Archive for the ‘prayer for the conversion of the Jews’ Category

In Benedict’s Own Words: His Latin Good Friday Prayer

November 22, 2010

An except from Pope Benedict XVI’s new book, Light of the World:

… naturally what happened in the Third Reich struck us as Germans, and drove us all the more to look at the people of Israel with humility, shame, and love.

In my theological formation, these things were interwoven, and marked the pathway of my theological thought…

A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done.

Obviously, this prayer is not a papal masterstroke and I don’t anticipate a retraction of The Remnant’s sugar coating of this poisonous prayer even after the Pope himself has admitted its intention is entirely eschatological and does not desire conversion at the present time.

I stand by what I wrote of this prayer in February 2008:

… The problem with the new prayer, despite its hearkening to Romans 11;25-26, is that it takes the present-time intention of the original prayer and thrusts it into the realm of mystery and prophesy dealing with the future. The intention and meaning of the original prayer was perfectly clear: Christians pray for the conversion of the Jews here and now. Romans 11;25-26 deals with a mystery prophesied to take place in the future at the last days. The message seems to be that we should pray for the end-times to come quickly so the “Jews” will convert, and that they don’t need Christ in the meantime. This is not, nor has it ever been the position of the Church. The Church always sought the conversion of Jews–real and fake “Jews” alike–not just at the second coming, but from the Pentecost until the time of the Second Vatican Council–at all times. St. Vincent Ferrer and all of the evangelists knew nothing of the new theology of the “elder brothers.” Apparently, he was wrong?

Benedict wrote a new prayer as a means of remedying what he viewed in the traditional prayer’s intention of present time conversion as “a wound to the Jews.” What he has done is severely wound Jesus’ mission and His Gospel and the spiritual welfare of these ‘Jews’ that he calls ‘elder brothers.’ If the Pope’s role as shepherd and vicar of Christ has any meaning at all it is to seek the salvation of ALL souls. But he has contrived a dispensation from the Church’s mission for a particular class of people just as Vatican II peritus Gregory Baum said should be done at a 1974 B’nai B’rith conference titled, “Auschwitz: A New Era?”:

After Auschwitz the Christian churches no longer wish to convert the Jews. While they may not be sure of the theological grounds that dispense them from this mission, the churches have become aware that asking the Jews to become Christians is a spiritual way of blotting them out of existence and thus only reinforces the effects of the Holocaust. The churches, moreover, realize the deadly irony implicit in a Christian plea for the conversion of the Jews; for after Auschwitz and the participation of the nations, it is the Christian world that is in need of conversion.

Benedict says that his German ‘Holocaust’ “humility and shame,” among other things, “marked the pathway of [his] theological thought” causing him to see traditional prayer for the conversion of “the people of Israel” as “a wound to the Jews” and so, “a modification was necessary.” There’s little difference between what Benedict XVI says and what Gregory Baum says other than the degree of subtlety. The message is clear: Because of ‘The Holocaust’ Christians, not “Jews,” must be converted. The intention within Christian prayer must change.

It’s not Christian to await the conversion of a remnant of Jews in the last days and to disregard the spiritual welfare of real or counterfeit Jews until then. Any Christian who buys this message will have been converted, and that would be a satanic masterstroke.

The New Latin Good Friday Prayer

February 5, 2008

A few thoughts:

This mockery came on Shrove Tuesday. Nice gag.

I hope that in all of the confusion that will result from this development that people don’t loose sight of the fact that the so-called “Jews” who have wailed for this change are only Jews in as far as Apocalypse 2;9 and 3;9 state.

Obviously, this change has come in response to very public lobbying from the ADL, AJC, the Chief Rabbinate of “Israel,” papal rabbi-knight David Rosen and many others who have been shrieking for the prayer to be dropped or rewritten since the time that Summorum Pontificum was only rumored of. This has been thoroughly documented here. What happened stealthily in 1955 is now plain and in the open. The Vatican takes requests from Christ’s enemies in theological and liturgical matters.

As it was anticipated, the prayer didn’t do away with the idea of conversion. However, this should not be taken to indicate that Vatican prelates now seek conversion of “the Jews.” If that was the case they would change the Good Friday prayer in their ordinary rite (Novus Ordo). But there is no indication that the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer, with its Orwellian praises for the “the faithfulness to the covenant” of “the Jewish people” will be changed. The net effect here is that the Latin liturgy is gradually “updated” at a pace suitable to “trads.” Most will be aware that this is the second change to the Latin Good Friday prayer for the Jews in 50 years. More changes in the same direction will come if “trads” are gauged to be ripe for them.

