Rome is Burning while the Pope is Fiddling (A Reply to Carl Olson and Envoy Magazine)

But surely you've spent a good part of this thread making the point that this Pope has taught error. Isn't that what deviating from Tradition means?

That makes him a heretic doesn't it?

As for the sedevacantists, well at least they are open about things. They state plainly that their man is the true Pope and JP II is an imposter. You on the other hand like to play it both ways. Contest and dispute everything which he says yet give lip service to the thesis that he is the true Pope. How can he be your Pope, if you reject his teachings? You are de facto sedevacantists. Not openly admitting it, but acting as if it were the case. As I said in another post, it's really just a small step from where you're at.

You've consecrated your own bishops. You've stated that you, not the Holy Father are the real Catholics. You are an essentillay independent entity. All that's left is to elect your own Pope.

Look, you again personalize the issue. Why do you want to make me the issue? I raised specific objections. You don't address these, you harp on me instead and bring up the SSPX controversy--which I have argued a thousand times and have no intention of going into here at this late hour. But notice how you avoid addressing the issues. This is what I mean by neo-Catholic blindness. You will not look at the the facts, at how this papacy operates. I criticize the Pope, therefore I must be a terrible person--and that is about the sum of your argument. If not, tell me, why did the Pope give the red hat to a man who doubts the Resurrection or the divinity of Christ? How does this protect the deposit of faith? Or tell me, why hasn't he reformed the seminaries after twenty-five years of well-publicized corruption? Explain, please, and forget about what a lousy Catholic I am.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "personalizing" this. You've been most vocal in your denunciation of the Pope. I'm not making you the issue. It's your views, which I presume are in some way representative of the "traditionalist" movement in the broadest sense? You've extolled them at great length. Surely you aren't going to hide behind the traditionalist movement and say "well they're not mine personally". You've made yourself a spokesman for a viewpoint.

In one sense, however, this is personal. Personal in the sense that you have placed a personal judgement above that of the Holy Father's. This is really what it all comes down to, isn't it? Personal interpretation. Dressed up protestantism masquerading as adherence to Tradition.

Much of this has an education for me. I had been under the impression that the primary bone of contention between the SSPX and the Vatican was liturgy. Specifically, the shameful way in which the Tridentine Rite was treated. This in turn led me to the erroneous presumption in my earlier posts that talk of "tradition" meant a liturgical tradition. However, it appears that it was "Tradition" with a capital "T" that is at issue and there now appears to be a question of the Pope introducing some form of new doctrine or heresy. However, I'm still uncertain as to whether you are accusing him of this sin and if so, what new teaching it is.

The question of Church appointments and enforcement of Church discipline has been very well destabilized by the liberals and modernists. In many cases the Pope has been given very bad advice. In many cases his directives are totally ignored. There is an enormous struggle taking place within the Church for control of its power structures and bureaucracy. The recent homosexual scandal has shown the depth to which the cancer has set in and the extent to which networks of corrupt prelates and priests have become ensconced. This struggle is not going to be solved by a wave of the Pope's hand, much though we'd like it to be. It is going to played out over time although we already know the winner. It's the Pope's team. He is not a passive player in all of this.

Many in the traditionalist movement have shown their sincere desire to be united with him. The FSSP order embraced the Pope's sincere gesture and more recently, the Society of St. John Vianney in Campos, Brazil. It's time to come home. SSPX can not exist forever in its current state. It will ultimately go the way of either the sedevcantists or be reunited with Rome.

If not, tell me, why did the Pope give the red hat to a man who doubts the Resurrection or the divinity of Christ?

Who would that be? Most of the Pope's appointments have been of men who are doctrinally orthodox. To hear the liberals speak, he has stacked the college of cardinals with reactionaries. To hear you, he's given away the store.

Here's a question for you. Why did Jesus pick a man who would later betray him to be one of the 12? I don't know the answer. Maybe you do.

Or tell me, why hasn't he reformed the seminaries after twenty-five years of well-publicized corruption?

It's a work in progress but a huge task. The current seminary graduates are a greatly improved group. Those who graduated in the 60s and 70s are a different story although their influence will begin to dwindle with the passage of time. He has spoken about correct priestly formation on numerous ad limina visits-to varying degrees of effectiveness. Do you meant to imply that JP II is altogether indifferent to priestly formation? That's just slanderous.

And your solution to all of this is what? (Not you personally of course, lest you take offence.)

Ratzinger and others had warned the Pope, Walter Kasper is a heretic. His major works have questioned the historicity of the Resurrection and the divinity of Christ. Nevertheless, he was awarded the red hat. You are not bothered by this. I would not be either, if all other things were equal. They are not. The faith is losing ground everywhere and corruption is pandemic. Nor do I buy the tired excuse that Jesus chose Judas. This doesn't give popes the green light to reward heretics.

This "huge task" of reform you talk about is an excuse for Rome's having done nothing. If there were a will, reform would have been begun twenty years ago. All the facts were in before then. Rome knew that the bishops were promoting their boyfriends and that the seminaries were turning lavender. But there was little inclination to act. A batallion of ravaged altar boys were apparently not considered enough of a problem.

