Posted on 12/23/2001 4:30:08 PM PST by ELS
In response to all of the posts, I like the intelligent comments so far. I'm glad that the Catholic bashers haven't showed up yet. I was born after Vatican II, and I've yet to go to a Tridentine Mass. I think I would like it, since I love the sound of plainchant, and I've taken 2 years of Latin in high school and college. I don't know about you, but it seems like the "traditionalists" who are labeling everyone else "neo-Catholics" are more belligerent than the "neos" are towards them.
This may not be processed until after Christmas!
I purposely did not directly address the issues raised in the article or in the SSPX bishop's interview. I just want to strongly warn average Catholics to not wade lightly into this schismatic traditionalist quagmire. I have lost close friends to this sinister and seductive set of errors (again, the schismatic traditionalists errors, not the traditionalists who simply prefer the Tridentine mass while accepting the validity of the new mass.)
Once in the tar pit, it is very hard to get back out. I almost fell in myself, and I'm currently trying to extricate 2 others at present.
There you will find a list of threads that folks have "bumped" to the *Catholic_list, and you can choose which ones to view and/or follow.
Apologetics with ATTITUDE!
With respect to the article itself, I definitely see a need for continued vigilance and reform within the Church itself but I'm not convinced that infighting among the two most orthodox divisions within the Church is the most productive path. There are plenty of infidels out there to turn towards righteousness before we start splitting hairs.
Culture/Society
Source: www.TCRnews.com
Published: 12-23-01 Author: Stephen Hand
Posted on 12/23/01 10:17 AM Eastern by Notwithstanding
The law of contradiction, as you can readily see, is not held in high regard in such circles; it's either ignored or rejected altogether in such incongruous alliances, born of financial necessity. Maybe combined they can get a small crowd to buy their basement papers (The Remnant has no overhead, produced in mom's cellar). Such is the possibly fading hope. (It would, by the way, be nice to have some financial disclosure from these papers to see what they have done with the widow's mite over the years. But don't hold your breath...)
The Integrists as we have noted before operate by begging more questions than one can shake a stick at. They blame the Pope for all of the consequences of the failure to obey the Pope and then conclude the Pope must therefore be a heretic.
Farewell to logic.
Then they say that anyone who obeys the Holy Father and the Magisterium is a mere "conservative," which conservatism, they insist, represents only one strand of theological opinion. That, of course, is a whopper. Consult any catechism or Encyclical produced at any time in history and one will find that he who obeys the Holy Father and the living magisterium is simply a Catholic. One who does not is not (unless one is invincibly ignorant of the fact).
But since the Integrists do not obey the Holy Father and the living Magisterium this is maxima problematic for them. So they represent themselves as “traditionalists” who have no need of the living magisterium, of a mediated and interpreted tradition (even if tradition is the second stream of revelation which only the Church may interpret, as Luther and the Easterns were told!) since they have the dusty texts of yester-year which they can hire Michael Matt or Michael Davies or Christopher Ferrara to interpret for them! See how easy it is?
Of course that is simply not Catholicism. That is Luther’s private judgment transposed into a Catholic context which is not Catholicism at all. It is similar to the errors of the Greeks in the 11th century or the Jansenists in Pascal’s day, both of whom usurped the papal / magisterial exclusive prerogative---bestowed by Our Lord Himself----to judge what is and what is not the substance of the Church’s tradition. So what we end up with in any of these cases is a group of zealots donning magisterial robes in their own minds. Alas for them, the Church only knows those who are faithful to a living magisterium and those who are not.
What makes matters easy for them, relative to beguiling the innocent-minded who have no interest in Catholic dogmatics, is that we live in a time of open rebellion against the teachings of the magisterium, not only by these Integrists, but by Neo-modernists who also ignore the teachings of the living magisterium and also speak of themselves as a true remnant (or collection of ‘base communities’).
So the Integrists ignore the multitudes of responsible priests who obey the magisterium and selectively comb the liberal papers for pictures of outrages and abuses which have neither papal approval or support. But since the latter, like the former, do not obey the Pope, if the Pope acts against them they wear it as a badge of ideological martyrdom.