The change is very clever because it swaps “offensive” biblical language for other apparently more positive biblical language, rather than dropping the “offensive” words from the 1962 prayer. This is most certainly intended to project an image of conservatism. It’s from the Bible, after all. Who can argue against that?

The problem with the new prayer, despite its hearkening to Romans 11;25-26, is that it takes the present-time intention of the original prayer and thrusts it into the realm of mystery and prophesy dealing with the future. The intention and meaning of the original prayer was perfectly clear: Christians pray for the conversion of the Jews here and now. Romans 11;25-26 deals with a mystery prophesied to take place in the future at the last days. The message seems to be that we should pray for the end-times to come quickly so the “Jews” will convert, and that they don’t need Christ in the meantime. This is not, nor has it ever been the position of the Church. The Church always sought the conversion of Jews–real and fake “Jews” alike–not just at the second coming, but from the Pentecost until the time of the Second Vatican Council–at all times. St. Vincent Ferrer and all of the evangelists knew nothing of the new theology of the “elder brothers.” Apparently, he was wrong?

The mysterious nature of Romans 11;25-26 is exploited as a playground by Judaizers such as “Hebrew Catholics” like Roy Schoeman, who use it as “support” for their crazy theses which have it that prophesy is being fulfilled by Talmudic/Kabbalistic/Zionist Khazars dragging their baggage into the Church. Judging from my study of the new theology of the “elder brothers” emanating from Rome, that is the thinking that this new prayer intends to promote–in the traditionalist fold.

The end-times nature of this new prayer calls to mind the Vatican document The Jewish People and their Sacred Scripture in the Christian Bible prefaced and signed by Benedict/Ratzinger as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it is stated:

“Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

No, Herr Ratzinger, I’m afraid that the “one who is to come” whom Jesus Christ said will come in his own name and who “the Jews” will accept as their “messiah” will not be Jesus Christ, nor will he have the traits of Jesus Christ.

The New Latin Good Friday Prayer

February 5, 2008

A few thoughts:

This mockery came on Shrove Tuesday. Nice gag.

I hope that in all of the confusion that will result from this development that people don’t loose sight of the fact that the so-called “Jews” who have wailed for this change are only Jews in as far as Apocalypse 2;9 and 3;9 state.

Obviously, this change has come in response to very public lobbying from the ADL, AJC, the Chief Rabbinate of “Israel,” papal rabbi-knight David Rosen and many others who have been shrieking for the prayer to be dropped or rewritten since the time that Summorum Pontificum was only rumored of. This has been thoroughly documented here. What happened stealthily in 1955 is now plain and in the open. The Vatican takes requests from Christ’s enemies in theological and liturgical matters.

As it was anticipated, the prayer didn’t do away with the idea of conversion. However, this should not be taken to indicate that Vatican prelates now seek conversion of “the Jews.” If that was the case they would change the Good Friday prayer in their ordinary rite (Novus Ordo). But there is no indication that the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer, with its Orwellian praises for the “the faithfulness to the covenant” of “the Jewish people” will be changed. The net effect here is that the Latin liturgy is gradually “updated” at a pace suitable to “trads.” Most will be aware that this is the second change to the Latin Good Friday prayer for the Jews in 50 years. More changes in the same direction will come if “trads” are gauged to be ripe for them.

The change is very clever because it swaps “offensive” biblical language for other apparently more positive biblical language, rather than dropping the “offensive” words from the 1962 prayer. This is most certainly intended to project an image of conservatism. It’s from the Bible, after all. Who can argue against that?

The problem with the new prayer, despite its hearkening to Romans 11;25-26, is that it takes the present-time intention of the original prayer and thrusts it into the realm of mystery and prophesy dealing with the future. The intention and meaning of the original prayer was perfectly clear: Christians pray for the conversion of the Jews here and now. Romans 11;25-26 deals with a mystery prophesied to take place in the future at the last days. The message seems to be that we should pray for the end-times to come quickly so the “Jews” will convert, and that they don’t need Christ in the meantime. This is not, nor has it ever been the position of the Church. The Church always sought the conversion of Jews–real and fake “Jews” alike–not just at the second coming, but from the Pentecost until the time of the Second Vatican Council–at all times. St. Vincent Ferrier and all of the evangelists knew nothing of the new theology of the “elder brothers.” Apparently, he was wrong?

