A Reflection on Apostasy

The Diocese Report/DRBlog ^ | Wednesday, August 14, 2002 | Brian Mershon

[narses]

A Reflection on Apostasy

by Brian Mershon

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Unity," and further has stated (paraphrased) that the return of confessional Christians to Catholicism is "an outdated concept" and not in keeping with the theology of Vatican II, even those Catholics who are not of the "traditionalist" mindset should have cause for concern to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

posted by Brian Barcaro 8/14/2002 01:06:45 PM

[ultima ratio]

I didn't forget, I just don't buy it. I know all about the FSSP--especially since its traditionalism is being watered down by Rome deliberately. SSPX has--and must--retain its freedom as long as the Novus Ordo apostates have control. It is at best highly doubtful Archbishop Lefebvre was anything other then a holy man who saw the disaster the modernists, were engineering. He refused to play along.

[TomSmedley]

Evangelical Christians believe, from the Bible, that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will come when Israel accepts Jesus as their Messiah. That is the "trigger" that Jesus is waiting for before He chooses to return.

The better thinkers among evangelical Christians are not dispensensationalists, and do not believe this.

[TomSmedley]

Why didn't the reformers look in that direction first before forming the myriad flavors of Christianity we have now?

Cyril Lucaris, patriarch of constantinople at the time of the reformation, carried on cordial correspondence with the Reformers.

[babyface00]

Could you please explain to me what the historical ancestry of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church has to do with God's plan of salvation?

This is only my opinion, but if Jesus established the church and said it would be around essentially forever, and since the only game in town was the RC church up until the 11th century (Othodox) and then up until the 16th century (Reformation), then for that to be true, whatever manifestations of the church that was around in those 500 years would have to be the true church.

As I'm RC, I'm trying to understand how many Protestant faithful can condemn the RC church as being somehow invalid, but yet participate in a church that essentiallly didn't exist for 3/4 of the time since Jesus' coming. I picked the Orthodox schism because its conveniently just before the crusades and first inquisition (usually used as examples to point out why the RC church can't be "the way"), then you have the Orthodox church sitting out there, pretty much doing what it was doing in the first millenium and basically ignored by the Reformation.

Seems to me, if Jesus really meant he would be with the church always, then either the RC or the Orthodox traditions (or both) must be valid, at least in the form they were in for the 500 years between the schism and the reformation.

AnalogReign's comments have been very helpful in understanding the Protestant position for me. I'm certainly not condemning Protestant beliefs, but one can trace a large portion of RC and Orthodox faith tradition nearly all the way back to Christ. It's not an accident. My observation is that anyone with a Bible can start a new flavor of Protestant Christianity and be accepted because there's no real authority absent one of the two historical churches. It seems a little fuzzy, as a Catholic looking over to the Protestant side. Satan is a pretty creative guy, and Catholics are quite aware of his meddling in the RC church. As a Protestant, how do you know what you're hearing is what Christ taught?

I mean, faith exists in the RC world too, but you can get som pretty divergent manifestations of it both within the RC church and taking all of Christendom as a whole. The RC and Orthodox churches can at least say they've made a pretty good effort of taking what Christ taught and preserving it through two millenia (no small task).

Certainly there's been stumbling, and continues to be. But comments that RC's should essentially abandon the church in favor of interpreting the Bible on their own? To me that's like attempting surgery by reading a copy of Gray's Anatomy. Sure, everything you need to know is in there, but wouldn't you be better off getting advice from someone who has studied surgery extensively? Yes, even trained surgeons make an occassional mistake, but most of the time, they're spot on. The RC church isn't perfect, but can you name any other organization with the historical, theological, philosophical and (believe it or not) scientific resources devloted to any subject, much less devoted to understanding the word?

[TomSmedley]

I don't think its hard to believe that the risen Christ has seen to it that there are faithful followers of His within all (small "o") orthodox denominations... and that human organizations are secondary to how people exercise His love in their lives toward each other. His kingdom--and the true one Church universal--are nothing less.

D'accord!

[semaj]

I would respectfully disagree that Christ ordained the building of a monolithic structure to be the sole administrator of salvation here on earth. Yes a Church was created, any and all who have accepted and follow Christ are part of it. Leadership is ordained, yes, but when the leadership fails that leadership can be, and will be replaced. As an example, I offer you King Saul.

[berned]

The Gospel of Matthew.

Chpt 23 -- 37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me.38And now look, your house is left to you, empty and desolate.39For I tell you this, you (ISRAEL) will never see me again until you say, `Bless the one who comes in the name of the Lord!'" .

Also in Zechariah chpt 12:

9 For my plan is to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 "Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David ( That's Israel) and on all the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced (That's Jesus -- PAST tense -- "have piercED) and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died.

The "better thinkers", Tom, believe what is written by God in the Bible.

[semaj]

Another and better example of replaced leadership would be the replacement of Eli with Samuel. Eli failed to take corrective measures against his sons' behavior (whore-mongering gluttony). It is implied in the story that Eli had plans for his sons to replace him in his ministerial position, as they could claim "historical ancestry" to that calling. God had other plans.

[arthurus]

It's the only church other than RC who can claim any historical ancestry to the early church

Not quite. There are still Nestorians and monophysites in the world

[babyface00]

I think you missed my point. It's not the historical succession per se, its the fact that they were around.

If the RC church was so corrupt as to be invalid, then there essentially was no major Christian church other than Orthodoxy until the Reformation. And since the reformers didn't choose to go with Orhtodoxy, it would seem that they believed that it wasn't up to snuff either.

From the point of the reformers then (at least by the time they they started their own churches), there wasn't a church from sometime before the schism up until the reformation. The opinion of many Protestants appears to be that the RC hierarchy is incapable of instructing Catholics with any sort of authority. Under what authority, then, do Protestant churches certify their teachings and what makes them any more or less valid than the RC church, since they didn't exist until 500 years ago? And, if the RC church is somehow invalid, and was invalid, then unless the Orthodoxy is valid, there was essentially no church from whenever the RC church got off track enough to be invalid up until the Reformation.

I'll buy that "the church" is really the sum of its members, but aren't those same members part of the RC church? Isn't it plausible that the RC church is at least as likely to be "right" on matters of faith than any other thoughtful Christian religion?

[tang-soo]

I'll repeat my comments I made yesterday on the original thread concerning this story ...

From original statement ...Citing teachings dating back to the Second Vatican Council, and statements by Pope John Paul II throughout his papacy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops declared unequivocally that the biblical covenant between Jews and God is valid and therefore Jews do not need to be saved through faith in Jesus.

Interesting that they do not mention The Scriptures as playing any role in their decision, only man inspired teachings and statements by the current holder of the papacy. Guess they haven't read John chapter 3 and Christ's conversation with Nicodemus who was the most religious of the most religious yet would be denied The Kingdom unless he was reborn. Sigh - another notch in the belt of Satan!