I said, proposing a separate chaplet of mysteries and trying to add 5 new mysteries to the Rosary are two different things.
It is apparent that many of the faithful received the message that these Luminous mysteries are right on par with the 15, which is not so.
Although you've stated elsewhere that the Internet makes you come across as bitter and uncharitable, I believe it's your actual words that do that. If someone said this to me in person, I'd be irate that they were speaking to me as if I were an ignorant Pollyanna.
No, I believe I said that the anonymity of the Internet allows for this.
I could say the same about MULTIPLE people who have replied, but have not.
If you think what I say is bitter and uncharitable, that is your matter. The facts of some of what was said may be disputed, but the majority of it has happened and is not up for dispute.

Boy, the image of Pope John Paul II making the googly eyes to children comes to mind. I would love to see the pope wearing a football jersey and having a pint with his friends during a game sometime. Probably won't happen, but it's nice to see the human side of people like the pope. It was one of the strengths of JP2.

Call me a liberal, but I think regarding the messages from Mary at Fatima, and how to act upon them, the successor to Peter has more standing to make judgments in such matters, than anyone posting in this thread, or anyone they quote, even including the three seers themselves!
So I am not going to read a bunch of articles or books or whatever about all this -- because the pope is pope, and I am not.

In 1208 Domingo de Guzman was a Spanish preacher who went to southern France to preserve the faith against the Albigensian heresy. While he was praying for three days in a chapel in Prouille, Dominic saw Mary, who gave him the Rosary and taught him how to pray the Rosary. St. Dominic founded the Dominican Friars, and established monasteries all over the world. The heresy ended during his lifetime. The most famous Dominican was St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), one of greatest theologians of the Catholic Church, the author of Summa Theologica.
The Blessed Mother also gave 15 promises to St. Dominic for those who faithfully recite the rosary, which included her special protection; the promise that one would not be conquered by misfortune; and the promise that one would not die without the sacraments of the Church or without grace, and shall find during their life and at their death the light of God, the fullness of His grace, and shall share in the merits of the blessed in paradise.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, during an appearance on December 10, 1925 to Sister Lucy, one of the Fatima children, promised the graces necessary for salvation at the hour of death to all those who on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, went to Confession, Mass, Communion, recited the Rosary, and kept her company for 15 minutes while meditating on the Mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to the Blessed Mother.
Compare that to JPII and his need to add those Luminous mysteries? It was just another grandstanding attempt by a Pope who loved attention, canonized thousands and snubbed his nose at tradition, even the great St Dominic every way he could

To sum it all up. (From my point of veiw at least)
1) it appears that the photo in question was taken prior to the Holy Father's elevation.
2) it is possible that the then cardinal was in a form of northern European clecical garb.
If point 2 is correct it leaves a bit of egg on the face of the site posting the tirade against the pope.
3) We seem to like very long arguements.

+J.M.J+
>>>But Pope Benedict has convened the 20th anniversary bash of the Assisi conference.
You are referring to the "International Encounters of Religions" gathering run by the the Community of Sant'Egidio. Here is a news article about it:
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=...
It doesn't say anything about Benedict XVI convening it or planning to attend. The Community of Sant'Egidio has held these meetings yearly around the world since 1986; they were inspired by the Assisi meeting JP2 called that year, but he himself did not attend them.
The gathering is now returning to Assisi for the twentieth anniversary, but unless you have some further information on the gathering which I have not read, I see no evidence that the current Pontiff has anything to do with it.
In Jesu et Maria,

MO,
If you would get your facts right, for once, it would be a relief. Yes, there will be an Assisi conference. And yes, various groups will gather for prayer. But, unlike the 1986 conference, which Cardinal Ratzinger did not agree with and did not attend, the groups will pray separately.
As to your "points" about charity, etc., your thoughts are in line with those of the SSPX, sedevacantist, traditionalist movement. Therefore, I am permitted to think that you are at one with them. And yes, according to Dominus Iesus, SSPX, et al., do fulfill the criteria for denomination as a Protestant church.
I find it amusing that you're still trotting out the old saw: "Error has no rights." WRONG. According to the early Christian fathers you said you've read, the process of Christianization was one of education, not of damnation (cf. Irenaeus, Origen, the Cappadocian Fathers). In sum, error has to have some rights or education cannot occur. "Error has no rights" came from the lips of Gregory XVIX and Pius IX (and was reiterated by Cardinal Ottaviani). Pius IX was caught between the unification of Italy and the loss of his temporal authority (the basic texts are: Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 1832; Pius IX, Quanta Cura & the Syllabus of Errors, 1864).
Now really read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on religious liberty:
#2108: "The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right."
In other words, people cannot be coerced into a faith, but must accept it of their own volition. Pius IX himself was in error and was reacting to an historical situation in which he found himself, i.e., the loss of the Papal States and his temporal authority.
One SSPX document concludes that: "Vatican II's redefinition of "religious liberty" claims for men a new "right to privacy", that men may be free from State interference to even violate God's First Commandment."
You're damn right. The state has NO right to compel persons to practice a religion against their will. THAT is sinful. It is a mark of an authoritarian state that does not recognize the image of God in every person, but treats people as objects. THAT is sinful. Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and anyone who said: "error has no rights" was misinformed. These popes may cover themselves with the blanket of history. What's your excuse?