The mysterious nature of Romans 11;25-26 is exploited as a playground by Judaizers such as “Hebrew Catholics” like Roy Schoeman, who use it as “support” for their crazy theses which have it that prophesy is being fulfilled by Talmudic/Kabbalistic/Zionist Khazars dragging their baggage into the Church. Judging from my study of the new theology of the “elder brothers” emanating from Rome, that is the thinking that this new prayer intends to promote–in the traditionalist fold.

The end-times nature of this new prayer calls to mind the Vatican document The Jewish People and their Sacred Scripture in the Christian Bible prefaced and signed by Benedict/Ratzinger as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it is stated:

“Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html

No, Herr Ratzinger, I’m afraid that the “one who is to come” whom Jesus Christ said will come in his own name and who “the Jews” will accept as their “messiah” will not be Jesus Christ, nor will he have the traits of Jesus Christ.

The Rabbis’ Hatred for the Good Friday Liturgy is Based in their Hatred for the Prophet Isaiah

January 22, 2008

“Trads” have been abuzz with commentary and discussion regarding a report that Benedict will issue a change in the traditional Latin Good Friday liturgy. So far, no official statement has been made so there’s no use in speculating further on that. What is well known, however, is that if such a change is made, it will be due to Judaic lobbying from groups such as the misnamed Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, the Chief Rabbinate of “Israel” and others.

As I read “trad” commentary I’m saddened by the lack of understanding of the tradition which these “trads” presume to represent.

The bulk of discussion has dealt with the prayer’s focus on conversion and fear that this may be the target of change. I suspect Benedict is far too cagey to make such a move. He needs to uphold that phony facade of conservatism which he’s conjured up with much help from the establishment via propagandist, Damien Thomson, and “trad” outfits such as “The Remnant.”

What is it about this prayer that Judaic organizations are most offended by? The language of the prayer–references to spiritual blindness and veil-covered hearts. This is highly offensive to Benedict’s elder brothers and they say religious relations will be damaged by the return of this prayer. At least one Cardinal says that we can’t possibly insult his elder brothers in our liturgy.

Now, you may be saying, well maybe it wouldn’t make much difference if “blindness” and “veil” were removed from the liturgy as long as we can still pray for the conversion of the “Jews.” But I would say, what next? Shall we also change the passages of Scripture that the Good Friday prayer derives from? Let us look at the Old Testament scripture from which the language of the Good Friday prayer is taken:

And all the children of Israel came to him: and he gave them in commandment all that he had heard of the Lord in mount Sinai. And having done speaking, he put a veil upon his face. (Exodus 34;32-33)

And the Lord hath not given you a heart to understand, and eyes to see, and ears that may hear, unto this present day. (Deuteronomy 29;4)

I have brought up children, and exalted them: but they have despised me … Go, and thou shalt say to this people: Hearing, hear, and understand not: and see the vision, and know it not. Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.
(Isaiah 1:2–3; 6:9–10)

For the Lord hath mingled for you the spirit of a deep sleep, he will shut up your eyes, he will cover your prophets and princes, that see visions. (Isaiah 29;10)

Let their eyes be darkened that they see not; and their back bend thou down always. (Psalms 68;24)

Which St. Paul makes reference to in his second epistle to the Corinthians:

Having therefore such hope, we use much confidence: And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void. But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. But when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. (Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 3:12-16)

Jesus Christ Himself expounded on the prophesies of Isaiah regarding the spiritual blindness of Israel:


And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them.
(Matthew 13;14-17)

And so you see, in essence, it’s not the Catholic liturgy that the Judaic lobbyists are so offended by, but the Bible itself which the Catholic liturgy derives from.

Perhaps this is an opportunity to again restate the fact that these “elder-brothers” hold up the Bible only as a totem; as a means of usurping the prestige and favor the world bestows upon perceived “people of the Book” while they secretly hate the Book and do everything possible to make void the sayings of the Book as Christ said their pharisaic spiritual forebears did (Matthew 15;6).