On that last point let me illustrate what a friend related to me not too long ago. A priest friend was having lunch with some students in theology and older people. One of the elders in the group said, “Father, why doesn’t the Pope excommunicate Hans Kung?” Before the priest could answer, one of the students said, “Who’s Hans Kung?”. The priest’s face morphed from surprise to delight. Then he said, “You know, I always trusted that the Vatican knew what it was doing when it picked its fights selectively in our day, but your question proves the wisdom of the Church.” Had the Church gone further than quietly stripping him of his license to teach as a Catholic theologian and excommunicated Hans Kung, he would have rallied a world hostile to the Church against her; especially in our day of instant communication. As it is, few young people today have ever heard of him or even read his ponderous writings.
Meanwhile, 6 million (!) people this month (Dec 2001) showed up to honor our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico and the Holy Father preaches Jesus Christ to more multitudes than a rock star could hope to gather, time and time again.
It’s enough to make Integrists and Neo-modernists pass the bottle!
==========================
______________
FOOTNOTES
(1)What a mess of squirming things hide under a Rock! TFP stands for Tradition, Family and Property, a monarchist sect founded by a Brazilian which has split into aggressive factions today.
(2)The schismatic Society of St. Pius X founded by the late Marcel Lefebvre.
(3)Sedevacantists believe the Pope is a heretic and therefore not a Pope. They are sometimes explicit about this (as with the Society of St. Pius V) or implicit and doubletalking, like the signers of the schismatic manifesto, We Resist the Pope to the Face. Either way they are identical in methodology.
Note: other bad news this year for Integrists: Their favorite archbishop and critic of the vatican, Archbishop Milingo, became a Moonie and married for a time; Sr. Lucy, the last surviving of the three children at Fatima, explicitly repudiated Fr. Gruner's conspiracy theories regarding the Third Secret; just as during the Jubilee all the dire predictions of the SSPX and Michael Matt regarding syncretism at Mt. Sinai AND Assisi (Oct 99) came to nothing of the sort. Their latest prediction, about the next Pope being a liberal who might as well put the Vatican up for sale, reflects their confusions regarding substance and accidents in Church tradition and their absence of trust in the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit; not to mention its corollary, the Church's indefectibility, per the divine promises of our Lord Jesus Christ.
VIVA JOHANNES PAULUS II!
I believe that this is what I, in my poor way, and Proud2bRC in his informed way have been saying. There is no way that a non-Catholic, should they care about this, can affect this in any way, and it is, at the very best, a distasteful public washing of our linen.
---
Kind of a contradictory statement there, I think. You believe it's scandalous and weakens the witness of Catholics in general (here) -- that certainly sounds like you're questioning whether or not its appropriate. That said, I found the article rather insightful and useful as a synopsis of the current flap between Catholics who feel more affinity for the Tridentine rite rather than the Novus Ordo. Although I think the author is a bit harsh in his assessment of the Vatican's part in all of this. He seems to insinuate almost nefarious motives, which I object to.
I think this sums up the schismatics position quite well.
I think that you misunderstand the issues here. There are those on both sides who have more affinity for the Tridentine rite, or the Latin Mass, which is a seperate controversy. The disagreement is between those who accept the authority of the Pope and the Holy See, and those who do not. It seems more appropriate to refer to the second group as 'Protestants', since they 'protest' the Pope's authority.
Apologetics with ATTITUDE!
brought to you by
The Few, The PROUD, The Church Militant.
Merry Christmas!
--PROUD2bRC
----
I find many Catholics on Free Republic, at least, who are quite antagonistic towards their brethren who prefer the Tridentine rite. And in my personal experience IRL, I've come across several priests who nearly sneer in reference to the Tridentine rite. One priest in particular, when he found out I had begun attending a Tridentine rite Mass regularly that was slightly farther away from home than my home parish, chided me that the Tridentine rite was allowed for only those Catholics who lived before Vatican II, and that us "youngins" should be going to Novus Ordo. Like it was some cute charitable act of kindess by the Church to allow the Tridentine rite for old fogies. This was also the same priest who, when I went in for confession, surprised him by walking around the curtain to do a face-to-face confession (which I prefer, as it keeps me more accountable) -- he was flipping through a copy of MacWorld with his Book of Prayers closed and on the coffee table next to him. He didn't ask me for an act of contrition, and his absolution consisted of "God forgives you. Go in peace."
