Eight Challenges to James Likoudis [and other Neo-Catholics]

Catholic Insight ^ | January 2003 | THOMAS E. WOODS, JR., Ph.D.

[Loyalist]

The Catholic Church, with the Pope as its head on Earth, is the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit is its soul.

All of this is correct, and I will go to my grave believing it.

What I will never do is believe in an erroneous exaggeration of Papal infallibility into a superhuman impeccability of all his decisions.

This Pope has done many good things for the Church. He has also done much harm. I have not been as lavish in my praise for this Pope as I have been in my condemnation.

If you have perhaps erred in treating the Pope as a man who can do conceivable wrong, then perhaps I have erred in overlooking the good he has done.

Either way, neither of us are fit to stand judge over each other.

[ultima ratio]

<>The Catholic Church, with the Pope as its head on Earth, is the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit is its soul. For some reason, your Faith has failed and you think the Holy Spirit has exited the Body and we are left with a Corpse.<>

You've mentioned this before, but it's a straw man. No traditionalist doubts the pope is the head of the Church nor that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and that it is struggling internally with apostasies and corruption. The problem is not with our faith at all--quite the opposite. It is the lack of faith of those in very high places who defend the present revolution which challenges traditional beliefs. By attacking the Church's own past, they spread dangerous heterodoxies.

We criticize this Pope, yes. Popes make mistakes. They do bad things. They are men, not gods--and unfortunately, they are not always wise or saintly. You seem to believe this particular pope is beyond criticism, that the Church may be falling apart around him but that this is somehow everybody else's fault but his, that he bears no responsibility for the scandals and the apostasies which have rocked the Church consistently during his pontificate. That is simply not a convincing argument.

[ultima ratio]

Why do neo-Catholics continually use the phrase "living" Magisterium? Isn't it because they want the faithful to ignore the Magisterium of those now dead if it is in conflict with what's now going on? Of course it is. It is to disguise the fact that today's Magisterium is not in conformity with the Magisterium of the past--and this presents a problem. Of course, the truth is that the ordinary Magisterium of the papacy enjoys no protection of infallibility unless it is aligned with the perennial teachings of the Church--in other words, with the Magisterium of past pontificates. Novelty is never binding on anybody--particularly in times of genuine crisis when apostasy wafts through the Vatican like a foul air. In times like this, only fidelity to perennial teachings are binding--and safe.

[ultima ratio]

"Keep them in line with threats of Hell."

This is the silliest thing I have heard of yet. I have yet to hear a sermon on Hell, though I attend an SSPX Mass every Sunday, though this is a staple of sermons on retreats--as it should be. Christ spoke often of Hell and grieved that there were those who took its reality lightly. Be that as it may, yours is a caricature of the SSPX--most of whom are far more steeped in learning and piety than their peers in the Bugnini rite.

[Land of the Irish]

....ignore the schism

Mickey, you're the one who exhorted your treehouse club to ignore the traditional Catholics. Yet, you are the worst offender of your own mandate. A jellyfish has more backbone then you.

'Till next week, same Bat channel, same Bat time.

[k omalley]

Well, once again there is a lot of dancing around and name calling but no factual refutation of the charges in the article. I'm an N.O. Catholic who would like to stay that way but I have many questions and doubts. And what about obedience? Obedience to the pope? No problem, particularly if he is speaking ex-cathedra; the Magesterium? Perhaps. The bishop of your diocese, your priest? How far does obedience go?

[Land of the Irish]

I'm an N.O. Catholic who would like to stay that way but I have many questions and doubts.

Why would you like to stay that way, i.e., N.O. Catholic, if you "have many questions and doubts"?

[Tantumergo]

"Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Apostolic Constitution of His Holiness Pope Paul IV, February 15, 1559.

... or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;" "

Unfortunately though, Paul IV left us with no valid instrument that is capable of passing judgement on the Roman Pontiff!