So hateful are the rabbis towards what the Bible has to say about the Israelites (whom they claim to descend from) and their spiritual blindness that they created a fable about the great Old Testament prophet Isaiah where they repay him for stating that Israel had unclean lips, a fact revealed by Michael A. Hoffman.

[Isaiah] thereupon pronounced [the Divine] Name and was swallowed up by a cedar. The cedar, however, was brought and sawn asunder. When the saw reached his mouth he died. [And this was his penalty] for having said, ‘And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips’. (Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 49b, Soncino Edition).

The rabbis claim that Isaiah was killed by having his own mouth sawed in half because he chastised the Israelites for their unclean lips. The rabbis have it that it was Isaiah who was wrong, not Israel.

And it is from Isaiah that the reference to spiritual blindness found in the traditional Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews comes. This prayer isn’t based in antipathy between medieval Catholics and “Jews.” It’s not “proof of the Church’s ‘anti-semitic’ past” as the Judaic lobbyists claim. Its source is the Old Testament, specifically Moses and the prophet Isaiah! Their problem is fundamentally with the Old Testament prophet whom they hate so much that they childishly fictionally murder him as punishment for his “anti-semitism”. This is what motivates the “elder brothers” and their lobbying for changes in the Good Friday liturgy.

And “trads” assume a defensive position in this matter? I say, wake up and turn the tables on counterfeit Israel, as Jesus Christ demonstrated how to do throughout the Gospel.

The Rabbis’ Hatred for the Good Friday Liturgy is Based in their Hatred for the Prophet Isaiah

January 22, 2008

“Trads” have been abuzz with commentary and discussion regarding a report that Benedict will issue a change in the traditional Latin Good Friday liturgy. So far, no official statement has been made so there’s no use in speculating further on that. What is well known, however, is that if such a change is made, it will be due to Judaic lobbying from groups such as the misnamed Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, the Chief Rabbinate of “Israel” and others.

As I read “trad” commentary I’m saddened by the lack of understanding of the tradition which these “trads” presume to represent.

The bulk of discussion has dealt with the prayer’s focus on conversion and fear that this may be the target of change. I suspect Benedict is far too cagey to make such a move. He needs to uphold that phony facade of conservatism which he’s conjured up with much help from the establishment via propagandist, Damien Thomson, and “trad” outfits such as “The Remnant.”

What is it about this prayer that Judaic organizations are most offended by? The language of the prayer–references to spiritual blindness and veil-covered hearts. This is highly offensive to Benedict’s elder brothers and they say religious relations will be damaged by the return of this prayer. At least one Cardinal says that we can’t possibly insult his elder brothers in our liturgy.

Now, you may be saying, well maybe it wouldn’t make much difference if “blindness” and “veil” were removed from the liturgy as long as we can still pray for the conversion of the “Jews.” But I would say, what next? Shall we also change the passages of Scripture that the Good Friday prayer derives from? Let us look at the Old Testament scripture from which the language of the Good Friday prayer is taken:

And all the children of Israel came to him: and he gave them in commandment all that he had heard of the Lord in mount Sinai. And having done speaking, he put a veil upon his face. (Exodus 34;32-33)

And the Lord hath not given you a heart to understand, and eyes to see, and ears that may hear, unto this present day. (Deuteronomy 29;4)

I have brought up children, and exalted them: but they have despised me … Go, and thou shalt say to this people: Hearing, hear, and understand not: and see the vision, and know it not. Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.
(Isaiah 1:2–3; 6:9–10)

For the Lord hath mingled for you the spirit of a deep sleep, he will shut up your eyes, he will cover your prophets and princes, that see visions. (Isaiah 29;10)

Let their eyes be darkened that they see not; and their back bend thou down always. (Psalms 68;24)

Which St. Paul makes reference to in his second epistle to the Corinthians:

Having therefore such hope, we use much confidence: And not as Moses put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel might not steadfastly look on the face of that which is made void. But their senses were made dull. For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old testament, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void). But even until this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. But when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. (Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 3:12-16)

Jesus Christ Himself expounded on the prophesies of Isaiah regarding the spiritual blindness of Israel:


And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them.
(Matthew 13;14-17)

And so you see, in essence, it’s not the Catholic liturgy that the Judaic lobbyists are so offended by, but the Bible itself which the Catholic liturgy derives from.

