Posted on 01/03/2002 6:26:46 AM PST by cathway
How Your Neo-Modernist Priest Shuts
Out the Pope & Catechism
By Stephen Hand
There's no secret to it really, and many who ponder their own local liturgies realize it's been going on for quite a long time. They realize that there is a radical disjunct between what the Holy Father teaches day in and day out and what many a local priest preaches during what is supposed to be the Liturgy of the Word. Indeed, increasingly, the only time one hears the Pope mentioned is when he is prayed for very briefly in the Eucharistic prayers of the Roman Canon.
Notice it is not a frontal attack. There is no railing against the Holy Father from the pulpits week after week. No. They simply ignore him and preach on virtually anything else which dovetails with the "peopleschurch" theology advocated by such men as Bernard Cooke, such womyn as Sr. Joan Chittister, as well as groups like Call to Action, papers like the National Catholic Reporter and so on. Thus the Liturgy of the Word is not.
The same holds true for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Being the product of the teaching Magisterium, which both affirms and develops Catholic doctrine, the Catechism is considered an odious thing to dissidents and left to whither on the "traditionalist" vine. You are highly unlikely to hear any peopleschurch priest attack the Catechism overtly. That would risk trouble. So he simply slams it into oblivion along with the Pope and then the hapless congregation hears hardly a word about, or from, either authority. Every priest or theologian becomes his own supreme authority. And God help the bishop who attempts to put his foot down. More on that in a minute.
So it is more than possible for a Catholic to attend Mass at least every Sunday of the year and never hear a word of traditional Catholic theology beyond the nebulous word 'love' and doubtless new twists on Social Justice themes wherein the social teachings of the Church are tactically made to substitute for orthodox teaching rather than serve as an expression of that orthodoxy. Often enough one hears nary a word even about the Church's teaching on abortion. Forget sermons on the last things, the risk of missing Heaven.
It is the same with the teachings of the doctors, fathers, and saints of the Church. While one may hear of them from time to time, it is rare that they will ever be quoted in the context of affirming actual Catholic doctrines or doctrinal parameters. Again, these will not be openly attacked and too glaringly dimissed as irrelevant for theology today. But there will be a very loud silence regarding them in this context. Their teachings will certainly seldom, if ever, be cited as normative for Catholic morals and teaching.
The sad fact is that since 1970 not all seminarians in the United States have received consistently good theological and priestly formation. They were most often swept up into the movement of putting a "progressive" spin on the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which meant deconstructing Catholic theology and reframing it in relativistic, subjectivist terms, often with a mix of Marxist, eastern religious, and pop psychology flavors, all at once. Many priests then, despite having several degrees, are theologically incoherent and illiterate, except in areas of the agenda. Such priests were served (and now serve) a "Christology from Below" in which it was alleged that Jesus' humanity was suddenly "rediscovered" and, consistent with everything else, his deity was not so much attacked as allowed to fade more and more from public view. Arius redux. God was simply exchanged for the cosmos. This, of course, led similarly to a "eucharist from below," too, in which a new theology of sin and sacrifice appeared which reflected a deliberate shift from personal morality to social structures and the erroneous "either/or" that this entails, an either/or utterly rejected by the documents of Vatican II and the Popes, especially John Paul II. This eucharist from below amounted to a diminution of Catholic Eucharistic teaching.
The Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated species then was allowed to fade more and more even as the presence of Christ in "the people" was said to have also been rediscovered, and a new emphasis on the "priesthood of all" believers was separated from its traditional theological Catholic context and extolled in almost Lutheran tones. Indeed many priests and theologians suggested more and more that it was the celebrating congregation which "does the eucharistic action" (Bernard Cooke, The Future of the Eucharist Paulist Press, 1997 p.32).
Cooke says, "The liturgical leader presides, but it is the community that celebrates.' (Ibid). Here ambiguity rules.
The effects of such changes and desacralization were inevitable: Young ladies were allowed to come into liturgy wearing very immodest clothing, and the quiet, adoring thanksgiving after Mass was practically abolished, to name but two shockers. The liturgy itself, for the hip priests, and for the hip theology, deteriorated into something of an evolving event, choreographed and produced. Embarrassment and akwardness was the one constant shared by the faithful in the pews.
All of this could take place only because the Holy Father's teachings and the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church were effectively shut out from the Liturgy of the Word and the life of the parish whose bookracks carried dissident publications and every form of deviant opinion. You will recall that the Catechism of the Catholic Church was concieved back in 1985 precisely to dissipate the false notions which were circulating regarding the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. And despite the fact that it has been a best seller---showing that people are very hungry for its timeless certitudes, when these certitudes are not preached the faith of the people suffer in time (Rom 10:17).
Bored with the spiritual life, and chafing under the apparent burdens of the moral law, the neo-modernist attempts to translate his ennui into a "spirituality" of "outrage" and "change". He cannot admit to being wrong, so the Church must be wrong. He does not change, so he is determined to reinvent the Church, conform it to his image. This is what he calls being "prophetic". It is tragic.
