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.
Allegedly, and only as filtered through the human magisterium of the RCC. 2000 years of intellectual gymnastics have resulted in much theological schizophrenia among the clergy and laity of the RCC.
I take it from your profile you are from the big apple? I have lots of friends down your way. You'll have to come for a visit during the summer months.I'm originally from Nashua, New Hampshire, born into a Canuck family that emigrated from Quebec (the north coast of the Gaspe Peninsula) and settled in the mill towns of New England, from Maine to Rhode Island.
-ksen
AB
I'd rather have it through the AUTHORIZED Magisterium than through you or me or some one of the 29000+ denominations that preach what THEY SAY is the RIGHT INTERPRETATION of Scripture.
Yes. But what about:
"And you shall make two cherubim of gold ...
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.
When interpreting the Bible, one principle is that we do not use temporary, localized commands to otherwise abrogate general, universal commands. E.g., we do not use the temporary, localized commands of God to the Israelite to kill and otherwise drive out the inhabitants of the land of Canaan to justify murder in general (e.g., abortion).
Yes, God gave very specific commands about the adornment of the tabernacle/temple to Israel. He spoke those specific words to/through Moses as recorded in the Pentateuch.
God gave no such command in His revealed Word invent human images to adorn modern places of worship. Or to wear little representations of "Jesus" around your neck.
Neither do we. Yours is a common misconception. Permit me to enlighten you as to what is really going on:
[the following is from catholic.com]
"Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in
worship" (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statutes. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts!
God Said To Make Them
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "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).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim 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). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
The Religious Uses of Images
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "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).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven" images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).
What About Bowing?
Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.
Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying
to it.
Hiding the Second Commandment?
Another charge sometimes made by Protestants is that the Catholic Church "hides" the second commandment. This is because in Catholic catechisms, the first commandment is often listed as "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3), and the second is listed as "You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain." (Ex. 20:7). From this, it is argued that Catholics have deleted the prohibition of idolatry to justify their use of religious statues. But this is false. Catholics simply group the commandments differently from most Protestants.
In Exodus 20:2–17, which gives the Ten Commandments, there are actually fourteen imperative statements. To arrive at Ten Commandments, some statements have to be grouped together, and there is more than one way of doing this. Since, in the ancient world, polytheism and idolatry were always united—idolatry being the outward expression of polytheism—the historic Jewish numbering of the Ten Commandments has always grouped together the imperatives "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3) and "You shall not make for yourself a graven image" (Ex. 20:4). The historic Catholic numbering follows the Jewish numbering on this point, as does the historic Lutheran numbering. Martin Luther recognized that the imperatives against polytheism and idolatry are two parts of a single command.
To make memorization of the Ten Commandments easier, Jews and Christians abbreviate the commandments so that they can be remembered using a summary, ten-point formula. For example, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants typically summarize the Sabbath commandment as, "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy," though the commandment’s actual text takes four verses (Ex. 20:8–11).
When the prohibition of polytheism/idolatry is summarized, Jews, Catholics, and Lutherans abbreviate it as "You shall have no other gods before me." This is no attempt to "hide" the idolatry prohibition (Jews and Lutherans don’t even use statues of saints and angels). It is to make learning the Ten Commandments easier.
The Catholic Church is not dogmatic about how the Ten Commandments are to be numbered, however. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confession. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities" (CCC 2066).
The Form of God?
Some anti-Catholics appeal to Deuteronomy 4:15–18 in their attack on religious statues: "[S]ince you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."
We’ve already shown that God doesn’t prohibit the making of statues or images of various creatures for religious purposes (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:29–32, 8:6–66; 2 Chr. 3:7–14). But what about statues or images that represent God? Many Protestants would say that’s wrong because Deuteronomy 4 says the Israelites did not see God under any form when he made the covenant with them, therefore we should not make symbolic representations of God either. But does Deuteronomy 4 forbid such representations?
The Answer Is No
Early in its history, Israel was forbidden to make any depictions of God because he had not revealed himself in a visible form. Given the pagan culture surrounding them, the Israelites might have been tempted to worship God in the form of an animal or some natural object (e.g., a bull or the sun).
But later God did reveal himself under visible forms, such as in Daniel 7:9: "As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was Ancient of Days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire." Protestants make depictions of the Father under this form when they do illustrations of Old Testament prophecies.
The Holy Spirit revealed himself under at least two visible forms—that of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Protestants use these images when drawing or painting these biblical episodes and when they wear Holy Spirit lapel pins or place dove emblems on their cars.
But, more important, in the Incarnation of Christ his Son, God showed mankind an icon of himself. Paul said, "He is the image (Greek: ikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Christ is the tangible, divine "icon" of the unseen, infinite God.
