Lovest Thou Peter?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/peter.html ^ | Michael J. Matt

[BlackElk]

That was a question not about dogmas but about modus operandi. You know better than to imagine that "virtually all" or anything vaguely so describeable of the hierarchy are not believers and defenders of the defined dogmas of the Church. Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara and Tom Woods are insolent, impudent, violate the normal tone of Catholic behavior. Their incessant and unwarranted carping and complaining does utterly nothing to strengthen the Church (which Woods was accepted into long after JP II became pope). They are part of a cult of ever-escalating self-importance, self-obsession and increasing marginalization. Their behavior is quite reminiscent of the Lutheranism from which Woods proceeded and which has informed the escalating radicalism of their mutual positions.

I am personally acquainted with both Woods and Ferrara. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not. If you do, and you still post as you do, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

If that seems harsh, remember that the particular ilk of papal critic exemplified by Woods and Ferrara claims to want the tone harshened against whatever they, in their infinite personal magisterial wisdom, may find in bad taste, personally offensive or whatever.

They are midgets attacking a great pope. They are not the Vicar of Christ on Earth. He is. They do not lead the Church. He does. They were not elected through the guidance of the Holy Ghost. He was.

Did you notice the blathering in Michael Matt's column about the Three Days of Darkness? I don't suppose that comes from Scripture. Nor do I suppose that it comes from the actual Magisterium. It probably does not emanate from even any significant private revelation (which, in any event, we would not be required to believe) that has not been discredited by the Church (regardless of Woods's or Ferrara's or Matt's impertinent and utterly irrelevant personal opinions). Three days of darkness, folks, and board up all your windows and have some specially pure white candles handy as your only source of light and don't look out the windows or open the door. After all, you heard it from Michael Matt and the Remnant. Most importantly, whatever you do, don't lower yourselves to obedience to papal authority. Any fool who can find a compliant publisher can be as God! The serpent is still among us.

As I said previously, the Michael Matt/Christopher Ferrara/Tom Woods modus operandi is that of enemies of the Church. Though they may often hold orthodox views, on many matters so did Luther or Calvin or Zwingli on many matters. So do Jews and Muslims on SOME matters.

If you defend them because you fancy yourself and them Traditionalist or Tridentine and fancy that adherence to the Tridentine will suffice, and if you are somehow offended by forceful criticism of their forceful criticisms of the best pope in our lifetimes to date (not counting JP I perhaps), too bad. I am not going to defect to the carping, whining pygmies who are JP II's enemies and who, utterly amazingly imagine their attacks upon the pope to be consistent with Catholic tradition. Basically, JP II has a set of enemies on all sides that a man can be proud of.

Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia. If you guys aren't satisfied then why don't you have the backbone to defect to SSPX and put your souls where your mouths are. You guys assumes you class yourself with Woods, Ferrara and the other self-appointed experts who have nothing better to accomplish than attack JP II and THEN imagine that loyalty to JP II has something to do with his "charisma." I wouldn't care if he looked like Yoda and sounded like Pee Wee Herman. What part of: John Paul II is the pope is so hard to understand. I don't need the Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Tom Woods analysis of why this or any other pope has failed their self-important standards of imagined perfection.

Do you people remember twenty long years of John XXIII and Paul VI during which there was never papal recognition of any enemies to the left? They were still popes. If we had to suffer through their prudential inanities for those twenty long years (were we being punished by their elections?), we can enjoy the very good work of this pope over twenty-four years and counting.

Last I checked, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" is still dogma and Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara and Tom Woods in their personal capacities as self-appointed Chicken Littles don't seem to adhere very well to that one.

When Roger McCaffery published Latin Mass magazine, he observed (without a verifiable liberal bone in his body) that it was more often the liberal bishops who were generous as to permission under the Indult for the Tridentine Mass and the conservatives like Keating in Arlington who would say no. Maybe, the more conservative prelates are reasonably concerned about the attacks on this pope despite his issuance of the indult, despite his conservative governance of the Church, despite his genuine greatness.

That is what I believe and it is not about to change and this is one voice that will rise to the defense of JP II.

[BlackElk]

Try not to be such a Pollyanna.

Kaspar may outlive JP II but you can take it to the bank that he will not succeed JP II as pope now or ever.

[Land of the Irish]

Kaspar may outlive JP II but you can take it to the bank that he will not succeed JP II as pope now or ever.

I hope you're right; but he'll still have a vote on whoever does. That's not encouraging.

[Desdemona]

Do you people remember twenty long years of John XXIII and Paul VI during which there was never papal recognition of any enemies to the left? They were still popes. If we had to suffer through their prudential inanities for those twenty long years (were we being punished by their elections?), we can enjoy the very good work of this pope over twenty-four years and counting.