Perhaps this is an opportunity to again restate the fact that these “elder-brothers” hold up the Bible only as a totem; as a means of usurping the prestige and favor the world bestows upon perceived “people of the Book” while they secretly hate the Book and do everything possible to make void the sayings of the Book as Christ said their pharisaic spiritual forebears did (Matthew 15;6).

So hateful are the rabbis towards what the Bible has to say about the Israelites (whom they claim to descend from) and their spiritual blindness that they created a fable about the great Old Testament prophet Isaiah where they repay him for stating that Israel had unclean lips, a fact revealed by Michael A. Hoffman.

[Isaiah] thereupon pronounced [the Divine] Name and was swallowed up by a cedar. The cedar, however, was brought and sawn asunder. When the saw reached his mouth he died. [And this was his penalty] for having said, ‘And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips’. (Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 49b, Soncino Edition).

The rabbis claim that Isaiah was killed by having his own mouth sawed in half because he chastised the Israelites for their unclean lips. The rabbis have it that it was Isaiah who was wrong, not Israel.

And it is from Isaiah that the reference to spiritual blindness found in the traditional Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews comes. This prayer isn’t based in antipathy between medieval Catholics and “Jews.” It’s not “proof of the Church’s ‘anti-semitic’ past” as the Judaic lobbyists claim. Its source is the Old Testament, specifically Moses and the prophet Isaiah! Their problem is fundamentally with the Old Testament prophet whom they hate so much that they childishly fictionally murder him as punishment for his “anti-semitism”. This is what motivates the “elder brothers” and their lobbying for changes in the Good Friday liturgy.

And “trads” assume a defensive position in this matter? I say, wake up and turn the tables on counterfeit Israel, as Jesus Christ demonstrated how to do throughout the Gospel.

Neocon Establishment Runs Cover for Benedict

November 19, 2007

The liberal press loved JPII. The Neocon press loves Benedict XVI. Those who know John 15;18-20 will not be deceived by this Neocon puff-piece. Benedict and his papal rabbi-knights are “cleaning house” and “conserving tradition” in the spirit of Bush, Reagan and Thatcher whose legacy is invoked, a dead giveaway as to the style of “conservative” synthesis the author champions and sees in Benedict. The thread-worn “the ‘conservative’ pope is isolated among ‘hostile’ liberals” canard is also given another spin by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor who recently pronounced that denial of the dogma of Auschwitz is a “sacrilege” HERE and who also has the support of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland HERE.

Consider this: clarification is expected soon on certain questions pertaining to the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum related to the traditional Latin Mass at the request of many bishops, and coincidentally, many Judaic power-brokers. It is expected that the prayer for the conversion of the Jews from the traditional Latin Good Friday liturgy will be suppressed or entirely censored (and perhaps replaced with some “elder brother” nonsense?). The illusion advanced by this article provides a smokescreen that will allow Benedict to suppress the prayer while appearing to be an embattled staunch conservative who in reality, along with his “liberal foes,” prefers the ridiculous, Kabbalah-based philosophic scribblings of Hasid, Martin Buber to the logic of St. Thomas. The reality is that the “isolated pope” and his “foes” preach the theology of the “elder brothers” and the doctrine of Auschwitz in perfect unison. Conservative vestments and smokescreens from the establishment can’t cover this up:

Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans

By Damian Thompson
16/11/2007

Telegraph UK

Two and a half years after the name “Josephum” came booming down from the balcony of St Peter’s, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.

The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.

The liberal cardinals don’t like the sound of it at all.

Ever since the shock of Benedict’s election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest – and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, is in the thick of it.

“Pope Benedict is isolated,” I was told when I visited Rome last week. “So many people, even in the Vatican, oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely.” Yet he is ploughing ahead. He reminds me of another conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who waited a couple of years before taking on the Cabinet “wets” sabotaging her reforms Benedict’s pontificate moved into a new phase on July 7, with the publication of his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum.

With a stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the traditional Latin Mass – in effect banned for 40 years – to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly afterwards, he replaced Archbishop Piero Marini, the papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of John Paul II’s Masses into politically correct carnivals.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was most displeased. Last week, he hit back with a “commentary” on Summorum Pontificum.

According to Murphy-O’Connor, the ruling leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishops’ power to block the ancient liturgy. In other words, the cardinal – who tried to stop Benedict issuing the ruling – is misrepresenting its contents.

Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain, Europe and America have tried the same trick.

Murphy-O’Connor’s “commentary” was modelled on equally dire “guidelines” written by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the faithful from exercising their new rights.

A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and these tactics have been brought to the attention of papal advisers.

This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that “bishops and even cardinals” who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were “in rebellion against the Pope”.

Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in charge of regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if Benedict is moving into a higher gear, then he needs street fighters in high office.

He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.

This is a sensitive moment. Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for “full, corporate, sacramental union”.

Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.

This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers’ conservatism and would rather “dialogue” with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.

The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans – all these ambitions reflect Benedict’s conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.

This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young Catholics, but not by the church politicians who have dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.

By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives – or even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected – the bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict’s low opinion of them.

Now he should replace them. If the Catholic reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well be here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/16/do1605.xml

Neocon Establishment Runs Cover for Benedict

November 19, 2007

The liberal press loved JPII. The Neocon press loves Benedict XVI. Those who know John 15;18-20 will not be deceived by this Neocon puff-piece. Benedict and his papal rabbi-knights are “cleaning house” and “conserving tradition” in the spirit of Bush, Reagan and Thatcher whose legacy is invoked, a dead giveaway as to the style of “conservative” synthesis the author champions and sees in Benedict. The thread-worn “the ‘conservative’ pope is isolated among ‘hostile’ liberals” canard is also given another spin by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor who recently pronounced that denial of the dogma of Auschwitz is a “sacrilege” HERE and who also has the support of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland HERE.

Consider this: clarification is expected soon on certain questions pertaining to the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum related to the traditional Latin Mass at the request of many bishops, and coincidentally, many Judaic power-brokers. It is expected that the prayer for the conversion of the Jews from the traditional Latin Good Friday liturgy will be suppressed or entirely censored (and perhaps replaced with some “elder brother” nonsense?). The illusion advanced by this article provides a smokescreen that will allow Benedict to suppress the prayer while appearing to be an embattled staunch conservative who in reality, along with his “liberal foes,” prefers the ridiculous, Kabbalah-based philosophic scribblings of Hasid, Martin Buber to the logic of St. Thomas. The reality is that the “isolated pope” and his “foes” preach the theology of the “elder brothers” and the doctrine of Auschwitz in perfect unison. Conservative vestments and smokescreens from the establishment can’t cover this up:

Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans

By Damian Thompson
16/11/2007

Telegraph UK

Two and a half years after the name “Josephum” came booming down from the balcony of St Peter’s, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.

The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.

The liberal cardinals don’t like the sound of it at all.

Ever since the shock of Benedict’s election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest – and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, is in the thick of it.

“Pope Benedict is isolated,” I was told when I visited Rome last week. “So many people, even in the Vatican, oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely.” Yet he is ploughing ahead. He reminds me of another conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who waited a couple of years before taking on the Cabinet “wets” sabotaging her reforms Benedict’s pontificate moved into a new phase on July 7, with the publication of his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum.

With a stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the traditional Latin Mass – in effect banned for 40 years – to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly afterwards, he replaced Archbishop Piero Marini, the papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of John Paul II’s Masses into politically correct carnivals.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was most displeased. Last week, he hit back with a “commentary” on Summorum Pontificum.

According to Murphy-O’Connor, the ruling leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishops’ power to block the ancient liturgy. In other words, the cardinal – who tried to stop Benedict issuing the ruling – is misrepresenting its contents.

Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain, Europe and America have tried the same trick.

Murphy-O’Connor’s “commentary” was modelled on equally dire “guidelines” written by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the faithful from exercising their new rights.

A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and these tactics have been brought to the attention of papal advisers.

This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that “bishops and even cardinals” who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were “in rebellion against the Pope”.

Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in charge of regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if Benedict is moving into a higher gear, then he needs street fighters in high office.

He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.

This is a sensitive moment. Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for “full, corporate, sacramental union”.

Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.

This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers’ conservatism and would rather “dialogue” with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.

The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans – all these ambitions reflect Benedict’s conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.

This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young Catholics, but not by the church politicians who have dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.

By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives – or even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected – the bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict’s low opinion of them.

Now he should replace them. If the Catholic reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well be here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/16/do1605.xml