Another Diocesan Priest Rejects Novus Ordo

The Remnant ^ | 1/31/05 | Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.

[ninenot]

Your sense of the situation is well-tuned.

The 'smell test' failed.

[sempertrad]

there was something odd about the statement he attributed to Opus Dei,which he claimed was the last straw. I have never heard Opus Dei members say anything remotely like that.

I have no trouble believing that Fr. S. heard such a statement. In Conversations with Msgr. Escriva de Balaguer the Msgr. says, "Long live students of all religions and all ideologies." And, "Pluralism is not to be feared but loved as a legitimate consequence of personal freedom." Opus Dei admits not only non-Catholics, but non-Christians as well - and it was the first organization to have authorization from the Holy See to do this.

But in any event, what would the priest have to gain by making up a statement and attaching Opus Dei to it? If he were looking to justify his position, he need only pull from the numerous ligturgical abuses, doctrinal errors, etc., one encounters in many of the parishes within the Archdiocese.

[ninenot]

Correct. I AM a Catholic. Not a Schizzie of either the SSPX or Rembertine variety.

[royalcello]

BTW, what are you doing here if the US form of government gets under your hide?

Venezuela's semi-socialist; you'd fit right in.

The Principality of Liechtenstein (whose bishop I understand has been friendly to the SSPX), not the Republic of Venezuela, is probably the present-day country which comes closest to the ideals of Catholic monarchists. However, I don't speak German, and I believe their immigration policies are pretty strict. Besides, theoretical preference for a different form of government is not sufficient reason to emigrate if one is not being persecuted for one's beliefs.

[royalcello]

BlackElk, I am not sure where you got the idea that all or even most of FR's Catholic monarchists are SSPX supporters. The three additonal gentlemen I have pinged are among FR's leading monarchists. If I recall correctly, Guelph4ever attends a Novus Ordo mass, B-Chan an Anglican-use parish, and kjvail an indult (FSSP) mass.

Many of the pseudoTrads are also delusionally nostalgic for what disappeared long, long ago and refuse to accept the fact that Catholic Europe is dead other than the Vatican.

Never! Dying, perhaps, but not dead. As long as there are still even a few people who cling to the old ideals of Christendom, as exemplified most recently by the commemoration of the 212th anniversary of the murder of King Louis XVI, the true spirit of Europe, which is Catholic AND monarchical, will never die.

Somehow they are not as offended by France and its organ grinder's monkey Jacques Chirac.

Not true. The French Republic, built as it is on the blood of Their Majesties King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, the innocent victims of the Terror, and the martyrs of the Vendée, is an abomination. Jacques Chirac is contemptible because he claims to hold an illegal and illegitimate office (the fictitious and ridiculous title of "President of France"), not because he opposed the Iraq war.

As for the alleged "schism" of the SSPX, I wonder what advice you would give a prospective convert like me who is interested in Catholicism, but only the Latin Mass version, and does not live anywhere near an indult. I may not agree with everything on the SSPX website, but I am grateful to them for providing me with the only Latin Mass within a reasonable distance. You have said yourself that the Novus Ordo, while valid, is a "cultural abomination." I do not attend "cultural abominations." I am not a naturally spiritual person, and Latin and Gregorian Chant is what speaks to me, and may yet persuade me to enter the Catholic Church; English and Marty Haugen never will. In any case, if I do convert under the auspices of the SSPX you will not be able to accuse me of having left the Church since I was not in it to begin with.

[royalcello]

I rarely agree with you, but thank you nevertheless for your splendid comments on Kings Charles I (the 356th anniversary of whose martyrdom is coming up on Sunday) and Charles II. For an excellent classic FR discussion of the evil Cromwell see this thread.

There was a time when I would have angrily defended Queen Elizabeth II to you; however, I must admit that I myself was rather disconcerted by HM's multiculturalist 2004 Christmas address. However, one must learn to separate the office from the person. Abandoning monarchism because Queen Elizabeth II is not exactly Queen Elizabeth I (which is perhaps a good thing from a Catholic point of view) would make about as much sense as abandoning Catholicism because Pope John Paul II is not exactly Pope St. Pius X.