"Brother Cadfael--Russia has not converted. There has been no peace. Russia has spread her errors--atheism and secular humanism."
I'm going to jump in here and just remind you that Our Lady didn't give a deadline beyond the secrecy part. She DIDN'T say that Russia would be converted in 40 years and there would be peace in 10. Similarly, the early Christians hoped that Christ would return in their lifetime - but He didn't give us a deadline, either.
Continue to pray for peace and the conversion of souls - and be patient.

"But, simply put, neither he nor anyone else save the Mother of God has the authority to alter the Holy Rosary..."
He wasn't altering the Rosary. He was just offering another set of meditations. An option. And you are aware of the 7-decade Franciscan rosary, right? Just because it's not as popular doesn't mean it's illegitimate as a form of prayer.
If I were you, I wouldn't make suppositions about St. Louis de Montfort being "horrified" by the Luminous Mysteries. That's not fair to St. Louis.
"And a third: What was the respective authority of Each?"
Mary is the Mother of God. And the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. I'd think they were working together, no?
"The problem is trying to add them to the Rosary. Meditate on them as much as you like. But the Rosary has 15 mysteries, and I'm going with the Blessed Mother, St. Dominic, Blessed Alan, St. Louis, and Our Lady of Fatima on this."
This is the crux of the problem here, MO. These saints didn't say that the Franciscan rosary, for example, wasn't a real rosary. And they didn't say "Don't add anything more to this Rosary!" It sounds very much as if you're expressing that Pope John Paul II was doing something wrong by presenting mysteries that focus on Our Lord's public life. It's also ironic.
"I'm a bit confused as to why you've launched a personal campaign to vindicate your own parish priest. I never said anything about your own parish. I am speaking of a larger and undeniable trend in the United States."
A "personal campaign" is condescending, MO. I was merely responding to your list of things that I could see at your parish's Mass and pointing out that my priest conducts himself in a like manner.
"Can't make sunshine out of a monsoon, no matter how much you try."
Although you've stated elsewhere that the Internet makes you come across as bitter and uncharitable, I believe it's your actual words that do that. If someone said this to me in person, I'd be irate that they were speaking to me as if I were an ignorant Pollyanna.

Call me whatever you like, but given your hypothetical, I would be the first to submit in holy obedience to what the Holy Father proposed.
I was actually replying to Bill, not you.
I do not have the weight of being responsible for 1+billion souls on my shoulders.
That's true.
Attempting to answer that question would result in an immediate Rule 3 violation.
One example would suffice.
It is the absolutely preposterous notion that you know what the Blessed Mother's wishes are and the Holy Father does not.
Brother Cadfael, and I quote:
" To prevent this, I shall come to the world to ask that Russia be consecrated to my Immaculate Heart...If my wishes are fulfilled, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, then Russia will spread her errors throughout the world..."
Brother Cadfael--Russia has not converted. There has been no peace. Russia has spread her errors--atheism and secular humanism
I do not need to presume to know the Blessed Mother's wishes. They are right there on the page, for you, me, the Holy Father, and anyone else to see them.
The consecration of Russia was requested and peace and conversion were promised.
Peace and conversion have not come--quite the opposite. Russia is terribly anti-Catholic, and it has not been consecrated.
Hence, we have a simple syllogism which you choose apparently to ignore in favor of telling me I'm "disrespectful."
It is the even more astounding assertion that the Holy Father knows the Blessed Mother's wishes and is willfully ignoring them.
You're RIGHT; it IS astounding!:
Sister Lucy had made the Bishop of Fatima-Leiria promise that the Secret would be read to the world at her death, but in no event later than 1960, "because the blessed Virgin wishes it so...In 1955 Cardinal Ottaviani asked her why it was not to be opened before 1960. She told him, "because then it will seem clearer (mais claro)."
Cardinal Oddi was a close friend of Pope John XXIII who was the reigning pontiff in 1960. The cardinal observed that the pope would relate joyful things without hesitation but when Oddi asked him about the Third Secret, he would sigh deeply and reply, "Don't bring that subject up with me please....
When Pope John XXIII was pressed on the issue, he gave his view that "this does not pertain to my reign". So even though Mary selected the date of 1960 for the secrecy to expire, the pope felt the message could not possibly relate to anything happening at that point in time.