Yet two and a half years ago a few orthodox traditional seminary theologians along with the superior general of FSSP were fired summarily after a letter of complaint was received only weeks earlier. They were accused of the dastardly crime of "not thinking with the conciliar Church." Amazing how fast the Vatican can fire people when it wants to. In this case it certainly wanted to. But when it's corruption of morals or outright apostasy--it's odd how little it feels any inclination to act.

You say, "You have placed a personal judgement above that of the Holy Father's. This is really what it all comes down to, isn't it? Personal interpretation." Of what? You don't say. Yet my interpretations, such as they are, are not mine--they are the Church's, handed-down through the centuries, the teachings of past popes and councils. These are what traditionalists hold on to. What is personal about this? We believe what the Church has always believed.

The problem occurs when the Pope contradicts the magisterium of his predecessors. Then we are forced to choose. The preconciliar popes rejected indifferentism and syncretism, for instance. How can the Pope's behavior be reconciled to their teachings? It can't. But since this Pope's behavior is unprecedented and novel, it is placing the faithful on the horns of a dilemma. Is he right--or were his predecessors right? Does a living pope trump his predecessors, even when he teaches novelties? Even when his predecessors warned about these very teachings? Pius IX said, "If a Pope teaches falsehood, do not follow him." That is quite a statement when you think of it. We take it seriously. And we measure truth by what has always been said, not by what is novel.

"We are dealing here with two different paradigms of theology and understanding of Jesus Christ and mission of the church. In one of them, the church itself is the primary goal of mission. Jesus is seen as the universal savior, Lord dominant over all. The other is one in which fostering the values of the kingdom of God as taught by Jesus is the principal goal of the church. Jesus is seen here more as the one who came to love and serve, meek and mild, liberator of humankind bringing about the values of the kingdom of God on earth.

"These two paradigms, quoting different scriptural texts in their favor, have led to differing forms of presence of Christians in the world, different understandings of goals and methods of mission, different relationships with persons of other faiths and persuasions.

"This is an ongoing debate within the church at large and has not yet been fully resolved in theory or in practice, as seen in these two recent documents. Perhaps the more significant dialogue has to be within the Catholic church itself, between the two Vatican dicasteries led by two cardinals. The pope may be drawn in two different directions by these two curial bodies.

"For the present we may state that the declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, however justified it may be from our point of view, is a non-starter for meaningful interreligious dialogue. It may be even dangerous in that it hurts others with whom we live and move and have our being."

Oblate Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, a theologian, directs the Centre for Society and Religion in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Balasuriya was excommunicated in early 1997 on formal charges of heresy. He was reinstated a year later without admitting error.

____________________________________________________________

The above citation sums up the problem. The two paradigms involve a lot more than two differing ways of perceiving the Church's mission. If the second paradigm is being pursued, then it is virtually a rejection of the Church's own history and self-understanding. If this is the case, then it the new paradigm is either a great heresy or the whole of the past two thousand years was a lie.

I am not surprised the Pope is torn in two directions. Cardinal Ratzinger opposes the new paradigm. Cardinal Kasper affirms it. This is why Ratzinger warned the Pope not to give the red hat to Kasper, calling him a heretic. The Pope at first did not. Then, a short time later, he changed his mind.

This may clue you in as to why the SSPX, amd the ancient Mass it cherishes, is so fiercely opposed by modernists. It may also explain the present confusion. This is what happens when the past is no longer a guide for the Church in the present. The self-doubt is profound, and failure is inevitable.

From what little I've heard of Kasper, he doesn't impress. I don't know enough to say whether he is a heretic or not. However, it is totally untrue to say, as you do, that I am not bothered by this. I am truly bothered anytime a modernist gets promoted. Yet I think that it's in the inferences we would draw from his elevation to the College of Cardinals that we differ. I would see the Pope's action as an unwise decision. A bad nomination amongst a lot more good ones. You, if I'm not mistaken, would see this as something more sinister and part of a larger conspiracy to undermine the Church. In other words, you would say that the Pope's intentions are dishonorable. Am I right?

If one takes the bigger picture and looks at the life of JP II from his youth until today, if one examines his writings and his teachings, I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that Pope is up to no good. Quite the contrary.

My mention of Judas being chosen by Jesus was not meant to imply that it's OK for miscreants to be placed in high positions. That was not my point. Such an assertion is ridiculous. My purpose in pointing this out was simply to say that things do not always happen in ways which are in line with our human expectations. That is all.

Much of the Pope's activity seems to scandalize you. Would you be scandalized at seeing Jesus sitting with prostitutes? How about going to dinner at the house of a tax-collector? I'm still confused as to whether it is doctrine or the Pope's style that is at the heart of your animosity.

Let me say this--we are not that far apart, though the business about Jesus dining with sinners annoys me. I'll tell you why: because I've heard it a thousand times and it does not address the issue. No one would say dining with sinners was wrong--but if Jesus were to worship at the Temple of Jupiter, or pay homage to the statue of Tiberius, I would be scandalized. No one would have minded if the Pope had called a luncheon or had organized a conference of all the world's religions. I would have applauded this. But John Paul II prayed with witchdoctors and voodoo priests, he poured out libations in a "sacred" forest, he kissed the Koran, he shared a ritual of worship with the devotees of the Great Thumb. This comes perilously close to idolatry and it is very hard to see how it does not step over the line.

