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.
Well, if that ever happens I'll keep a seat open next to me at my church for you. ;^)
-ksen
Thanks, but unless your church plans on switching from Independant Baptist to Russian Orthodox, I think that seat will be vacant for a very, very long time. :-)
AB
That won't happen. But if it did, it would be very, very nasty.Last time those kinds of papal shenanigans went on with any force was during the Babylonian Capitivity of the Church. The good news is that God raises saints in times of distress -- like Catherine of Siena, who talked the pope in Avignon into returning to the papal seat in Rome. It just seems like, the worse things look for the Church, the more grace abounds.
I am a very doctrinally orthodox Catholic, and I stopped subscribing to The Wanderer.
(http://www.geocities.com/romcath1/genholydays.html)
....In that crib, the Church attests, was one far "greater than" Abraham, Moses, Solomon, or Jonas (Lk 11:31, 32; Jn 1:17;8:58; Phil 2:8-10;Col 2:8,9). In that lowly crib lay the very Logos of God, the Word, Who, "in the beginning", was "with" the Father and, indeed, was "one" with Him and the Holy Ghost from all eternity (Jn 1:1; 10:31; 17:24; Mt. 28:19). No longer was God so utterly other that one could not, without sin, speak His name or paint His image. Rather, the "Word was made flesh and dwelt among us", in time and space. Truly the unthinkable has occured, and God Himself, out of His own unfathomable grace and mercy, has cut His own image in time, in history, the exact "figure of His substance", saying to the Father, "a body thou hast fitted to me" (Heb 1:3; 10:5); so that the Apostle John, almost swooning in praise and adoration of this "Good News", extolled Him " [Whom] we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have touched, of the Word of Life" (1Jn 1:1).
This is why anointed artists could henceforth lawfully paint His image and speak His holy name---Jesus--- which was given to Him in obedience to the heavenly messenger by the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph. This is why the iconoclasts in every age, since that Holy Night, have been wrong, woefully blind to the reality of God’s becoming man "to save His people from their sins". For God Himself has circumscribed an image for us in Christ Jesus, Who now belongs forever not only to eternity but also, through the incarnation, to history, even in His glorified body in heaven: He is forever, as the Creed declares, true God and true man.
St. John of Damascus, writing in the eighth century against the Iconoclasts, said:
"When you contemplate God becoming man, then you may depict Him clothed in human form. When the invisible One becomes visible to to flesh you may then draw His likeness. When He Who is bodiless and without form, immeasurable in the boundlessness of His own nature, existing in the form of God, empties Himself and takes the form of a servant in substance and in stature and is found in a body of flesh then you may draw His image and show it to anyone willing to gaze upon it...his birth from a Virgin, His baptism in the Jordan, His Transfiguration on Tabor, His sufferings which freed us from passion, His death, His miracles which are signs of His divine nature...His savings cross, the resurrection, the ascension..."
If the practical effect is that priests and bishops are free to ignore church teaching, precisely what is being "preserved"?
Perfect love drives out fear.
How do you know that?
More correctly: "The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."
The fruit of private interpretation of scripture and sola scriptura, which has come to fruition this past century, is march darker, friend.
Duck, and listen for trumpets...
Are you suggesting God was not bright enough when He made the command not to make graven images of any sort not expressly commanded by Him? "Has God really said ..." Trying to out think God is what gets most folks in trouble.
But I'm also writing for other Catholic periodicals.
I think the Wanderer has its faults but tackles some controversial issues that other orthodox periodicals won't touch.
Any reason for your criticism, besides the usual too harsh/too judgemental charge (which is not always unfounded)?
I find the National Catholic Register a treat to read although I can't figure out their distribution process. It's supposed to be a weekly but I will often receive several issues on the same day.
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.