Posted on 08/03/2004 6:32:20 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA
"In assessing the recent history of the Catholic Church, more than one commentator has applied the term "revolutionary" to what he has seen. Although there are some who intend this term's use in its empty corporate advertising sense (i.e., "very good"), most are attempting to draw to focus events and ideas pertaining to what can rightfully be considered a revolution. Indeed, there are fascinating insights to draw from the parallels between the progressive efforts to reform the modern-day Church, and prior revolutionary upheavals in various societies. In more ways than one, the tactics, tendencies and rhetoric employed by Protestant, Masonic, and Communist revolutionaries, have direct correlations with the Modernists and Progressives who have wielded a substantial amount of influence in the recent history of the Catholic Church.
While to some it may seem lacking in perspective and/or sensitivity to demonstrate parallels linking Communist butchers who systematically eliminated tens of millions of people, to liberal theologians and liturgists whose biggest accomplishments may be ambiguous USCCB documents or a children's liturgy, it is important to keep a supernatural (Catholic) perspective. From this perspective, an ineffective Church in the process of "auto-demolition" and the corresponding potential for loss of souls is infinitely more costly than even the most significant loss of life. Although certainly less violent, the results are of no less importance."
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlecatholic.com ...
"Meanwhile, we would do well to recall the inspiring words that Pope Pius VI sent to French Catholics in April of 1791, as revolutionary fever was sweeping that nation:
"At length We beseech you all, beloved Catholic children, ... as you recall the religion and faith of your fathers, We urge you lovingly not to abandon it. For it is the one true religion which both confers eternal life and makes safe and thriving civil societies. Carefully beware of lending your ears to the treacherous speech of the philosophy of this age which leads to death. Keep away from all intruders, whether called archbishops, bishops, or parish priests; do not hold communion with them especially in divine worship. Listen carefully to the message of your lawful pastors who are still living, and who will be put in charge of you later, according to the canons. Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter." 4 (4 Pope Pius VI, "Charitas (On The Civil Oath In France)" 4/13/1791
| " ...Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter." Pope Pius VI, "Charitas (On The Civil Oath In France)" 4/13/1791 |
Maybe.
But I doubt it.
It IS interesting that this Pope kinda thinks Catholics ought to be in union with the Pope.
Do you suppose that the SSPX is aware of Pius VI?
There are quite a few of us Colonists who are in union with the Pope.
Don't misunderstand: we are not perfect. But we DO think JPII's in charge, and we DO the 'religious submission of mind and will' as required.
What does one do if the visible head--the Pope himself--is a revolutionist and approves of the revolution?
And if the Pope is a revolutionist? If he is the one appointing the revolutionary bishops and archbishops and cardinals? What then?
And if the Pope is a revolutionist? If he is the one appointing the revolutionary bishops and archbishops and cardinals? What then?
I would expect the neo-Catholics on this site to ignore the heart of the article and seize on the final citation, which is a non-sequitur, considering the rest. But let me ask you--what if the Pope is at the head of the revolution? What if he is the one appointing the revolutionary bishops and archbishops and cardinals? What if he's the one leading the charge? What then?
"John-Paul has done a good job of spreading the faith with the Catechism."
Not true. Hardly anybody reads the thing. It is a manifesto, in fact, of the revolution and departs in significant ways from preconciliar texts. Its ambiguities and murkiness mimicks the documents of Vatican II--and is just as radical.
To say the Pope has "done a good job" is absurd. He was the one who appointed the mediocrities we have as bishops. He is the one who has allowed the traditional faith to collapse in the ways described by this article.
The truth is the author blinked and could not bring himself to tell the complete truth. There could have been no revolution if it had not been for the weakness and/or the willingness of the popes in the postconciliar decades. JPII willingly went along with the destruction. He still goes along with it--the revolution is his agenda.
"Nowhere is this revolutionary dedication to "any direction but that from whence we came" more evident than among the American bishops."
Sadly this author seems to have swallowed the Amchurch propaganda. In fact, the American bishops (bad as they are) are far more tradition-minded than many of their counterparts in Europe (including the Vatican).
"The banal liturgies, weak catecheses and spineless bishops they have grown up around, bear little resemblance to the Church that inspired holy missionaries and martyrs in generations past."
In short, the post-conciliar period has seen the development of an entirely new religion - still calling itself "Catholic".
Quite a few, much to the chagrin of those who aren't.
Good question. From what I know of the Church's history there have been some very sorry Popes, and many very fine ones. During the periods when there were less-than-sterling Popes, it seems to me from what I know that the Church still held (despite the efforts of those who wanted to destroy it) and Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail was shown true - as all of His promises are.
What does one do? Pray. The one thing I keep coming across in past eras is that people prayed - a lot. And God raised up saints who helped lead the Church back on track. For all the controversies, I still believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail as Christ promised. Otherwise, what was the point of my departing the Protestant and Anglican side of the Tiber? (rhetorical qustion) The other thing, find parishes where there are non-revolutionary priests and stick with them.
One thing someone learns as Protestant and Anglican is to "church shop" - it comes down in those communities to finding a solid pastor and a good parish/local church. Seems one has to do likewise these days as a Catholic. At least I had a lot of experience in shopping around!
In the current situation? All I know to do is what Catholics have done in other eras - pray every day, find a solid priest and parish, stand on the promises of Christ, keep sticking to the tried and true (the old classics). I recall that some of the ancient writers indicated that to be in the Catholic Church one had to be in communion with the Seat of Peter.
Christ promised the gates of Hell would not prevail. The waters raging and dashing against the rocks and the wind howling like crazy is another matter.
"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him." --Pius IX
The Pope is not lord of Catholic Tradition, he is its servant. If he gets this in reverse, we should not follow him.
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.