Lest we forget, these were the two who outlawed the Latin Indult and JP II allows it. That should say something about his regard for tradition. As well as his love and devotion to the Blessed Mother and the Rosary.

Count me in on defending the current pope. Overall, not just with Catholicism, but the whole world, he has done more good than almost any other living leader. THAT is part of why I think he deserves our love and respect. Without JP II, would the Iron Curtain still be there?

[saradippity]

As usual,you have captured some of the essence about these self appointed,self annointed judges of the Pope.The more they attack,the more I read and find that much of what they say is just not true.

And while I believe the Tridentine Mass is far more efficacious than the New Order Mass and that there was a deliberate move by the "enemy" to absolutely eradicate the old Latin Mass,I don't see them doing anything but gloating over every possible real or perceived mistake the Pope has made.

For example,I read this article and noted the gnashing of teeth and the wailing about the state of the Church. The article also included the standard attestations of "love" for the decrepit and impotent Holy Father,who,he says glories in the adulation of his cultish followers.Still stupidly believing that these people love Christ and the Church he established I suggested that they read a little scripture,particularly some parables about guests at feasts and dinners.I had hoped that they might see that Christ continually pointed out that the Father invited everyone in the absence of the originally invited guests.I thought maybe they would see that perhaps the Pope was following Christ's advice.

The response to me was a long citation from Corintians that as far as I could see had nothing to do with the price of eggs.This I guess was to demonstrate that they do read the Bible.It was used to negate another part of my post where I said that I would remain on the "barque" because of John Paul II was smarter,holier and more well informed than I,in addition to being the Successor of Peter.So killing two birds with one stone,I guess,I got the Bible passage.I responded to that post and received no answer. I am expecially disappointed because I have always found Maximilian to be kind and well informed and more open to discussing issues that separate us.

[sitetest]

Dear BlackElk,

I apologize for being out of touch for some time. Work and things have the better of me.

Your defense of the Holy Catholic Church and the Vicar of Christ is uplifting.


Thank you.


sitetest

[patent]

On a previous thread you said this:

Here is an outstanding explanation of the superior value of the traditional Latin Mass. Clear and comprehensive, it shows why we should be promoting and attending the Latin Mass, and answers every objection, including the one most often seen on FreeRepublic -- "schismatic."

I responded to it, with a question, but you seem to have posted and run. I take it your not going to stop back in there, so I thought I would ask you the same here:

---

To: Maximilian

including the one most often seen on FreeRepublic -- "schismatic."

You leave me curious. Would you suggest that the SSPX, for example, is not schismatic?

patent  +AMDG

8 posted on 11/07/2002 3:12 PM CST by patent
[Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: Maximilian

Another comment for you,

it shows why we should be promoting and attending the Latin Mass, and answers every objection, including the one most often seen on FreeRepublic -- "schismatic."

In my view the article also does an excellent job of refuting many of the arguments made by the schismatic traditionalists, such as that the Pope could never change the Mass, Quo Primum, etc., and all their arguments about how superior the old Mass is, etc:

We cannot claim to be Catholic and in the same breath deny the teaching of the Church; we cannot put subjective likes and dislikes above revealed truth and the living tradition of the Church.

Critics may say there should be only one rite of Mass in the west. Yet for generations there were many rites of Mass.

patent  +AMDG

9 posted on 11/07/2002 3:20 PM CST by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[Maximilian]

You leave me curious. Would you suggest that the SSPX, for example, is not schismatic?

If I wanted to suggest such a thing, then I would suggest it. I referred to the Latin Mass.

Deciding whether the SSPX is schismatic is not within my competence, nor do I feel an obligation to involve myself in every controversy. If you would like to see an excellent discussion of the issue, I suggest you look up the latest issue of The Latin Mass magazine where the topic is debated back and forth with strong arguments on each side.

[patent]

Deciding whether the SSPX is schismatic is not within my competence, nor do I feel an obligation to involve myself in every controversy.

Fair enough. Who is that is being called schismatic, and why, that you expressed such concern about earlier? I still find your remark cryptic, especially in view of your answer. It seems to me you are involving yourself in some controversy here, and I’m curious which one? Your remarks:

Here is an outstanding explanation of the superior value of the traditional Latin Mass. Clear and comprehensive, it shows why we should be promoting and attending the Latin Mass, and answers every objection, including the one most often seen on FreeRepublic -- "schismatic."

