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Unity," and further has stated (paraphrased) that the return of confessional Christians to Catholicism is "an outdated concept" and not in keeping with the theology of Vatican II, even those Catholics who are not of the "traditionalist" mindset should have cause for concern to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

From the url you cite:

"If a 'Hebrew Home' is desired, it would not be too difficult to find a more fitting territory, than Palestine. With an increase in the Jewish population there, grave, new international problem s would arise."

Wow, there's an all-time understatement. These are the words of Pius XII from the letter you dug up. They sound a whole lot more like objective, reasoned, logic to me than anti-semitism.

And don't start with the Jew hater crap with me either because now that the deed has been done I am 110% in favor of support for Israel. But because the Pope foresaw the blood and tragedy inherent in the decision certainly doesnt make him the devil that your citation presents him as.

Your post # 83 is so theologically out-of-it, I hardly know where to start to address it.

It is clear from Scripture, (I posted two very striking sets of scripture in post # 52) that God intended Israel to be re-born in the latter days, and that Jesus would not return until Israel accepts Him as their Messiah. That is the trigger point which will bring about the Second Coming, and the end of the age.

Satan (AND his minions) are naturally hell-bent on STOPPING this from happening,(as I outlined in my note # 12) because when it does, they are going to be thrown into the abyss. Therefore when we see somebody trying to STOP the re-birth of Israel as a nation, they are also trying to stop the Second Coming. (No Israel = No acceptance of Jesus by Jews as their Messiah = No Second Coming).

The fact that Israel has had a tough existance in the Middle East is theologically irrelevant. Would you, iconoclast, have said to God -- "you better not let Jesus be born, He will have a tough life and then they will crucify Him someday"? Jesus suffered worse than any man, but without His sacrifice on the cross, there would be no salvation for anyone. God's ways are not your ways. As it says in 1st Cor...

1Cr 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.

Your post # 83 is strictly thinking from human geopolitical perspectives, with NO thought to Scriptural prophesy or the spiritual war that goes on behind the scenes. He who opposes Israel having the opportunity to, as a NATION, accept Jesus as their Messiah, opposes God's Plan for the redemption on Creation.

The Pope is considered infallible under certain conditions, when speaking about faith or morals. That does not imply he is impeccable (without sin).

Well he was certainly fallible in matters of faith when he prayed with muslims and hindus, not to mention his views on evolution (evolution is taught in virtually every catholic school in existence). And this business with the Holy Door - to believe that walking thru a door can cleanse anyone of sins is blasphemy.

He did say that, but the teaching authority of the Church does not cover scientific questions.

You have not thought this thru. If evolution is true, Genesis is a lie. If Genesis is a lie, then it certainly crosses over from the scientific to the scriptural. Both cannot be true - that is for certain. So which is it? Genesis or Darwin? Should I ask the Pope? Don'tyou know that evolution is spiritual at its core? It is atheistic and anti-God?

There were six, as I recall, who were unworthy of their office.

Are you counting the ones that carried out the Inquisition through their lying murdering proxy - the Jesuits? Urban II? Borgia popes? How about the ones who purchased their offices? What does that do to apostolic succession? Speaking of apostolic succession - what do their evil deeds say about their suitability as so-called "vicars of Christ"? It would be laughable if not so evil.

And this business with the Holy Door - to believe that walking thru a door can cleanse anyone of sins is blasphemy.

The door was an indulgence. An indulgence, according to catholic belief, remits part or all of the temporal and/or eternal PUNISHMENT due for FORGIVEN sins.

Please, if you are going to criticize the church, do a little research before lashing out. If noncatholics are sincere and well-studied in what they believe or disbelieve, that is one thing, but so many anti-catholic people are really wicked because they misrepresent catholic teachings, either through deliberate deception or ignorance.

Differing with catholic teaching and beliefs is one thing, but lying about things to gain adherents puts one on very shaky ground spiritually, no matter what side of the fence you are on.

Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church SELL these "indulgences" for money? (They sure did when I was growing up Catholic.)

No. It is now against church law. For how long I don't know, but I know it is. I think they stopped the practice of selling them after the Council of Trent but I could be mistaken on that. Martin Luther was correct in railing against the practice of selling indulgences.

Can you be more specific in your assertion that they did that when you were growing up catholic? Can it be you were misinformed? Who was selling them to whom? Who taught you that?

I didn't grow up catholic, but I don't remember there ever being talk of indulgences being sold in the US.

What did Murdoch get for his $10,000,000 from Mahoney? A Knighthood, yes, but wasn't there also an indulgence?

I don't know about that case, but if Mahony granted an indulgence he would probably have been in error. Indulgences have to be pre-approved by a church body, probably the pope. No single churchman can suddenly invent a new indulgence and bestow it. I doubt even the pope would do that. The conditions for obtaining the Holy Door indulgence were published well in advance. I don't know if the pope devised and enacted it unilaterally or in concert with some committee of bishops.

It could be possible that Mahony would have the authority to do that, but I doubt it.

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.