If you persist in believing that the Blessed Mother appeared in 1917 in order to inform us that this cataclysmis 3rd secret was that the pope would be shot by a lone Arab gunmen in 1981 in St. Peter's square, you go right ahead and believe that. And where are all those nuns and religious who were martyred in 1981? You do remember that part of the secret, don't you?
I personally would not impute such a banal message to the Mother of God, especially considering the fact that various cardinals who read the secret over the years let it slip that it involved apostasy of some variety in the hierarchy (and I'll even find the links for you if you want them).
Disrespect does not begin to describe your attitude.
Whatever begins to describe my attitude, you haven't provided it here, as the above Fatima example shows.
Nice venom is still venom, and in many ways more vile.
I'll ask again, because you insist on the attacks--what venom? What disobedience? I've already told you I'm not an SSPX member. Is it disrespectful, disobedient, and arrogant to agree with Mother Angelica that we didn't get the whole 3rd secret (and I never speculated as to the reasons; that was your kind and charitable addition)?
Disobedient to point out that Pope Pius XI CONDEMNED the sort of thing that took place at Assisi?
Arrogant/schismatic/heretical to point out that the Vicar of Christ should not be kissing an unholy book that blasphemes against Christ and His followers?
Please, I sincerely request that you find me at least one example, just one, of this alleged disobedience and grave disrespect. I don't see it, and as one of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish sinners, it is on you to correct me.
Hans Urs von Balthasar was not a universalist. Get your facts straight.
A friend of mine wrote a book on Balthasar, and yes, he was an "optimist" universalist without question.

You are simply disingenous.
What was it we were saying about charity?
You claim to be an expert in the Fathers, encyclicals, etc., so hopefully you know the meaning of "charity." Or not.
Well, within 2 sentences, you've already begun to butcher my words. I said I'd READ the Fathers--not all, but some. I NEVER said I was an expert. There are people who can study the Fathers their whole lives and never become experts.
You, like countless Protestants before you (and if you read the criteria in Dominus Iesus for a Protestant Church you will find that SSPX, et al., more than fulfills them) decided that an ecumenical council, i.e., the bishops in communion with the Pope, did not supersede your own private views of what consituted a church.
Let me just point out the irony of the above. You've upbraided for violating an unspoken code of charity before going on to call me a member/supporter of the SSPX (I'm not), a Protestant (I'm not), and someone who decided to reject the validity of VII because it conflicted with my personal views (wrong again).
In baseball, one generally gets three strikes. Then, they're out.
Therefore, you went away and became yet another Protestant church. Now you are offended because people are calling you on it.
I'd love to know who this shadowy fellow known as "you" is. I know it's not me, because I am not Protestant, I am not SSPX, and I am not offended when someone calls the SSPX on the internal inconsistency of their views. I've done it myself, in fact.
If you have noticed, Benedict XVI does not do this. Nor has Benedict XVI kissed a Koran. If you going to claim that you are scholarly, then be precise when you identify your bogeymen and scapegoats.
First of all, the first part you said is true.
But Pope Benedict has convened the 20th anniversary bash of the Assisi conference. Surely there's no stock apologetics answer for that one?
I also never claimed I was scholarly. You seem to have an affinity for straw men.
I suggested to you that you read deeply into Church history. I mentioned that this is how I arrived at my current view. I nowhere claimed that I was a scholar of Church history, or that I have all the answers, but that I know more now than I knew back when I espoused the same views that some on this thread do.
It is difficult to believe that He would not grant even a glimmer of His grace to those who, for whatever reason, are unable to participate fully in the Roman Catholic Church.
There's a difference--a KEY difference--between religious tolerance and religious liberty.
The former is likely what you are referring to.
The latter is invalid--error, as the phrase goes, "has no rights."
And, according to St. Faustina, Christ gives every person sufficient grace to find Him, even if not until the moment of death.

Previous post:

Next post: