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

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

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Our Church goes back ONLY FORTY YEARS.

My Church is almost 2000 years old.

[power2]

.........You think if you hang around long enough it'll right itself up. I've got news for you--it's time to man the lifeboats.

I don't claim to be an expert in my faith like many debating on this thread. I am a cradle Catholic who was close to leaving the Church (because I did not understand it), but by the grace of God decided to stay and start a journey of truth. I believe scripture when it says "...the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

So although I cannot be as eloquent as some of my Catholic brothern, the fact is Christ will not allow His Church to fall. Therefore, why would we need the lifeboats?

Although, I will agree that we must fight against some mutineers once in awhile, the ship will never be abandoned by the Lord, and should never be abandoned by us.

[Polycarp]

Therefore, why would we need the lifeboats?

They need the lifeboats because they've abandoned the ship of Peter. We keep trying to hand them ropes to climb back aboard, but they're convinced that their little dingies are the real barque of Peter.

And their dingies are slipping not only away from the barque of Peter but from each other. They've even set up battles between themselves, to declare which dingy is the most like the real barque of Peter, anthematizing each other, and bitterly feuding amongst each other just as good protestants are wont to do.

[BlackElk]

All we are doing by paying attention to these pretensious schismatics is to prolong their existence by giving them the attention they crave to their ecclesiastical delusions. They bait Catholics of good will in the hope that we will waste endless hours trying to bring them back to the Roman Catholic Church and that we will take their silly arguments seriously.

Who is their pope? If not John Paul II, then they are sedevacantist heretics.

If John Paul II IS their pope, then he is the pope who not only granted the indult to restore the Tridentine Mass as available but also excommunicated Lefebvre and all of the bishops Lefevbre illicitly consecrated in direct defiance of the pope's orders. He is the pope who declared SSPX to be schismatic. These are matters of faith and morals. He acted as pope. He did not invoke the extraordinary infallibility that has been exercised only three times and not since 1954. He is nonetheless the pope and to be obeyed. If they think otherwise, that's too bad and we should pray for their repentance. They should start by kneeling down and stifling themselves. They won't.

However, they are examples of the near occasion of sin which we actual Roman Catholics regularly promise to avoid. Pray for them but shun them. You are not required to risk your faith because they insist upon a lifetime of rebellion and sin against duly constituted authority. You have an entire and magnificent Church to defend, the one True Church. They will choose to confuse on points of their preference. You cannot live a normal life and spend half of it countering their rebellious obsessions. Walk away from them. Ignore the rocks and cast the seeds of Roman Catholicism on fertile ground which they are not.

To those actual Catholics who feel compelled to continue wasting bandspace on these schismatics, your charity far exceeds my own. You must decide for yourselves but consider the possibility that by responding to them you further their scandal.

To those SSPXers who are tempted to respond: don't bother. This was not posted to you and I have no further desire for dialogue with those bent on giving tradition a bad name. Flame to your content. It is not as though your opinions mattered. Disobedience to and defiance of this or any pope is as far from tradition as it gets. Yours is the spiritual anarchy of Luther. Yours also are Luther's incredibly bad manners.

Sinkspur: Do not lump in all who are traditionalist with the schismatics of SSPX or other groups who despise this pope. As you well know, plenty of Roman Catholic traditionalists on this site have defended near infinitely the legitimacy of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, the actual documents of Vatican II, and striven persistently in favor of papal authority whether exercised by popes who are our favorites or popes who are not our favorites. It is not just to suggest otherwise.

[ultima ratio]

You miss the analogy. The ship is not the true Church, it is the new concoction, the Vatican II Church. It's sinking fast. Those who hold on to the true faith--the lifeboats--will be saved.

[ultima ratio]

You deliberately and pointedly use the word "schismatic" in reference to traditionalists over and over. That is what puzzles me about neo-Catholics like yourself, your clear, unmitigated malice--the desire either to wound or to reject. It shows persistently in your posts. And I think I know why. It is because we touch too closely on your own doubts, your own fears--and you have too few intellectual resources to deal with our arguments. Of course you must know those that post here who are traditionalists like myself are not schismatic. And even if we were, decency should restrain your hurling the ultimate abuse. But you allow your spleen to dictate what you post. That is why I say it is malice, the last arrow in the neo-Catholic's quiver.

[ultima ratio]

Why climb on board the Titanic? My analogy is apt. This thing Rome is steering is huge--and it contains the true faith, tiny lifeboats tucked in a dark corner of this shining bright new ship of novelty. But this new thing is going down, my friend, and it's taking a lot of souls with it, along with its captain. Only a remnant will be left, those who held fast to the lifeboat.

