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

Catholic Apologetics International ^ | January 3, 2003 | Mario Derksen

[Sursum Corda]

You wrote:

Do some homework, please. Liberalism in the church is
dying out.

36 posted on 01/30/2003 6:19 PM PST by Desdemona (Our Lady
of Guadalupe, please pray for us and the unborn.)

I hate to disagree, but I must.

More than likely, you consider yourself to be a conservative and orthodox Catholic.
With that assumption in mind, I posit that you are in tune with the latest pronouncements from Rome and embrace them wholeheartedly.

How do you square the current orthodoxy with that of orthodox Catholics following the council?

At that time, good Catholics were busy fighting the Dutch-led disobedience which sought to universalize Communion in the hand, the liberal demand for Communion under both species for the laity, and the removal of the Communion rails. Further, the Charismatic movement had already proven a failure, luring significant numbers of Catholics to Protestant Pentacostalism while failing to enhance authentic Catholic devotion. Let us not even start to discuss girls sharing the position of acolyte with prospective Priests within the Sanctuary(AKA Alter girls).

Well, along came Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, and there went these issues which had animated Catholic conservatism/orthodoxy following VCII.

To not belabor the point, "orthodoxy" had moved leftward.
Perhaps many of the 'orthodox' bishops you now champion would have been fairly labeled "liberals" in another time. Many, if not most, Bishops in this country are opposed to the 'traditional' Catholic view on Capital punishment and Just War Theory while in large numbers embracing such heterodox theories as Cardinal Bernardin's proposition of the 'seamless garment' approach to pro-Life issues.

Sursum Corda

[Zviadist]

Very good post. We must not forget our own sins and sinfullness...

[Zviadist]

It's you who worship "tradition".

Amen! First time you have said anything coherent! Sacred Tradition is one of the pillars of the Faith! Of course we hold it in highest regard: it is who we are as Catholics!

[Zviadist]

You are mistaken in you sedevacantism, but you sure do make some darn good points...

[ultima ratio]

Come on, do you really think anybody going to an SSPX Mass desires to express "a desire to separate from the Pontiff and those in communion with him"? Talk about phony arguments. We have been stating on this website and elsewhere till we're blue in the face that we're not schismatic and don't desire to be. But neither will we deny the Catholic Faith and become Protestants for the sake of a false chumminess. Short of that, there's no real problem.

Take a second look at this letter. Msgr. Perl is admitting we may legitimately attend an SSPX Mass. He won't admit this outright, of course. He will talk about this fake claim of what some of us MIGHT desire to do, though most traditionalists do not wish such a break, but the clear implication of the letter in the final analysis is that we are NOT in schism and never were in schism and neither is the SSPX. Ecclesia Dei Afflicta was an overeach. This letter can't be read any other way.

[Loyalist]

Where the hell are you guys on all the culture wars threads and general "Catholicism versus the world" apologetics threads?

The culture wars can only be waged to one clear end: the social kingship of Christ the King and triumph of the Church Militant.

Any ecumenical endeavours should be regarded as tactical alliances against greater enemies in the culture of death.

Sometimes that means tolerating liberal Catholics, liberal Protestants and Bob Jones University evangelicals. But even the Soviet Union and Iraq were once America's allies.

[ultima ratio]

"Your mask has slipped."

Yours has slipped long ago. You'll note that I use the term "our Church" in responding to Polycarp's broadside--a man who has the gall to abuse traditionalists for defending the Catholic faith--something he himself should be doing and won't, though he knows better.

[ultima ratio]

"Go to The Remnant website or The Latin Mass Magazine or any other "ultra-traditional" website. Or read Richard Williamson's commentaries (he's a schismatic bishop in the SSPX). You'll find all kinds of Masonic theories behind Vatican II and the death of John Paul I."

I subscribe to both The Remnant and The Latin Mass. I have yet to read any theories such as you claim are published therein. You clearly don't read these sources or you'd know they are steeped in scholarship and closely-documented polemics. The looniness comes from people like yourself and "catholic"guy who make such wacko statements.

[Askel5]

Interesting. Sinkspur agrees with you and, in a two-fer appearance, manages to defend the Masons as well.

[Zviadist]

I subscribe to both The Remnant and The Latin Mass. I have yet to read any theories such as you claim are published therein.

Neither have I, and I have subscribed for years.

[Polycarp]

washing your hands and walking away is not the answer.

Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere. My comments were directed to the Trads here, not my ping list. I was simply requested to be left out of their ongoing screeds against all-things-post-conciliar. I plan on continuing faithful orthodox Catholic apologetics and fighting for the culture of life. I just want left out of this morass.

You suffer through an equal if not superior amount of modern Church nonsense. You ought to suffer through the hyper-traditionalist nonsense with equal fortitude.

Interesting that they've become equally taxing.

[Zviadist]

I plan on continuing faithful orthodox Catholic apologetics

Translation: Neo-catholic pablum.

[ultima ratio]

The Protestants claimed in the sixteenth century that they were conforming to the Church of the first century, fifteen hundred years earlier. Traditionalists don't have to make such an absurd claim. Our Church goes back ONLY FORTY YEARS. Many of us can remember what the old faith was once, having lived it. It was not this new abomination concocted by modernists and swallowed hook line and sinker by the clueless masses.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Our Church goes back ONLY FORTY YEARS. Many of us can remember what the old faith was once, having lived it. It was not this new abomination concocted by modernists and swallowed hook line and sinker by the clueless masses.

It doesn't matter if it's forty years or forty thousand years. Either way, once you leave Christ's Church (or you claim it left you), your new church is nothing more than another protestant denomination.

[ultima ratio]

You misread Scripture. Jesus railed against the Pharisees precisely because they had Moses and the Prophets but abandoned them to create a new belief system centered on the writings which became the Talmud. Reread the passages and study the scholarship. The Pharisees were the church leaders of their day. This was precisely the kind of gang Jesus warned his disciples to avoid emulating when he said, "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" (cf. St. Jn) and kept reminding them to show humility, even girding his own loins to wash their feet as if he were their servant. Our Church leaders do the opposite, in fact, and are very pharisaical. They are not only hypocritical and proud, but many are corrupt in the usual ways. Worst of all, they have ignored their authentic tradition to create a new one.

[Polycarp]

Thank you for the note. God Bless.

[ultima ratio]

I commend you for your pro-life work. But this is a two-front war. The war against those who would destroy the Church from without and the war against those who would destroy the Church from within. You only seem to understand the former.

[ultima ratio]

Nobody's left anything. We're fighting the wrecking crew. They want us to leave because we tell everyone what they are doing. They prefer to operate in secret. They want people like you to sleep quietly through the demolition.

[Polycarp]

You only seem to understand the former.

Appearances then are deceiving. I understand all of this just as well as you or any other schismatic on this thread. The differences are not in levels of understanding but in conclusions based on those understandings.

Mine are different than that of extreme trads and thus are labeled Neo-Catholic pablum or worse.

I can ignore such sophomorish behavior.

But I will NEVER give in to the siren song of schism.

That is what drives you nutz. I refuse to condone your conclusions, your tactics, and your schism, though I understand the issues as well as any here.