Culture/Society
Source: Crisis Magazine
Author: Peter Kreeft
Posted on 9/10/01 4:03 PM Eastern by proud2bRC
How to
Win the
Culture War
Peter Kreeft
To win any war, the three most necessary things to know are (1) that you are at war, (2) who your enemy is, and (3) what weapons or strategies can defeat him. You cannot win a war (1) if you simply sew peace banners on a battlefield, (2) if you fight civil wars against your allies, or (3) if you use the wrong weapons.
Here is a three point checklist for the culture wars. I assume you would not be reading a magazine called Crisis if you thought all was well. If you don’t know that our entire civilization is in crisis, I hope you had a nice vacation on the moon.
Many minds do seem moonstruck, however, blissfully unaware of the crisis—especially the “intellectuals,” who are supposed to be the most on top of current events. I was dumbfounded to read a cover article in Time devoted to the question: Why is everything getting better? Why is life so good today? Why does everybody feel so satisfied about the quality of life? Time never questioned the assumption, it just wondered why the music on the Titanic sounded so nice.
It turned out, on reading the article, that every single aspect of life that was mentioned, every single reason for life getting better, was economic. People are richer. End of discussion.
Perhaps Time is just Playboy with clothes on. For one kind of playboy, the world is one great big whorehouse. For another kind, it’s one great big piggy bank. For both, things are getting better and better.
There is a scientific refutation of the Pig Philosophy: the statistical fact that suicide, the most in-your-face index of unhappiness, is directly proportionate to wealth. The richer you are, the richer your family is, and the richer your country is, the more likely it is that you will find life so good that you will choose to blow your brains apart.
Suicide among pre-adults has increased 5000% since the “happy days” of the ’50s. If suicide, especially among the coming generation, is not an index of crisis, nothing is.
Night is falling. What Chuck Colson has labeled “a new Dark Ages” is looming. And its Brave New World proved to be only a Cowardly Old Dream. We can see this now, at the end of “the century of genocide” that was christened “the Christian century” at its birth.
We’ve had prophets who warned us: Kierkegaard, 150 years ago, in The Present Age; and Spengler, 100 years ago, in The Decline of the West; and Aldous Huxley, seventy years ago, in Brave New World; and C. S. Lewis, forty years ago, in The Abolition of Man; and above all our popes: Leo XIII and Pius IX and Pius X and above all John Paul the Great, the greatest man in the world, the greatest man of the worst century. He had even more chutzpah than Ronald Reagan, who dared to call Them “the evil empire”: He called Us “the culture of death.” That’s our culture, and his, including Italy, with the lowest birth rate in the world, and Poland, which now wants to share in the rest of the West’s abortion holocaust.
If the God of life does not respond to this culture of death with judgment, God is not God. If God does not honor the blood of the hundreds of millions of innocent victims then the God of the Bible, the God of Israel, the God of orphans and widows, the Defender of the defenseless, is a man-made myth, a fairy tale.
But is not God forgiving?
He is, but the unrepentant refuse forgiveness. How can forgiveness be received by a moral relativist who denies that there is anything to forgive except a lack of self-esteem, nothing to judge but “judgmentalism?” How can a Pharisee or a pop psychologist be saved?
But is not God compassionate?
He is not compassionate to Moloch and Baal and Ashtaroth, and to Caananites who do their work, who “cause their children to walk through the fire.” Perhaps your God is—the God of your dreams, the God of your “religious preference”—but not the God revealed in the Bible.
But is not the God of the Bible revealed most fully and finally in the New Testament rather than the Old? In sweet and gentle Jesus rather than wrathful and warlike Jehovah?
The opposition is heretical: the old Gnostic-Manichaean-Marcionite heresy, as immortal as the demons who inspired it. For “I and the Father are one.” The opposition between nice Jesus and nasty Jehovah denies the very essence of Christianity: Christ’s identity as the Son of God. Let’s remember our theology and our biology: like Father, like Son.
But is not God a lover rather than a warrior?
No, God is a lover who is a warrior. The question fails to understand what love is, what the love that God is, is. Love is at war with hate, betrayal, selfishness, and all love’s enemies. Love fights. Ask any parent. Yuppie-love, like puppy-love, may be merely “compassion” (the fashionable word today), but father-love and mother-love are war.