[Loyalist]

So although I cannot be as eloquent as some of my Catholic brothern, the fact is Christ will not allow His Church to fall.

An insurance policy doesn't relieve a man of his duty to act responsibly.

So also with the Church. Christ's promise is no reason for Catholics to cease fighting her enemies.

[LadyDoc]

Patrick Buchanan wrote about the decline of Catholicism in the Church since Vatican II, based on statistics collected by Kenneth C. Jones of St. Louis. Among the findings: dramatic decreases in Mass attendance, an incredible loss of faith in the Real Presence, gigantic drops in the number of seminarians, priests, and religious, and a sky-rocketing increase in marriage annulments.

Since when do statistics about the church in the US mean that Catholicism is declining. Last time I looked, there are a billion Catholics, but in the USA there are only 42 million Catholics.

So, according to Buchanan, if you are a Filippino, a South American, or an African, you don't count?

[ultima ratio]

Fine with me, run away if you like. You can't be persuaded by reason anyway. But I reserve the right to respond to anything you write anywhere anytime. While I'm at it, let me make the following points:

1. The Pope gave the Indult as a ploy to divide SSPX, not to show charity to traditionalists. He never lifted a pinky before this to show consideration to tradition or respect for the old Mass. You people consistently give JnPII a pass for his many delinquencies. That was one of them--until Archbishop Lefebvre forced his hand.

2. The good Archbishop knew the Church was in crisis even while the pope was waiting for Vatican II roses to bloom in the midst of a postconciliar ice age. Archbishop Lefebvre was perfectly right to disobey under the circumstances. No Pope may demand that we become Protestants. Nor has he a papal mandate to destroy Catholic Tradition.

3. You may think you are shunning some of us--but you do us a great favor. I personally feel unburdened, not having to respond to your ad hominem attacks which you somehow confuse with rational debate. People like you actually help us preserve the faith intact. We are what you once were. By our isolation we preserve that heritage.

[LadyDoc]

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/jenkins.htm

For thirty years Northern liberals have dreamed of a Third Vatican Council to complete the revolution launched by Pope John XXIII—one that would usher in a new age of ecclesiastical democracy and lay empowerment. It would be a bitter irony for the liberals if the council were convened but turned out to be a conservative, Southern-dominated affair that imposed moral and theological litmus tests intolerable to North Americans and Europeans—if, in other words, it tried to implement not a new Reformation but a new Counter-Reformation. (In that sense we would be witnessing not a new Wittenberg but, rather, a new Council of Trent—that is, a strongly traditional gathering that would restate the Church's older ideology and attempt to set it in stone for all future ages.) If a future Southern Pope struggled to impose a new vision of orthodoxy on America's Catholic bishops, universities, and seminaries, the result could well be an actual rather than a de facto schism.

The experience of the world's Anglicans and Episcopalians may foretell the direction of conflicts within the Roman Catholic Church. In the Anglican Communion, which is also torn by a global cultural conflict over issues of gender and sexuality, orthodox Southerners seek to re-evangelize a Euro-American world that they view as coming close to open heresy.

[ultima ratio]

You miss the point. The point is the Church in America, in Canada, in Europe, in Australia, in New Zealand--is sick unto death. Its revival requires a return to the old faith, not more of the same failed modernist remedies.

[Scupoli]

You deliberately and pointedly use the word "schismatic" in reference to traditionalists over and over. That is what puzzles me about neo-Catholics like yourself, your clear, unmitigated malice--the desire either to wound or to reject. It shows persistently in your posts.

Which are typically followed by a faux and saccharin 'God Bless'. And they wonder why we don't join in their other causes? No thanks.

[Kryptonite]

I don't know what to make of this. It appears that there are many who've devoted efforts to bashing the Vatican and traditional theology rather than to the faith itself. I personally think anyone who abandons traditional Catholic culture lacks faith, pride, and courage.

[saradippity]

If I were a Catholic hating protestant,a secular humanist,a communist,a Mason,a "progressive" catholic,a Satanist,an elitist "New World Order" globalist,and/or a member of any various and sundry group with aspirations to rule the world, this thread and the oh-so-many,like it,would make me delerious with anticipation of victory.

After all,the elimination of the largest and only bulwark looks close,divide and conquer,you know.And those delerious with joy would include a couple of posters on this very thread.As distressed as I am about this bickering that makes us look like little,squabblers with mean spirits,there have been some very good posts. Sitetest,Maxmilian,Polycarp,Dedemona and Black Elk have some advice and words worth repeating and rereading but for the most part it looks like Jesus and His message and mission are far removed from several of the posters' world.

