A Reflection on Apostasy

As a Father of four who struggles continually to try to raise his children in a Catholic culture by homeschooling them who surrounds ourselves with other friends of like mind in this anti-culture of death, I was shocked to received a phone call from a friend in Boston yesterday on a business trip. Just for some short background, he and I as well as a couple of other friends have been discussing the prudence and actual applications of Bishops and even the Pope regarding ecumenical ventures and inter-religious dialogue, especially in comparison to what is actually authorized by Vatican II. This conversation that we have struggled with, and continue to struggle with, entails each of us trying to keep each other on the straight and narrow path of obedience to in faith and morals to the Magisterium. We have read the Vatican II documents on the topic and they appear to be much more measured and "conservative" if you will in their applications than any of the practical gatherings that our U.S. Bishops, the Pope at the two Assissi events, and even Cardinal Arinze with the Buddhists and Hindus, have managed to undertake.

Please understand we are dealing with complex problems, and aside from one of us who is completing his master's in theology, we are mere laymen who have read a lot, and are formed in our faith through reading, prayer and the sacraments, perhaps in a deeper stage than most 20 or 30-something year-old Catholic men in the U.S. today. In other words, our lifestyles and interests are not typical of today's Catholic man.

With that being said, we struggle with obedience to the magisterium of the Church and in wanting to not to exercise private judgment, however, when Cardinal Kasper, who has had his theological bouts with Cardinal Ratzinger, is appointed a cardinal by the Pope and put in charge of "Christian Unity," and further has stated (paraphrased) that the return of confessional Christians to Catholicism is "an outdated concept" and not in keeping with the theology of Vatican II, even those Catholics who are not of the "traditionalist" mindset should have cause for concern to at least question what it is exactly Cardinal Kasper (whom the Pope appointed) has in mind. Now, back to the story of my friend in Boston.

He called me from the airport and had the Boston Globe in his hand, and sputtered, "Did you read this in the Boston Globe today?!!" Being the person who ordinarily sends out articles on topics of the Church to a rather large e-mail list, I assumed he had wandered upon another Priestly scandal story.

"No. What is it?" I enquired. We got cut off, and while he was calling me back, I quickly pulled up the Boston Globe on the web, and there it was staring me in the face with the headline... "Catholics Reject Evangelization of Jews." Well, being a former reporter myself who nows deals with the media professionally, I decided to read the article and figure out what kind of misrepresentation on Church teaching the Globe was printing today. After reading the story, it appeared the headline was accurate, so quickly I went to the U.S. Bishops' website and pulled up the "commentary" on the reflection on some dialogue that had apparently been taking place between some Catholic Bishops (particularly Cardinal Keeler, whom certain homeschooling organizations have relied upon over the years as their representative to Rome--YIKES!) and prominent Jewish leaders in the U.S.

Sure enough, there it was, from our "bishops" the second paragraph states: "Citing the growing respect for the Jewish tradition that has unfolded since the Second Vatican Council, and the deepening Catholic appreciation of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people," the Catholic portion of the Reflections says that "campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church." http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2002/02-154.htm . Lots of footnotes, selectively pulled from writings of John Paul II, Vatican II, and of course, Cardinal Kasper. Now, without getting into the history of the claims of individuals within the Church of allegedly forcibly coercing Jews against their will, could this story really be true? My friend called back and we read parts of the article and reflection aloud.

"Steve," I said. "This is the evidence of the apostasy. Our bishops, (at least those who are in accord with this document) have said that Jesus Christ came to earth, was crucified by Jews through a gentile (Roman) political court and leader, and now, it really doesn't matter if the Jews become Catholic because, according to the document, both Jews and Christians are equal in God's eyes." In other words, Jesus Christ came and died on the cross, but did not redeem Israel because Israel did not need redeeming! "Tell that to the Israelites destroyed in the Temple!" said another friend of mine.

Rabbi Gilbert Rosenthal, Executive Director of the National Council of Synagogues, said: "The joint Catholic-Jewish statement on mission is yet another step in turning a new page in the often stormy relationship between the Jewish people and the Roman Catholic Church. Neither faith group believes that we should missionize among the other in order to save souls via conversion. Quite the contrary: we believe both faith groups are beloved of God and assured of His grace. The joint mission statement has articulated a new goal, namely the healing of a sick world and the imperative to repair the damage we humans have caused to God's creations. We believe we are partners in bringing blessings to all humankind for this is god's will."

Steve, on the other end of the phone, was dumbfounded. "I guess this means this battle that faithful lay Catholics face is going to get quite ugly and more difficult if this is what our bishops really think," he said. Silence on both ends...

Ladies and gentlemen, the statement agreed upon by the U.S. Bishops committee and certain Jewish organizations is nothing short of denial of Jesus Christ for salvation and the necessity of his Church as the mediator of salvation. The statement by the Rabbi above, as wonderfully ecumenical and politically correct and harmless as it sounds, is nothing by reformulated Freemasonic principles, condemned multiple times by the Church. This battle for our true Faith has crossed the boundaries of sanity, and it is my hope and belief that the differences between technique and understanding that exists between "traditionalist" and "conservative" Catholics of the Steubenville variety will be resolved and overlooked so that the laymen can collectively struggle protect the Faith itself as at the times of the Arian crisis, along with those Priests and Bishops who still believe in the Great Commission and of the Church's necessity for salvation, and bond together to point out these errors, these heresies... this apostasy to the Bishops themselves.