This might have been possible before Vatican I, but since Pastor aeternus, the understanding has been that no one has authority to judge the Pope except God Himself - an unfortunate side-effect of ultra-montanism.

As far as I can tell, the only person who is able to pass sentence on the orthodoxy or otherwise of the present Pope is a future Pope - and by and large they tend not to do that - they just ignore or overturn any of their teachings that they don't like. (cf. JPII re Mortalium animos etc.)

Its all very well for Bellarmine to state that a Pope can be judged by the Church - but who or what in the Church????

To my mind this is at the heart of the present dilemma.....

[sinkspur]

I see what it has done to her marriage and her children. Her mother is at a loss to explain what happened to her and most of her friends avoid her and she hasn't made any new ones within her new church either and she certainly hasn't made one new convert except her children over which she has direct control. This is definately proof to me that the fruits of her labor are not good.

If she is isolating herself from her family and friends, then her path is questionable.

She could also be mentally ill.

[ultima ratio]

God gave us rational minds and a conscience. We know what is and what is not Catholic because we know what has always been believed. The Real Presence, for instance, has been a Catholic belief from the beginning. Policies which suppress or subvert this dogma are harmful to the Church. The Mass as a Sacrifice has been believed from the beginning. Policies which suppress or subvert this dogma are harmful to the Church.

Such teachings are known because they have been handed-down. If a pope does not teach them or oversees a catechesis in which they are not taught, and allows apostasies to flourish or teaches what is contrary to perennial teachings, then he must not be followed. Christ himself warned about false prophets, that they would look good on the outside, but were inwardly ravening wolves. And then he added the clincher, "By their fruits you will know them."

[tiki]

I criticize her because instead of becoming a part of the solution she gave up and essentially left the Church.

It is like the house got a little dirty so instead of helping to clean it up she moved to a new house and when the new house gets a little messy, chances are, she'll move to another new house.

I don't criticize her for teaching her boys, I criticize her for isolating her knowledge and sharing it with only them. She could have taught religious education and given many children an education but she chose hide her light from them.

[tiki]

I criticize her because instead of becoming a part of the solution she gave up and essentially left the Church.

It is like the house got a little dirty so instead of helping to clean it up she moved to a new house and when the new house gets a little messy, chances are, she'll move to another new house.

I don't criticize her for teaching her boys, I criticize her for isolating her knowledge and sharing it with only them. She could have taught religious education and given many children an education but she chose hide her light from them.

[Tantumergo]

"If a pope does not teach them or oversees a catechesis in which they are not taught, and allows apostasies to flourish or teaches what is contrary to perennial teachings, then he must not be followed."

I agree that if a Pope teaches heresy or if he teaches contrary to the ordinary and universal magisterium (in line with scripture and Tradition), then those teachings should not be followed.

One of the problems with the present pontiff is that on occasion he has contradicted himself - usually dependent on the audience he is speaking to. This may be due to his material being written by different people with widely diverging beliefs??

However we are still faced with the problem that there is effectively no method to depose a heretical Pope. Maybe there should be.

[Tantumergo]

"I criticize her for isolating her knowledge and sharing it with only them."

Good point - this is the problem I have with the position adopted by the SSPX generally.

Whether you consider they are in formal schism or just an irregular situation, they are effectively on the outside looking in - and so their ability to influence what happens on the inside has been denied them.

This is why satan and his followers are all too happy to leave them right where they are. You only have to take a quick look at the liberal press when any news of regularisation comes up to realise that resolution is the last thing that the modernists want.

I just don't understand why the SSPX are so keen to oblige them.

[k omalley]

I would like to remain an N.O. Catholic because it is the only way to be a Catholic in my state. The closest legitimate Tridentine Mass is 3 hrs away in another state. There is an independent chapel about an hour away which is not legit and I'm not even sure if the priests are properly ordained. The Catholic Church is my home, we go back a long way starting with a wonderful group of nuns who taught me very well. I don't see any other option.