So what do I make of John Paul II? Do I think he is a bad man? No. Do I think he is unwise? I do. Do I think he is a heretic? Not formally (as distinguished from materially). But I think he has bought into the most liberal features of Vatican II, dreaming of a super-religion wherein all doctinal differences among men are glossed over by the healing power of love. But the problem with this new paradigm is that it replaces the rock with quicksand. This is because the past was either true in its claim to certitude--which makes the new paradigm false, or the past was false in its claim--which makes the new paradigm just as false in any claim to certitude. But if we can have no infallibility--then the whole organized Church, papacy and dogmas and all, collapses. I may as well worship in my own way according to my own lights, by taking a hike in the woods and communing with mother nature. If we reject the Church's past, then it puts us back at square one, and makes Jesus just another holy man like Gandhi or St. Francis and the whole of our faith is destroyed.

<> Excellent attempt to make UR face the music. Many have tried, all have failed. He wants it both ways. He relentlessly attacks the Pope then whines you, or others, are "personalising" it when you call him to account.

I think it pure cowardice. He obviously thinks the Pope a heretic. He is just too chicken to say so. HDMZ at least has the courage of his odd convictions

Jesus established His Church. He is the Bridegroom ,the Church His Bride. UR is whoring around with other women while complaining the Pope isn't living up to UR's high standards.

The Church is the Body of Christ,the Holy Spirit its soul. UR thinks it is a corpse. He has lost the Faith and spends inordinate amounts of time telling everyone here it is the Pope that has lost the faith.

Frankly, psychiatrists deal with this sort of pathology all the time. Mebbe he needs help. He has rejected the Spiritual remedy provided for by Jesus' Church, so, he may be condemned to seeking out a shrink to deal with his obvious cognitive dissonance that everyone else can see <>

<>He obviously thinks the Pope a heretic. He is just too chicken to say so. HDMZ at least has the courage of his odd convictions.<>

It's hard to take you seriously, you use so little logic. I have never been chicken about declaring my views. I have said what I think--to the outrage of many of you. No, it's not cowardice, but prudence that causes me to hedge the issue. I have said the sedevacantists are not whackos, that they have reason to believe what they do. I do not deny I have my doubts about this Pope's heterodoxy. But doubt is not certitude and I do not wish to pull ahead of SSPX theologians who are likewise cautious in the way they proceed on this matter. It is undeniable, however, that this Pope opposes his orthodox predecessors in many ways.

<>Jesus established His Church. He is the Bridegroom ,the Church His Bride. UR is whoring around with other women while complaining the Pope isn't living up to UR's high standards...The Church is the Body of Christ,the Holy Spirit its soul. UR thinks it is a corpse. He has lost the Faith and spends inordinate amounts of time telling everyone here it is the Pope that has lost the faith.<>

Your comments about my "whoring" is strangely reminiscent of the way Luther used to put things. Be that as it may, the last I heard it was Vatican II and Rome, not traditionalists like myself, who denied the Catholic Church was indeed to be identified with the Church of Christ. In their syncretic zeal to accommodate other Christian religions, the Council fathers pronounced instead that the Church of Christ only "subsists in" the Catholic Church, sort of the way sugar subsists in a cake, sweetening a lot else besides. So it's not I who doubts the one true Church, it is those you claim affirm what they, in fact, do not affirm.

<>he may be condemned to seeking out a shrink to deal with his obvious cognitive dissonance that everyone else can see.<>

The cognitive dissonance is with those who, like yourself, are trying to hail the revolution tearing the Church apart, while trying to claim allegiance to Catholic Tradition at the same time. It can't be done. You know as well as I do that the preconciliar popes who affirmed the Syllabus of Errors and the heresy of Modernism have little in common with the postconciliar doctrinal and liturgical novelties that rule today. How you square this circle is beyond me--but it's a wonder to watch you try. This is why your speech is so intemperate. In your anger and frustration you have so far called me a "son of Satan," a "coward", a "sissy" and now you call me "pathological," in need of a psychiatrist. It would seem instead that you are the one in need of psychological assistance.

OK. I think that I've finally got it. It seems to be more about the Pope's behavior or style, rather than doctrine.

Most of the examples which you cite simply make me say "I'll pass on the that one." This really comes back to whether or not I am competent to judge actions such as those you quote, which to me, fall into a gray area. I'll give the Pope the benefit of the doubt. Although he is human like me, I consider that he has something which I don't. A special charism to navigate the Barque of Peter.

Some actions don't bother me at all. The kissing of the Koran would fall into this category. I interpret this in exactly the same way in which I interpret his habitual kissing of the ground when he visits a foreign country. A simple gesture of respect from a humble man. The gestures of the humble are often misunderstood by the proud.

Finally, this is most likely my final post. At least on this thread. I'll let you have the last word.

Until the next time. Peace.

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.