Another sad thing which should be mentioned is that when the liturgy is allowed to fall into----or is purposely directed to----- abuses, it arms the extremists at the other end of error, the Integrists, who for all their theological non sequiturs, idiosyncrasies, and erroneous private interpretations, do offer dignified liturgies worthy of the Church. Thus people stumble into other errors trying to avoid the liberals.
It is a fact that many bishops have been intimidated by the neo-modernist lobby which operates at all levels of the diocesan bureaucracies. They know that the neo-mods revile and agitate against orthodox bishops and fawn over their own. But if bishops do not demand that the Liturgy of the Word is truly the Liturgy of the Word then the Gospel will collapse into something else and theological words and concepts will take on new meanings and new senses alien to the tradition of the Church. What will be the end of souls then, to say nothing of culture.
Cardinal Seper, who was Cardinal Ratzinger's predecessor in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote in 1972:
"The bishops, who obtained many powers for themselves at the [Second Vatican] Council...are not exercising their powers as they should. Rome is too far away to cope with every scandal — and Rome is not well obeyed. If all the bishops would deal decisively with these aberrations as they occur, the situation would be different. It is very difficult for us in Rome if we get no cooperation from the bishops." (quoted in The Church That Failed, The Catholic Faith, April, 2001)
St. Paul said, "We preach not ourselves but Christ and Him Crucified". Our bishops must ensure that the Holy Father's teachings and the teachings of the Catechism are not shut out from the Liturgy of the Word. The People of God are starving for real Bread, the Manna of eternal life. It would be tragic if they are given stones instead of Bread and allowed to perish for want of true nourishment. Then the "woe's" of Ezekial 34 against the shepherds who feed not their sheep would become part of the equation.
.45MAN: I think you will find this to be very interesting.
Thank you for not letting your bigotry get in the way of the facts. Protestant and Jewish clergy cases of child abuse are greater in number than that of the Catholic clergy, facts borne out by many studies.
This good Bishop is from my hometown area (greater Westerly/Pawcatuck), right on the Rhode Island/Connecticut south shore. He is a virtuous man and a humble servant of Christ. My family has known him for a long time. Would that most were like him.
Arlington diocese is a wonderfully orthodox diocese. I attend St. Mark's in Vienna for Mass when visiting my brother and his wife. Very active parish.
If good bishops are timid about reigning wayward local pastors in it, perhaps it is either a tactical mistake or a long range tactical strategy that looks bad now but may bear fruit later.
This good Bishop is from my hometown area (greater Westerly/Pawcatuck), right on the Rhode Island/Connecticut south shore.I distinctly remembering visiting that area with some college friends. We stayed at a huge house on the water -- my recollection is that the name was something like Guanachontaug Pond [sp?]. One of the most beautiful, tranquil spots I've visited anywhere. If that's where you live, I'm jealous!
What does this quote have to do with images of Christ? I guess we do have doctrinal disagreements! You've taken this totally out of context. Paul is writing that should our earthly dwelling, a tent, be destroyed, we have a heavenly dwelling built not by human hands but by God waiting for us, and we yearn for it. What does his discourse have to do with viewing an image of Christ?
The RC's you are talking about are living like Catholics and believe ALL that the Church preaches and teaches, and have every right to call a spade a spade. We normally label those who are CINOs (Catholics in name only as cafeteria Catholics), and you're right, they are very much like prots, they pick and choose what they want or move on. Are there priests who are disobedient to the faith, even Bishops? Yes! Does that change anything the Catholic faith teachs and preserves? NO!
Dominus vobiscum.
Never mind. No words will do. ;-D
Yes. But what about:
"And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).In the above verses, God Himself commands that graven images be made. Now either God and the Bible contradict themselves, or your interpretation of the Commandment against the making of images is wrong."Make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).
"[David gave Solomon the plan for the] golden chariot of the cherubim [statues of angels] that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19).
"On the [Temple] walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim." (Ezekiel 41:17–18)
The answer, of course, is that your interpretation of the Commandment is wrong. God approves of the use of statuary, stained glass, ikons, and other graven images when they are used for their intended purpose: the glorification and adoration of God. God forbade the adoration of the statues themselves, and of the Canaanite "gods" the statues represented, not the making of graven images per se.
Ever kneel in front of the Bible to pray? The Bible is a book, and, since every book is by definition a graven image, such worship would constitute idolatry by your standards. Of course, only an idiot would think that keeling in front of the Bible is the same thing as worshiping the Bible! In the same way, kneeling to pray before a Crucifix is no more idolatrous than kneeling to pray before a copy of the Bible. In both cases, the graven images serve only to point us towards the One Whom alone we may adore.
For more on this subject, see here.
Not all Protestants are created equal. :-) Besides, we do not worship/venerate or otherwise abuse the objects d'art so as to violate one of the Ten Commandmants. Except for Episcopalians and some odd independents, we generally do not carry them into our worship rituals.
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.