Thoughts on the Day After: A Possible Michael Davies Connection

ROME: The only way to describe the feeling here in Rome at the moment is that it’s the calm before the storm. The pundits, who have been tapped by the omnipresent media to tell the world what it all means, have been reduced to delivering semi-coherent sound bytes that serve to prove that no one, least of all the pundits, knows what the future the holds. The “experts” can’t quite make up their minds who Benedict XVI is—a semi-modernist or “God’s Rotweiler” of hard-line orthodoxy.

And, of course, the para-Catholics—those liberal parasites who are too steeped in their own ignorance and pride to notice they’re in the wrong Church—are throwing such absurd hissy-fits in the wake of yesterday’s election that all one can do is laugh. Not even waiting for the new Pope’s installation next Sunday, these characters have initiated a war of words against the “man who will turn back the clock” on Vatican II, on “women’s rights” in the Church and on the “great progress” of John Paul II’s pontificate. Wouldn’t it be grand!

If we are to take Benedict XVI’s vociferous enemies as any indication of what sort of man now sits on Peter’s throne, there actually may be ample reason for hope. The very same jackals (feminist nuns, Catholics for a Free Choice, etc.) that are so repulsed by the intolerable "dogmatism" of the traditional Church are equally repulsed by Benedict XVI. This can only be good news.

On the other hand, as Pope Benedict assumes the awesome responsibilities of his new office, he himself is sending mixed signals. Some of his statements thus far are not easily spun as good news for traditionalists. During his first Mass today in the Sistine Chapel, for example, Pope Benedict spoke in highly laudatory terms of Pope John Paul’s pontificate, his own intention to continue the late Pope’s ecumenical initiatives, and the actualization of Vatican II in “faithful continuity with the bi-millennial tradition of the Church”. And, though the Mass was in Latin, the Roman Canon was conspicuous by its presence and accompanied by exquisite sacred music, it is also true that the new Pope “faced the people” and gave Communion in the hand to one or two cardinals who requested it. Indicators of business of usual in Rome? Perhaps.

The former Cardinal Ratzinger is a politician; there has never been any doubt of that. Were Benedict XVI to have inaugurated his Pontificate with a flurry of denunciations of the policies of his predecessor, he would have succeeded in getting himself hanged from the colonnade in St. Peter’s Square. So it is difficult to ascertain how much of what is being said is protocol, on the one hand, or future policy indicators on the other. Is Benedict moving away from John Paul? Or is he an ideal successor?

That statement from this morning’s Mass is interesting: “The actualization of Vatican II in faithful continuity with the bi-millennial tradition of the Church”. This could be taken two ways. It may cause cautiously optimistic traditionalists no small discomfort, but I’ll bet that the progressivists on the other side of the aisle are even more concerned. Why? Because the modern Church has moved well past the comparative “conservatism” of the Second Vatican Council. For the progressivist Catholic the statement is appalling. For him, the new Pope has taken an oath of fidelity to two thousand years of Catholic teaching tradition—a progressivist nightmare!

Again, only time will tell which Ratzinger was elected Pope, but for the moment let us at least wait for proof that the Grace of the Holy Ghost has not brought on a change in the heart of the man who is now our Pope. Because of the power of the grace of the papal office (which history has shown can change liberals into traditionalists overnight, as in the case of Blessed Pius IX), no one really knows at this moment who sits on Peter’s throne.

One thing is sure, however, Pope Benedict XVI is about to be crucified by the left-wing rabble who think they belong to the Catholic Church. An open schism may be in its nascent stage. The modern world, so intoxicated with love and tolerance for Pope John Paul, is at this moment massing its forces for all-out war against Benedict. If the new Pope has the fortitude of mind and soul to resist rather than acquiesce, then a new day is indeed dawning. That rabble will do their best to chase Benedict our way—back in the direction of Catholic tradition—and when that happens he will find several million loyal traditionalists rising up around him, manning the walls of Vatican City, and vowing a fight to the death in defense of the new Pope.