[Francisco]

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

!!!!!!! You can see !!!!!!

[marshmallow]

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!

It is indeed one of the pillars of faith. But it is meant to serve the faith. Not vice versa. Faith does not serve tradition. It is not to be worshipped for its own sake. Tradition is not an end in itself.

All "tradition" had a beginning. And it will have an end. Just as somethings which have had their beginnings in our day will become part of tradition. Tradition is not a fixed, immovable entity. It is living and constantly growing.

[marshmallow]

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.

I'm not disputing why Jesus railed against the Pharisees. I'm discussing the converse situation. Why the Pharisees railed against Jesus. Because they considered themselves the authentic guardians of tradition. They had preserved the outward rituals but in so doing had completely forsaken their meaning and spirit. Sound familar?

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.

And appointing yourselves as the judge and jury of the successor of St. Peter is showing humility? It isn't.

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.

Now this is an ambiguous statement. "Our Church leaders" could mean the Pope or it could mean the American bishops' conference. I'd agree entirely that much spiritual and moral corruption exists within chanceries throughout the Church. My problem with much of the writings I see from SSPX and others is that you seek to find the solution to this apart from the successor of St. Peter. You won't. It is through the Petrine office that Jesus will always guide his Church.

[sitetest]

Dear saradippity,

If you were a Catholic-hating protestant whatever, you would be deceived by these threads into thinking that the Lefebvre-ite and related schisms are of real significance.

Based on what one can see here, you would think that the schismatics are a large and loud voice opposing the Catholic Church. But in reality, they are a very small voice barely heard by hardly any Catholics.

Because the Holy Father tries sincerely, in charity, to bring back these lost sheep, they think it must be for devious reasons, that they have much clout. They mistake his meekness and mercy for weakness, and his solicitous of their broken condition for their own strength. They interpret his humility as cause for their own arrogance. They think that there are significant numbers of Catholics who are even remotely aware of their various rationalizations and special pleadings and logical circumlocutions to justify disobedience, excommunication, and schism. Perhaps they sense that American Catholics, especially, have a weakened sense of obligation to obedience, and that they will thus attract many Catholics who think of disobedience as a badge of honor, as do they.

But the pathetic truth is, saradippity, that except for us, here at FR, and perhaps in another place or two, Catholics aren't paying attention to these folks.

I ask people I know all the time. As you know, I'm in the Knights of Columbus, and I see many active Catholics from all over my state on a regular basis. If I bring up "Marcel Lefebvre" or "SSPX" or "sedevacantist", about 97% of the time, I get blank stares. The other three percent of the time, they scowl or laugh with derision.

I ask my fellow parishioners. I ask parishioners of different parishes with whom I come into contact for a variety of reasons. I ask people with whom I've trained on an archdiocesan level. I ask nominal Catholics with whom I work, or know socially, but who seldom darken the door of the church. I ask the most active, the moderately active, the mostly inactive, and the truly fallen-away Catholics. The percentages vary. Sometimes the blank stares represent closer to 99% of the folks queried, rather than 97%. But the reactions themselves never change.

After fifteen years of schism, Archbishop Lefebvre is all but forgotten among regular, ordinary Catholics. In the United States, out of 65 million Catholics, perhaps 100,000 souls seek after the schism. They say they are growing by leaps and bounds, and I believe they believe that. They need to.

BlackElk, I think, is right, at least in principle. It would be better to ignore the schismatics entirely. Our attention is the oxygen they need. That is why I have, myself, refused to respond to any of them since he requested that.

But it would be more helpful if more Catholics, here, tried to deny the schismatics the oxygen of attention. It would not only likely reduce their puffed-up postings in the absolute, but it would give a more accurate view to the Catholic-hating protestant, secular humanist communist Masons who, viewing these threads now, might truly take a false comfort.


sitetest

[Catholicguy]

<> You make some good points - as usual.

However, no matter what we do, the schismatics and sedes are not going away and they even appear to be winning a convert or two.

So, who knows what the best approach is. I go back and forth; at one time thinking ignoring 'em is the best policy and, at another time, deciding I might as well have some fun and mix it up with 'em

Perhaps Mason Williams ("Classical Gas" guitarist and writer for the Smothers Brothers Show) said it best;

"We Do, Doodley-Do, Doodely-Do, Doodley-Do,

What we Must, Mudily-must, Mudily-must, Mudily-must,

Til we Bust, Bodily-bust, Bodily-bust, Bodily-bust"<>