In fact, every page of the Bible bristles with spears, from Genesis 3 through Revelation 20. The road from Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained is soaked in blood. At the very center of the story is a cross, a symbol of conflict if there ever was one. The theme of spiritual warfare is never absent in scripture, and never absent in the life and writings of a single saint. But it is never present in the religious education of any of my “Catholic” students at Boston College. Whenever I speak of it, they are stunned and silent, as if they have suddenly entered another world. They have. They have gone past the warm fuzzies, the fur coats of psychology-disguised-as-religion, into a world where they meet Christ the King, not Christ the Kitten.
Welcome back from the moon, kids.
Where is the culture of death coming from? Here. America is the center of the culture of death. America is the world’s one and only cultural superpower.
If I haven’t shocked you yet, I will now. Do you know what Muslims call us? They call us “The Great Satan.” And do you know what I call them? I call them right.
But America has the most just, and moral, and wise, and biblical historical and constitutional foundation in all the world. America is one of the most religious countries in the world. The Church is big and rich and free in America.
Yes. Just like ancient Israel. And if God still loves his Church in America, he will soon make it small and poor and persecuted, as he did to ancient Israel, so that he can keep it alive. If he loves us, he will prune us, and we will bleed, and the blood of the martyrs will be the seed of the Church again, and a second spring will come—but not without blood. It never happens without blood, sacrifice, and suffering. The continuation of Christ’s work—if it is really Christ’s work and not a comfortable counterfeit—can never happen without the Cross.
I don’t mean merely that Western civilization will die. That’s a piece of trivia. I mean eternal souls will die. Billions of Ramons and Vladamirs and Janes and Tiffanies will go to Hell. That’s what’s at stake in this war: not just whether America will become a banana republic, or whether we’ll forget Shakespeare, or even whether some nuclear terrorist will incinerate half of humanity, but whether our children and our children’s children will see God forever. That’s what’s at stake in “Hollywood versus America.” That’s why we must wake up and smell the rotting souls. Knowing we are at war is the first requirement for winning it.
The next thing we must do to win a war is to know our enemy.
Who is our enemy?
Not Protestants. For almost half a millennium, many of us thought our enemies were Protestant heretics, and addressed that problem by consigning their bodies to battlefields and their souls to Hell. (Echoes of this strategy can still be heard in Northern Ireland.) Gradually, the light dawned: Protestants are not our enemies, they are our “separated brethren.” They will fight with us.
Not Jews. For almost two millennia many of us thought that, and did such Christless things to our “fathers in the faith” that we made it almost impossible for the Jews to see their God—the true God—in us.
Not Muslims, who are often more loyal to their half-Christ than we are to our whole Christ, who often live more godly lives following their fallible scriptures and their fallible prophet than we do following our infallible scriptures and our infallible prophet.
The same is true of the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Quakers.
Our enemies are not “the liberals.” For one thing, the term is almost meaninglessly flexible. For another, it’s a political term, not a religious one. Whatever is good or bad about political liberalism, it’s neither the cause nor the cure of our present spiritual decay. Spiritual wars are not decided by whether welfare checks increase or decrease.
Our enemies are not anti-Catholic bigots who want to crucify us. They are the ones we’re trying to save. They are our patients, not our disease. Our word for them is Christ’s: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” We say this of the Chinese communist totalitarians who imprison and persecute Catholics, and to the Sudanese Muslim terrorists who enslave and murder Catholics. They are not our enemies, they are our patients. We are Christ’s nurses. The patients think the nurses are their enemies, but the nurses know better.
Our enemies are not even the media of the culture of death, not even Ted Turner or Larry Flynt or Howard Stern or Disney or Time-Warner. They too are victims, patients, though on a rampage against the hospital, poisoning other patients. But the poisoners are our patients too. So are homosexual activists, feminist witches, and abortionists. We go into gutters and pick up the spiritually dying and kiss those who spit at us, if we are cells in our Lord’s Body. If we do not physically go into gutters, we go into spiritual gutters, for we go where the need is.
Our enemies are not heretics within the Church, “cafeteria Catholics,” “Kennedy Catholics,” “I Did It My Way” Catholics. They are also our patients, though they are Quislings. They are the victims of our enemy, not our enemy.
Our enemies are not theologians in so-called Catholic theology departments who have sold their souls for thirty pieces of scholarship and prefer the plaudits of their peers to the praise of God. They are also our patients.
Our enemy is not even the few really bad priests and bishops, candidates for Christ’s Millstone of the Month Award, the modern Pharisees. They too are victims, in need of healing.
Who, then, is our enemy?