[royalcello]

Most of what I posted was the words of St. Thomas Acquinas, not Mrs. Hertz. I trust you do not object to him as a source?

I am aware of Mrs. Hertz's eccentricities; however, that doesn't mean she is wrong about monarchy and Americanism.

[gbcdoj]

In Conversations with Msgr. Escriva de Balaguer the Msgr. says, "Long live students of all religions and all ideologies." And, "Pluralism is not to be feared but loved as a legitimate consequence of personal freedom."

I couldn't find the exact quotes on the online version of the book, but I think this must be the "all religions" reference you refer to:

I remember a very graphic anecdote. In a particular city which will remain anonymous, the corporation was debating a grant of money for an educational activity conducted by members of Opus Dei — which, like all the corporate activities fostered by the Work, was making a definite contribution to the good of the community. Most of the councillors were in favour of the grant. One of them, a socialist, explained his opinion, saying that he knew the activity personally: 'This is an activity', he said, 'which is characterised by the fact that the people who conduct it are good friends of personal freedom: students of all religions and ideologies are welcomed in the residence.' The communist councillors voted against the grant. One of them, saying why he did so, told the socialist: 'I am opposed to it because if that is the way things are, this residence is doing effective propaganda for Catholicism.'

[royalcello]

Neither I nor any American monarchist that I know of imagines that the United States is about to become a monarchy in the near or even distant future. But that does not mean we are not free to promote our theoretical ideas about government. I have no problem in practice with republics in countries that were founded as republics, such as the US, Switzerland, Iceland, or San Marino. Indeed, one could argue that it would be profoundly un-conservative to try to impose a monarchy on these countries when it is contrary to their history and traditions.

My royalism is focused on those countries were monarchy is or was an integral part of their heritage, which includes practically every European country not mentioned above. In these cases, monarchies ought to be preserved or restored, and there is generally little difficulty in determining who the monarch ought to be. (See this page.)

One motivation for promoting monarchy as an American is my fear that if U.S. foreign policy continues in its current Wilsonian direction of spreading "democracy" worldwide at whatever cost, should a European country by some miracle take steps someday towards the restoration of a real monarchy (not a ceremonial ornament), a delusional successor of George W. Bush might intervene to prevent them from doing so. If this were to happen I would have no choice but to become as truly "anti-American" as today's paleoconservatives are falsely accused of being, as I would have been "anti-American" had I lived during the Spanish-American War or World War I. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that the Clinton administration prevented royal restoration in Serbia and the Bush administration did so in Afghanistan. This sort of behavior is what I fiercely oppose. But I do not advocate that the US become a monarchy; I would be satisfied with a constitutional republic that minded its own business as we generally did before 1898.

[royalcello]

If you're going to bring up Peter I and Henry VIII, then what about Alfred the Great, Charles Martel, Charlemagne, St. Louis IX of France, St. Stephen of Hungary, St. Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire, St. Fernando III of Spain, Queen Isabella of Spain, Charles I of England, Jan Sobieski of Poland, or Bl. Karl of Austria, to name only the most obvious examples? How many saintly leaders have republics and democracies produced?

Sure, monarchy has had a few mistakes. But what form of government hasn't?

[Mershon]

Ping me as a closet "pseudo" monarchist. I would prefer to call myself a believer in the Kingship of Christ, no matter the form of government. I think it could even work within the framework of our current political system and constitution. But I am no Americanist, as that too, is a heresy.

[Pyro7480]

Don't forget besides actual kings and queens, many saints have been members of royal families, like Sts. Elizabeth of Hungary and Elizabeth of Portugal.

[ninenot]

TA's a very good source.

"Americanism" is deficient because it seems to create in its adherents two distinct problems: indifferentism, and moral relativity.

The form of Gummint is not really the problem--it's the fact that "Americanists" lose sight of First Things, allowing judicial rulings to substitute for moral verities.

The democratic republic, per se, is not objectionable so long as it maintains a Judaeo/Christian understanding of foundational principles.

[royalcello]

Yes; thanks. I wonder if there's a complete list somewhere of canonized and beatified royal persons. That would be a useful resource.