We read that when the magi were "going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh" (Matt. 2:11). Though God did not reveal a form for himself on Mount Horeb, he did reveal one in the house in Bethlehem.
The bottom line is, when God made the New Covenant with us, he did reveal himself under a visible form in Jesus Christ. For that reason, we can make representations of God in Christ. Even Protestants use all sorts of religious images: Pictures of Jesus and other biblical persons appear on a myriad of Bibles, picture books, T-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers, greeting cards, compact discs, and manger scenes. Christ is even symbolically represented through the Icthus or "fish emblem."
Common sense tells us that, since God has revealed himself in various images, most especially in the incarnate Jesus Christ, it’s not wrong for us to use images of these forms to deepen our knowledge and love of God. That’s why God revealed himself in these visible forms, and that’s why statues and pictures are made of them.
Idolatry Condemned by the Church
Since the days of the apostles, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned the sin of idolatry. The early Church Fathers warn against this sin, and Church councils also dealt with the issue.
The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt largely with the question of the religious use of images and icons, said, "[T]he one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy Catholic Church . . . promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, ‘I am with you every day until the consummation of this age.’ . . . To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning . . . and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols."
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed "by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them" (374).
"Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’" (CCC 2114).
The Church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible.
We may have more in common than we realize. My father's family migrated from France to Nova Scotia to Louisiana and then to Quebec over several centuries. Moved down into New Bedford, MA and then into Pawcatuck, CT. Met my mom in Westerly, RI and settled there. I'm born and raised in little Rhody. Terribly liberal these days, but we do have large pockets of conservatives on the rise!!
Feel free to remind me this summer! We'll make arrangements. August would be good! My summer class will be over and ordination to the Diaconate only 2 months away! I'll have some free time then!
AB
What authorized magisterium? God gave no such authority to any post-apostolic body of men.
Or to make images on your Catacomb walls, or draw little fishes to represent Christ or numerous other images to express the Christian life: BUT NEITHER DID HE FORBID IT! Go look at the catacombs of the first second and third century Christians and tell me they didn't use imagery in their Christian faith!
Neither do we. Yours is a common misconception. Permit me to enlighten you as to what is really going on: ...
One must live in the light in order to enlighten. The darkness that surrounds the papacy and its followers cannot enlighten. Only indoctrinate.
Where have you been living? on planet Krypton. Did he not give authority to the Apostles! Yes! Prove to me that they did not hand on that authority. BTW, I challenge you not to use the Bible! It's a Catholic book preserved by the Catholic Church; you might be mislead!!
So speaketh Pope Topcat54! And all cried, AMEN!
Oh, no, attendance is already as low as it can go! :-Q
Seriously, there's more to it than that. First off, excommunication is the most serious penalty there is. Rome generally reserves by-name excommunication of a specific individual for renegade theologians. (And then, of course, the intent is to persuade them to recant if possible.)
For most of what we're talking about, excommunication would be like bringing out tactical nukes to handle a bank robbery.
Also, in principle, the disciplining of a problem priest is the task of his bishop or (if he's a member of a religious order) his superior. The general principle is called subsidiarity; sort of the Catholic ecclesiological analogue of federalism. The idea is that the problem should be handled at the lowest level possible.
The real problem isn't the disobedient priests. It is the bishops who are disobedient themselves, or who wink at disobedient priests, or who would rather take the side of a disobedient priest against his flock asking for him to be obedient.
And Rome is very reluctant (too reluctant, IMO) to discipline bishops. (In practice, merely "disciplining" them is a waste of time. The kind of disciplining I'm asking for is generally means that they should be deposed and replaced.)
It seems that modernists are a pox on all of our houses, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Baptist.
Exactly. That's why the continuous 16th Century Reformation polemic that goes on here at FR is so counterproductive.
Satan rejoices when conservative Christians on one side of the Catholic-Protestant divide preach hatred against the other side, and those preached against respond in ways that lack charity. (And I include myself in that rebuke.) He is very pleased to see his enemies fighting each other, rather than fighting against him.
Not directly, but He did through his Apostles. See 2 Timothy 2:2 for an example.
Or to make images on your Catacomb walls, or draw little fishes to represent Christ or numerous other images to express the Christian life: BUT NEITHER DID HE FORBID IT! ...
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image ..."
The existence of catacomb art is no evidence that God approve of such behavior. The church has had error mixed with truth since its inception. Just read 1 Corinthians, Galatians 1, or Revelation 2&3.
All sorts of abuses have been justified by the (inaccurate) mantra, "It's not forbidden in the Bible." Isn't the book of Exodus part of the RCC Bible?
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.