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.
NO offense intended, but when you run out of a traditionalist parish locally, come see us. We're still traditionalist with a capital T. We're Orthodox.
Not directly, but He did through his Apostles. See 2 Timothy 2:2 for an example.
The fantasy of the RCC is that 2 Tim. 2 somehow grants infallibility or absolute teaching authority to any human ecclesiastical leader or body.
I'm afraid it does no such thing.
Another RCC fantasy.
Hmm. So you've now become the judge of all that is holy? I see a little theological problem with elevating yourself to the status of God. Do you fancy yourself the arbiter of the ultimate Truth? Thankfully, it is the Heavenly Father and not you who truly sits in judgment of souls.
Prove me wrong! Tell me how you know the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. There are numerous writings that carry the names of the Apostles on them. How do you know they are or are not scripture? Even so, how do you know that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark? Or that Paul is who he says he is? What about the Gospel of Thomas?
Too bad that doesn’t seem to be working.
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.
Shouldn’t that make it even more imperative for Rome to step in? Nothing like the shepherd siding with the wolf to decimate the flock.
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.)
Too bad Rome wouldn’t tell the Bishops, to paraphrase the great theologian Shakespeare, “Get thee to a monastery.”
Do the Bishops have a say in who becomes the next Pope? If so, then I hope this mess gets cleared up before Pope John Paul II goes on to his reward. Don’t take me wrong, I have deeply held disagreements with the theology that comes out of the Catholic Church, but Pope John Paul II has seemed to be one of your better Popes. Who knows what you will get if the modernists get to elect the next one.
Here is a question that you may not want to entertain, what happens if a modernist Pope gets elected and starts making ex cathedra announcements like they were going out of style?
-ksen
Perfect love drives out fear.
"We?" Who is this "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, but by what authority do "we" (i.e., your church) decide which commands are "temporary, localized commands" and which are "general, universal commands"? Your pastor's authority? Well, who gave him that authority? Your bishop or presbyter? And who gave it them?
The Scriptures are the authentic Word of God, but they do not stand alone; they must be assembled and interpreted by human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the end, somebody has the power to define what the Scriptures are and what they mean.
Jesus Christ established a Church, originally headed by St. Peter and the Apostles, to define the canon of Scripture and to authoritatively interpret them for the believers. This is the Catholic Church, and the human beings inspired to teach the authentic Christian faith are the Pope and the other Bishops, whose authority is given them by direct sucession from the Apostles. In the Catholic Church, the Pope and Bishops united (i.e., the Magisterium) are the Final Word.
In Protestant churches, this authority is assumed by fiat by the minister of the individual congregation or by a denominational council of some sort. Although Protestants like to pretend that each individual has the right to intrepret the Scriptures by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the reality is that minister or denominational leaders have all the power. "Interpret the scriptures" differently from the minister of your church or the denominational leaders and you're in trouble; do it loudly enough and you're gone. Protestants who complain about the "tyranny" of the Pope are in reality far more tyrannized; their own churches have a Pope in every pulpit.
(And I speak as a former Protestant myself.)
This explains why there are so many Protestant denominations, each one "led by the Holy Spirit", each one teaching the "authentic word of God." They can't all be right. The fact that most Protestant denominations are dying slow and agonizing deaths is proof enough of the fallacy of individual interpretations; Christ promised the the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. And the only church that has survived everything the Gates of Hell could throw at it -- two millenia of Nero, Nestorius, Diocletian, barbarian invasion, Saracen blade, Reformation, Renaissance, Reason, Rebellion, and altar girld wearing sneakers -- is the one Jesus Himself established: the one headed by St. Peter and his successors.
Outside that Church there can be no salvation. Of course, there are members of the true Church -- true Christians all -- in every denomination, and even beyond that. It is not for any man to judge who is rightous and who is not. But Christ did give men the authority to teach the Christian faith authentically and completely. This authority was given, not assumed, and anyone who assumes it on their own authority does not possess it.
Your church is welcome to its opinions about the Scriptures, but for the authentic, complete teachings of the Christian Church in their fullness there is only one source: the Catholic Church.
In closing: Please accept this post in the spirit of brotherly love. I don't mean to sound angry or strident; it just comes out that way sometimes when I try to communicate without the benefit of tonality or body language to convey my emotional state. If my choice of words caused hurt, my sincerest apologies.
Here is a question that you may not want to entertain, what happens if a modernist Pope gets elected and starts making ex cathedra announcements like they were going out of style?Presumably a modernist pope wouldn't bother with that particular tradition. : )
The Pope is elected by the Cardinals (generally, Bishops of large Dioceses), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Most of the Cardinals who are eligible to participate in the Election (there's a maximum age) were appointed to that position by Pope John Paul II. Most of the hardcore episcopal kookballs are not Cardinals. Unfortuantely, not all of the hardcore orthodox Bishops are Cardinals, either. Some of the episcopal wimps are. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit is the One Who's really in charge. I trust Him.
AB
I believe its only happened twice in two thousand years, and the Church has been up against far worse heresies than modernism. Not to say there haven't been bad popes. But then again, the bad have been few and far between compared with most.
Sometimes they do. But not often enough.
Do the Bishops have a say in who becomes the next Pope?
Only the ones who are Cardinals.
Who knows what you will get if the modernists get to elect the next one.
The College of Cardinals isn't a nest of flaming liberals. My guess is that the next Pope will either be a conservative Italian or a Third World cardinal from Africa, South America, or the Philippines ... many of whom are very solidly orthodox. My personal favorite is Cdl. Tettamanzi of Genoa.
Here is a question that you may not want to entertain, what happens if a modernist Pope gets elected and starts making ex cathedra announcements like they were going out of style?
First of all, I absolutely trust Christ's promise in Matthew 28 "to be with you all days, even unto the end of the age". Hence, the Church is indefectible and will survive even a bad Pope.
The good news is that ex cathedra pronouncements cannot contradict earlier ex cathedra pronouncements, and the further good news is that modernists don't believe in ex cathedra pronouncements anyway. Too "authoritarian," you understand.
But if, God forbid, a new Pope attempted to do something absolutely beyond the pale, like attempting to ordain women ... the resulting schism would make the Reformation look like a beach party. A huge part of the Church would defect, declare the Pope to be a heretic and thereby automatically deposed, and proceed to elect his successor.
That won't happen. But if it did, it would be very, very nasty.
"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."
I was stationed in Italy... one Christmas eve a bus-trip was planned to go up to Rome and worship at the Popes (JP II) midnight mass. A friend who was not Catholic, nor any type of Christian came along just to be able to say they had been there. I didn't know anything of this persons religeon...I never asked, and he never talked about it. To make a long story short (and believe me this is a long story...funny too IMHO)... shortly after we entered St. Peter's we went to the alcove where Michaeangelo's "Pieta" was...I looked at it for a few minutes (it's beautiful) and wandered off to look at the rest of the Basillica...I thought my friend was right behind me... I noticed we had become separated and after about 20 minutes of looking I found him still staring at the "Pieta." And to cut this even shorter... a few day's later he asked if I could introduce him to the chaplain (who was Catholic)... I never asked why he gained an interest in the Church, to this day I don't know if it was the Pieta or the Magnifcence of the Mass, the Pope himself, or even the faithful attending. I have my own thoughts...but I'm not going to ask.
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.