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Unity," and further has stated (paraphrased) that the return of confessional Christians to Catholicism is "an outdated concept" and not in keeping with the theology of Vatican II, even those Catholics who are not of the "traditionalist" mindset should have cause for concern to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.

Allend, Truth exists (Jesus personifies it). Trying to water it down or synthesize it is always a dangerous exercise. Scripture is Truth. Synthesis is just another word for lie when one is speaking of scripture. Darwinian theory is atheistic in its roots and philosophy - trying to mix it with Truth is pure heresy. Darwinists laugh at the idea of "theistic evolution." It's an oxymoron. Catholics started this type of synthesis with Aquinas when he tried to reconcile Scripture with Aristotle - didn't work. Aristotle was a pagan. Pagans cannot see the truth as they are spiritually blind. What Aquinas succeeded in doing was drawing attention to the natural world (aristotlean)and way from revelation. From this grew the humanism of the Rennaissance, followed by the Enlightenment, etc. as man sunk further and further into humanism and confusion. Look at Michaelangelo's David statue (this is not the jewish David - statue not circumcised). The statue depicts the pre-eminence of man - look at the oversized hands and posture - man can do anything apart from God!

There is nothing abstract about Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church recognizes Adam and Eve as historical figures and the first men, from whom we are all descended. Accordingly, "allegory" would be incorrect.

Have you even read Most's essay that you posted for me? To wit:

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...

Obviously Most thinks Genesis is an allegory...I think you are confused yourself.

I will tell you as kindly as I can: If you believe there is punishment after forgiveness of sin, then you are believing a heresy. Either the blood of Christ cleanses (as completely as scripture CLEARLY teaches or it doesn't. There is no in between. I have backed myself up with scripture. You have supported your assertions with nothing but your own confused beliefs. If truth matters to you, if you love God, then I suggest you pick up the bible and start reading Romans. There is no condemnation or punishment for those who trust in Christ. Period. Do you really think you can do anything BY YOUR OWN EFFORTS that will gain you merit with God? If that be true, the Christ need not have died - you could cleanse yourself! What a lie that is! I rebuke and reject that lie and I urge you to seek the truth!

He doesn't use the word "allegory" but he does say that genesis 1-3 are just ancient stories (not real). Jesus disagrees with him. Jesus said: For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. Jn 5:46. I offer that verse to Rev. Most.

You don't want to admit you made a mistake about the door and now you are trying to bait me into a scriptural debate.

You didn't acknowledge the scripture where it says the last penny must be paid.

When one picks up scripture and starts trying to interpret it for one's self, it is not as plain to me as it seems to be to you. There are many things I don't know for sure, but I do know that what you are saying is one of the anathemas of the Council of Trent and I don't want to fall into that trap.

Not necessarily. Justin Martyr (Apology 1:46), A.D. 155, said that some, like Socrates could even be Christians because they followed the divine Word, who wrote the law on their hearts.

I don't care what a man said outside of scripture. If it contradicts scripture, it's wrong. Paul the Apostle wrote in 1cor 2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Whose right?

I'm RC, but I've seriously looked into the Orthodox church. It's the only church other than RC who can claim any historical ancestry to the early church.

I wonder if ancient Hebrews ever doubted their "Jewishness" by virtue of not being able to trace their lineage to Abraham?

You don't want to admit you made a mistake about the door and now you are trying to bait me into a scriptural debate.

In fact, you reinforced what I said about the Holy Door! AS if walking thru a door can have any power! ROFL.

I think you had better quit before you make yourself look even more foolish. Mat 5:25 has nothing to do with the Holy Door. Jesus is talking about making peace with your brother. What does this have to do with punishments after one is cleansed by the blood of Christ? I suggest you really think about your answer and read and meditate on this scripture before you respond.

It is actually an ancient story, made up to serve as a vehicle for teaching some things...

How much more plain can Most be? It was "made up"! Jesus disagrees with him clearly. Who is right Allend? Jesus or Most?

For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

Let me ask you: How many doers of the Law are there? Answer: Not one single person. How do I know. YOu have to read all of Romans. Ro. 3:23: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and There is none righteous, no not one Ro 3:10. How about James 2:10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

Do you know anyone who has kept the whole Law? hmm?

Punishment for sin here on earth? Sure there is. What about David and Bathsheba? David sinned, big time, and his family was forever plagued by violence and strife, as a direct result.

2 Samuel 12 - 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou [art] the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife [to be] thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give [them] unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

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.