While many even "traditionalist" Catholics did not like nor appreciate the "We Resist You to Your Face" manifesto that came from some prominent layment directed toward Rome a year or so ago, we lay Catholics must defend our Faith, the entire deposit, against Bishops who no longer believe it is our duty as baptized Catholics to become saints ourselves, and just as importantly, to lead others to holiness through the Church that only the Apostolic Roman Church can provide through the sacraments and prayer. Cardinal Keeler and any other bishops who believe we must no longer evangelize non-Christians must be publicly rebuked by the faithful flock. It is our duty!

Sister Lucia and the apparitions of Fatima warned of this apostasy. It is time for good-hearted laymen to rise up and call for a restoration of traditional Catholicism to all corners and parishes throughout the world!

"Neither faith group believes that we should missionize among the other in order to save souls via conversion. Quite the contrary: we believe both faith groups are beloved of God and assured of His grace." You have got to be kidding me. Forcible conversions against someone's will? Of course not! The Church has never taught in its magisterial capacity that this was acceptable practice. But, "both faith froups are beloved of God and assured of His grace?" What about the prayers at every single Mass in the pre-Vatican II rite that were specifically for the conversions of the Jewish people? Were we really wrong all those years? Were we? Or perhaps are the Bishops wrong now?

Finally, as depressing and "negative" as this may be, it may be time to take Pope Paul VI's warning to heart:

"The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church." Pope Paul VI, October 13, 1977, Address on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Fatima Apparitions.

I dunno, allend. I've never seen that before, but It doesn't look quite right to me. I agree that Christ died for all mankind, but unless you are telling me that's what the quote is talking about, reading it by itself doesn't plainly say it, to me.

Do you have the context of the quote that makes it more clear?

I don't have scriptures handy. If you are really interested, this has been discussed before.

My understanding of the passage you quoted is that there is no eternal condemnation which doesn't necessarily mean that we still don't have to pay for or be punished for the consequences of our sins, even though our souls have been cleansed of them.

A person can get a disease from committing a sexual sin. The sin can be forgiven right off but the disease remains and we all believe that God can heal the disease if he chooses to do so.

In others words, such people neglect the lesson of literary genres. They do not ask what is the genre of Genesis 1-3. It is actually an ancient story, made up to serve as a vehicle for teaching some things that really happened, chiefly: God made all things, in some special way He made the first pair (we leave room for possible theistic evolution, one that sees the need of God's intervention every time higher being appears), that He gave them some command (we do not know if it was about a fruit tree - that may be stage dressing in the story, something not asserted), that they violated His orders and fell from favor (= lost grace and so did not have it to pass on to their children).

Whose right? Jesus or the Rev. Most? Jesus said: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark 10:6. Rather plain isn't it. What does "from the beginning mean" if it doesn't mean "from the beginning"? Most is following the lead of Aquinas in that he is trying to "synthesize" pagan/naturalistic believes with Chrstianity. I reject his synthesis on the grounds that it contradicts scripture. Hegel was good at such synthesis. First, you dispense with "antithesis" - either/or arguments must be rejected; then you post some syncretic view that changes the meaning of "is" and voilla! - you have Most's essay. Hegel would be proud of Most.

When I was a kid, my mother warned me about discussing politics and religion with people I did not know, or had just met. She felt that nothing good could come of it.

That is why I love FR. It allows me to do just what my mother warned me about. It is absolutely delicious to see all of you guys/gals beating each other blind with absolutely no chance of changing each others positions.

I love it!

Allend, you are a polite writer and I appreciate that. However, if Genesis is allegory, then original sin is also allegory. You can't get reality from allegory. If original sin is allegory (doesn't really exist), then there is no need for a Savior; if there is no need for a Savior, then there is no need for Jesus; if there is no need for Jesus, then why do catholics go to confession?

Any Catholic theologian will tell you that Islam is a Catholic heresy. Mohammad rejected the pagan religion of his day and was strongly influnced by Catholicism. He borrowed his major doctrines from Catholicism and rejected the ones he didn't like. He borrowed the Catholic scriptures but interpreted them as he chose and added some more doctrines of his own.

Yes, but that is not what the catechism is saying. It is saying the opposite. It is clearly not a heresy according to the catechism. This is dangerous stuff and it's A ANTI-CHRIST LIE.

I am only interested in truth.

Then quit lying about the door.

I'm sorry you find my opinion worthless. I don't have time to dig through the scriptures, but there is a passage where Jesus says the last penny must be paid.

I'm sorry you find my opinion worthless. I don't have time to dig through the scriptures, but there is a passage where Jesus says the last penny must be paid.

You shouldn't spout stuff you can't back up. It doesn't speak well for your credibility.

Guys, let me post a direct quote out of the Koran, then a direct quote out of the Roman Catholic Cathechism...(emphasis mine)

From the Koran: [4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Jesus) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

From the Roman Catholic Cathechism: 841. "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'[LG 16; cf. NA 3.]"

The Koran specifically teaches that Jesus DID NOT DIE ON THE CROSS. A complete repudiation of the "Holiest of Holies" of the Christian belief -- and Roman Catholicism ACCEPTS that!

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.