I mean, I don't know of anyone on Free Republic who accuses others of being schismatic merely for attending the traditional Latin Mass. On the other hand the charge is probably frequently leveled when its an SSPX Mass. Thus, I am very curious what you meant?

patent  +AMDG

[Maximilian]

Who is that is being called schismatic, and why, that you expressed such concern about earlier?

My post was on a different thread referring to previous threads. Yet, perhaps not entirely by coincidence, there's a good example right here on this thread. BlackElk said:

We also need not have growing schism. They attack the pope. They attack the Church. No volume of self-serving denials will diminish that fact.

I don't know where Michael Matt goes to Mass, but I know for a fact that Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods attend indult Latin Masses. They do NOT belong to the SSPX.

In an earlier thread, a poster was attacked merely for posting something from the Seattle Catholic website. Peter Miller attends an indult Latin Mass. Like Woods and Ferrara, he has never been a member of the SSPX.

So it's a red herring to imply that the charge of schism is only laid against members of the SSPX. These reckless charges are used indiscriminately in an attempt to delegitimize all those who disagree with the views of certain people.

[patent]

I don't know where Michael Matt goes to Mass, but I know for a fact that Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods attend indult Latin Masses. They do NOT belong to the SSPX.

Of course they don’t belong to the SSPX. They are laity.

In an earlier thread, a poster was attacked merely for posting something from the Seattle Catholic website. Peter Miller attends an indult Latin Mass. Like Woods and Ferrara, he has never been a member of the SSPX.

But you see, the poster and the author aren’t being criticized for where they attend Mass. That is – to use your words – a red herring. They are being criticized and called schismatic for what they write. As BlackElk said:

We also need not have growing schism. They attack the pope. They attack the Church. No volume of self-serving denials will diminish that fact.

He didn’t mention what Mass they attend once did he? Is it not entirely possible to attend a non-schismatic Mass, and yet be schismatic? I know many liberals I would class this way. They simply refuse to obey the Pope no matter how clear things are. I see no reason it can’t apply, for the very reasons BlackElk cited, to conservatives as well.

There is more to being a Catholic than where you attend Mass.

These reckless charges are used indiscriminately in an attempt to delegitimize all those who disagree with the views of certain people.

You could probably count on one hand all the times BlackElk and I have agreed on a thread about something. Yet he doesn’t call me schismatic when we disagree, no matter how vehemently. I think the same is likely true for a number of the other people you have in mind.

You are not called schismatic for disagreeing. You are called schimatic when the other poster thinks that your conduct renders a serious blow the unity of the Church, even when that blow is only to your own membership in that body. Promoting hateful attacks on a Pope is not a Catholic action. Instead of complaining about being a victim, you may wish to consider that blunt words can at times set a wayward ship back on course. It is a fine line a traditionalist walks when he struggles against the modernist excesses we see all around us. If some see you crossing it, or following those who have crossed it, should they not do their best to warn?

patent  +AMDG

[Catholicguy]

I would say "liberal Protestantism." Today's RC church hardly resembles most evangelical churches today.

<> Liberal Protestants are prolife, profamily, subsidiarists who daily celebrate the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass and receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist and celebrate all seven Sacraments and operate within the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Authority under the Pope?

Gosh, I have got to get out more. The liberal protestants I know are nothing like Catholics<>

[ultima ratio]

It's not the Remnant which is unreasonable, though you attack it as "cartoonish" and "irresponsible." Rather it's the Wanderer which can't follow its own logic even as it publishes long tedious screeds against Church corruption, while keeping a studied silence about the Pope who has allowed its corruption to metastasize.

You claim to be traditionalist. Either you're a phony--which may well be the case, though I don't doubt you attend a traditional Mass and homeschool your kids--or you are incredibly dense and just can't seem to connect all the dots. Either way, you come across as smug. That post of yours about how wonderful and lucky you are, spoke volumes.

[ultima ratio]

You still don't get it. There's nothing wrong with being friendly with people of other religions. If the Pope wishes to attend a conference with them or host a luncheon for them or participate in public ceremonies with them--that's fine. He can be as friendly as he wants in those venues. What he can't do is WORSHIP with them--especially at their synagogues or mosques or sacred forests, while using their prayers. The First Commandment prohibits this.

[ultima ratio]

Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia is a nice pious saying, but it's not necessarily true. Better to put it the other way around: where the Church has always been, there the Pope ought to be.

[ultima ratio]

A lot of this is bombast. Do you proofread what you write?

[Desdemona]

Ultie, I get your point. Now get mine - when the pope was here, the prayer service was just that in the CATHOLIC Cathedral (stunning church that it is).

That's all I was trying to say.