To be ecumenical, the Orthodox Grand Duchess Elisabeth of Russia (1864-1918) is a good example of a royal who lived a saintly life until she was murdered by the Bolsheviks.

[royalcello]

The democratic republic, per se, is not objectionable so long as it maintains a Judaeo/Christian understanding of foundational principles.

Depends how it came about. I would maintain that a republic is objectionable if it owes its existence to the disestablishment of a monarchy (which arguably excludes your conditions, in which case we would be in agreement). This does not apply to the US since the rebellion of 1776 did not interfere with George III's position as King of Great Britain. However, the current republican governments of France, Portugal, Austria, Hungary, Germany, Italy, etc. most certainly are objectionable, and would continue to be so even if they attempted to bring their laws more in line with Judaeo-Christian morality.

[royalcello]

Thanks. I think it is clear from history that a Catholic monarchy is far more likely to conform to the Kingship of Christ than any other form of government. I can think of only one republican president who shared your beliefs: Gabriel Garcia Moreno of Ecuador, and he was murdered for his troubles.

[saradippity]

You ask: "what would the priest have to gain by making up a statement and attaching Opus Dei to it?" I can only say,I do not know.

Especially since he could have just as easily attached Malachi Martin's name to it. Martin in an Art Bell interview,(I believe his last) told a "white witch" who called in to ask it she would go to heaven that she would. He proceeded with the same unCatholic gobbledy gook that the new-agers do. "Good person,loves god blah-blah,yada,yada." But I guess Fr. S's purpose was to impugn Opus Dei,not Malachi Martin.

Another little proof of the "eye of the beholder" genre, is this statement by Drolesky: More of his brother priests need to follow his example of humility and fidelity,to say nothing of his courage".After reading everything written in the article I have my own interpretation of Father S. From the perspective of someone with only a bachelor's degree and fifteen years of Employee Relations management in a Human Resource department,I would change the tail end of that statement to more accurately reflect the situation to: his example of pride and perfidy,to say nothing of his arrogance.

[Mershon]

Taking scandal in our prelates or situations in the Church is never an excuse to break away from her either spiritually or canonically.

Besides, his letter is not strong and relies upon his interpretation (or misinterpretation) of Fatima. Last I checked, belief in Fatima was not an article of Faith.

Perhaps I am wrong though...

[B-Chan]

If the conflict is between Church and Constitution, then it is Constitution that must be compromised, for the Church cannot.

As for running for office: democracy is a creature of the atheistic Revolution, not the Kingdom of God. Popular government supposes that man is wise enough to make his own laws, including the laws of morality. In a people's state, vox populi is vox Dei. This idea, which is as old as the Serpent himself ("Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil...") is antichristian, anti-life, and antihuman.

The Revolutionary ideas of voting, popular sovereignty, and the libertarian "do as thou wilt" are pagan, heretical and foreign to Christianity. Our Lord is not the President of the Republic of Heaven. He is King of the Universe. The social structures we live under should flow from this Divine structure, not contradict it. Popular government is a fist shaken in the face of authority, including God, the ultimate Authority; it is the cry of Lucifer, a political "non serviam" from the pit of Hell. As such, it is doomed to fail, sooner or later - and when authority is restored, it won't be pleasant. The Lord sends rain upon the just and the unjust, I'm afraid.

[sempertrad]

I couldn't find the exact quotes on the online version of the book

The first quote begining with "Long live students..." was quoted in an article about Opus Dei. The author refers to the French and Spanish editions of "Conversations". The other quote is as follows:

"I will tell you what happens in Opus Dei, which is a large family where all are united by the same spiritual aims. In everything that is not a matter of Faith, each member thinks and acts as he wishes with complete freedom and personal responsibility. The pluralism which logically and sociologically derives from this fact does not create any problems for the Work. Rather, it is a sign of good spirit. Precisely because pluralism is not feared in Opus Dei, but is loved as a legitimate consequence of personal freedom, the different opinions of the members in Opus Dei are no obstacle to Charity and mutual understanding in their dealings with each other. Freedom and Charity — I always come back to them because in fact they are essential conditions. We must live with the freedom Christ won for us and with the Charity He gave us as a new commandment."

EscrivaWorks.org