Some years ago, the late Michael Davies approached me with an odd request. He asked me to stop publishing criticisms of Cardinal Ratzinger in The Remnant. He acknowledged that the Cardinal had positions which were problematic to traditionalists, but nevertheless asked that we consider moving away from criticizing him publicly. It was Michael’s adamant contention that Cardinal Ratzinger would prove a great friend of tradition in the end. “He’s on our side, more than you know,” he assured me.

At the time, I was not inclined to go along with that suggestion and so demurred. I make no apologies for that decision, but the issue of criticizing the Cardinal became a bone of contention that lasted until Michael’s death.

Over the past few days here in Rome, however, I’ve thought a lot about what Michael said, and I keep asking myself: “What did Michael know? Is it possible that he had some intimation as to who might be the next Pope?” And could the Cardinal have had a notion that, come the next conclave, he or someone sympathetic to tradition had a fighting chance of wining the next papal election?

Impossible? Probably. But consider the approximate vote tallies of this conclave. A reliable contact of ours here in Rome has provided some insight. Citing numerous internal sources in the Vatican curia on the progress of the voting during the conclave, he reports to us that at the first “scrutiny” of the ballots, Cardinal Ratzinger drew 50 to 60 votes, while Cardinal Martini, the progressivist candidate, drew 20 to 30 votes. By the fourth and final “scrutiny” Ratzinger had received at more than 80 votes and probably ended up with closer to 100. Many of the progressivists threw in the towel, recognizing that their defeat was inevitable and that they should take advantage of the opportunity to present a “united” Church to the world. It turns out that Tettamanzi, Sodano and one or more South American candidates received only a smattering of votes.

In other words, Cardinal Ratzinger appears to have faced very little serious opposition. Did he have a hunch already several years ago that this was how things might come down at the next conclave? Could he have somehow managed to get word—without actually committing himself to anything concrete—to Michael Davies that patience was warranted and that a movement towards the restoration was in the works at the highest level in the Church? Wouldn’t that explain Michael’s adamant defense of the Cardinal?

I’m not suggesting that any of this is certain or even likely. In fact, it may well be preposterous. Stranger things, however, have happened, and perhaps there is real cause for hope of better things to come for traditional Catholics.

In any event, the next few months will tell all. All we can do now is hope and pray for the best even if traditionalists, certainly no strangers to heartbreak at the hands of promising ecclesiastics, more or less expect to be disappointed again. There’s plenty of time for disappointment. For now, however, let us remain cautiously optimistic, at least until Pope Benedict himself lets the world know in no uncertain terms that nothing is to change except for the name of Peter’s successor, and that the Vatican will continue to pursue the disastrous course of the past 40 years.

From Rome, then, thanks to all who followed our reports on the conclave and who were kind enough to provide feedback on our efforts. We hope that the insights gained and the unforgettable experiences of this week will help improve our coverage of this new Pontificate in the pages of The Remnant in the days to come—days which promise to be more interesting than we could imagine.

"I’m not suggesting that any of this is certain or even likely. In fact, it may well be preposterous. Stranger things, however, have happened, and perhaps there is real cause for hope of better things to come for traditional Catholics."

Curiouser and curiouser.

And, though the Mass was in Latin, the Roman Canon was conspicuous by its presence and accompanied by exquisite sacred music, it is also true that the new Pope “faced the people” and gave Communion in the hand to one or two cardinals who requested it. Indicators of business of usual in Rome? Perhaps.

Errata: Eucharistic Prayer III was employed instead of the Roman Canon (EP I).

Another observation: The music was indeed exquisite, but was taken from a little-known source - and the only real innovation* of Vatican II - the Simple Gradual (Graduale Simplex). I was able to follow along with my copy.

The Graduale Simplex is basically responsorial psalmody, and based on my knowledge, the antiphons from the Roman Gradual (the more florid Gregorian chants) are also responsorial psalmody, or at least supposed to be**.

* As opposed to revisions or modifications of existing things, which were myriad.

** I can't proof-text, but I believe the citation can be found one of the pre-Vatican II documents on liturgical music. Go figure.

I recall Michael Davies' cautions about overtly criticising Cardinal Ratizinger.
However, it may have been more about allowing an atmosphere for the Cardinal to do the right thing, rather than a notion that he might one day become Pope. I very much agree that the attacks upon Pope Benedict XVI will be nasty.
Pray many rosaries for him and for the burdensome responsibilities that are upon his shoulders, through Mary and her Immaculate Heart.

>>Pray many rosaries for him and for the burdensome responsibilities that are upon his shoulders, through Mary and her Immaculate Heart.<<

I agree entirely with this thought and have resolved, personally, to pray very hard for Pope Benedict. In addition, some appropriate mortification for this intention would be in order. I think, for instance, of one practice done in several different places in Europe, including in Northern France, at least in the early part of the XXth century: praying the final decade of the rosary with arms outstretched, in the shape of the cross.

Oremus--and hard.

"That statement from this morning’s Mass is interesting: “The actualization of Vatican II in faithful continuity with the bi-millennial tradition of the Church”."

For me, this is the most significant indicator of what may come so far. Until now there has been no serious attempt made to interpret or "actualize" Vatican II in the context of, or in continuity with Tradition.

JPII paid lip-service to this idea, but never did anything about it until Ecclesia de Eucharistia when he finally started to set our faith in the context of the Fathers and Tradition again. Up until then, nearly all teaching from Rome had been taking Vatican II as the principal launching off point.

If Benedict XVI is really intent on actualizing VII in continuity with Tradition, then things could get very interesting, e.g. one could argue that a slightly modified Tridentine rite would be a much more faithful actualization of Vatican II's intentions for the Mass than is the Novus Disordo.

This is the exact same thing that Pope Benedict XVI said to the bishops of chile in 1988. "Vatican II must be understood in light of Tradition."

This is the valid theological concept for all councils, and is the exact wording of the agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre originally signed.

For me, this is the most significant indicator of what may come so far. Until now there has been no serious attempt made to interpret or "actualize" Vatican II in the context of, or in continuity with Tradition.

Dittos. I think “The actualization of Vatican II in faithful continuity with the bi-millennial tradition of the Church"

is the single greatest phrase I've heard from a Pope in my adult life. He is signalling that he recognizes the problems and plans to place VII, and hopefully the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, back into its proper persective.

Until now there has been no serious attempt made to interpret or "actualize" Vatican II in the context of, or in continuity with Tradition.

I read that the same way as you when I first saw it. Some trads may be wary that the Holy Father mentions V2 at all, but even the SSPX taught me in school that V2 can and must be interpreted in light of tradition. (Obviously, that's the only true way to interpret it). So, I believe this is a very consoling statement on the part of the Pope.

and is the exact wording of the agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre originally signed

The Lefevre affair troubled JPII greatly. It was the only "schism" of his pontificate, he wanted it healed prior to his death, and I'm certain that, along with the canonization of Pius XII, these two issues were explicitly given to Ratzinger to be corrected in his pontificate.

Ratzinger and JPII were close peersonal friends. Benedict XVI will honor the memory and friendship of JPII in rectifying the irregular ecclesial situation of Lefevre's followers and the Indult, and he will see to the canonization of Pius XII very quickly.

One thing is sure, however, Pope Benedict XVI is about to be crucified by the left-wing rabble who think they belong to the Catholic Church. *An open schism may be in its nascent stage. The modern world, so intoxicated with love and tolerance for Pope John Paul, is at this moment massing its forces for all-out war against Benedict. If the new Pope has the fortitude of mind and soul to resist rather than acquiesce, then a new day is indeed dawning. That rabble will do their best to chase Benedict our way—back in the direction of Catholic tradition—and when that happens he will find several million loyal traditionalists rising up around him, manning the walls of Vatican City, and vowing a fight to the death in defense of the new Pope.

Good read.

*It would be a big mistake to stand in the way of a self-purge. If the progressives want out, give it to them, good and plenty.

"*It would be a big mistake to stand in the way of a self-purge."

Well, on at least 2 occasions, this Pope has said that he sees the future consisting of a smaller, more faithful Church. Perhaps he will do something to facilitate this?

OTOH that would not exactly fit in with his stated commitment to work for the unity of all Christians.

OTOH that would not exactly fit in with his stated commitment to work for the unity of all Christians.

Well, one can interpret that "in light of tradition," as the new Pope put it. Prior to Vatican II, the Church held that there can only be true Christian unity with conversion to the Catholic Church.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.