There are two answers. All the saints and popes throughout the Church’s history have given the same two answers, for these answers come from the Word of God on paper in the New Testament and the Word of God in flesh in Jesus Christ.
Yet they are not well known. In fact, the first answer is almost never mentioned today. Not once in my life have I ever heard a homily on it, or a lecture by a Catholic theologian.
Our enemies are demons. Fallen angels. Evil spirits.
So says Jesus Christ: “Do not fear those who can kill the body and then has no more power over you. I will tell you whom to fear. Fear him who has power to destroy both body and soul in Hell.”
So says St. Peter, the first pope: “The Devil, like a roaring lion, is going through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Resist him, steadfast in the faith.”
So says St. Paul: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers of wickedness in high places.”
So said Pope Leo the XIII, who received a vision of the 20th century that history has proved terrifyingly true. He saw Satan, at the beginning of time, allowed one century in which to do his worst work, and he chose the 20th. This pope with the name and heart of a lion was so overcome by the terror of this vision that he fell into a trance. When he awoke, he composed a prayer for the whole Church to use to get it through the 20th century. The prayer was widely known and prayed after every Mass—until the ’60s: exactly when the Church was struck with that incomparably swift disaster that we have not yet named (but which future historians will), the disaster that has destroyed a third of our priests, two-thirds of our nuns, and nine-tenths of our children’s theological knowledge; the disaster that has turned the faith of our fathers into the doubts of our dissenters, the wine of the Gospel into the water of psychobabble.
The restoration of the Church, and thus the world, might well begin with the restoration of the Lion’s prayer and the Lion’s vision, because this is the vision of all the popes and all the saints and our Lord himself: the vision of a real Hell, a real Satan, and real spiritual warfare.
I said there were two enemies. The second is even more terrifying than the first. There is one nightmare even more terrible than being chased and caught and tortured by the Devil. That is the nightmare of becoming a devil. The horror outside your soul is terrible enough; how can you bear to face the horror inside your soul?
What is the horror inside your soul? Sin. All sin is the Devil’s work, though he usually uses the flesh and the world as his instruments. Sin means inviting the Devil in. And we do it. That’s the only reason why he can do his awful work; God won’t let him do it without our free consent. And that’s why the Church is weak and the world is dying: because we are not saints.
And thus we have our third Necessary Thing: the weapon that will win the war and defeat our enemy.
All it takes is saints.
Can you imagine what twelve more Mother Teresas would do for the world? Can you imagine what would happen if just twelve readers of this article offered Christ 100% of their hearts and held back nothing, absolutely nothing?
No, you can’t imagine it, any more than anyone could imagine how twelve nice Jewish boys could conquer the Roman Empire. You can’t imagine it, but you can do it. You can become a saint. Absolutely no one and nothing can stop you. It is your free choice. Here is one of the truest and most terrifying sentences I have ever read (from William Law’s Serious Call): “If you will look into your own heart in complete honesty, you must admit that there is one and only one reason why you are not a saint: you do not wholly want to be.”
That insight is terrifying because it is an indictment. But it is also thrillingly hopeful because it is an offer, an open door. Each of us can become a saint. We really can.
What holds us back? Fear of paying the price.
What is the price? The answer is simple. T.S. Eliot defines the Christian life as: “A condition of complete simplicity/Costing not less than/Everything.” The price is everything: 100%. A worse martyrdom than the quick noose or stake: the martyrdom of dying daily, dying to all your desires and plans, including your plans about how to become a saint. A blank check to God. Complete submission, “islam,” “fiat”—Mary’s thing. Look what that simple Mary-thing did 2000 years ago: It brought God down and saved the world.
It was meant to continue.
If we do that Mary-thing—and only if we do that—then all our apostolates will “work”: our missioning and catechizing and fathering and mothering and teaching and studying and nursing and businessing and priesting and bishoping—everything.
A bishop asked one of the priests of his diocese for recommendations on ways to increase vocations. The priest replied: The best way to attract men in this diocese to the priesthood, Your Excellency, would be your canonization.
Why not yours?
Vol. 16 - No.6 - June 1998
Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College.
.
No, actually I understand the issues quite well. When I reverted to Catholicism, a particularly devoted Catholic friend of mine had, at that point, wandered dangerously close to the point of schism, thanks to borderline-sedevacantist associations. Although he wouldn't come right out and say it, I could tell that he was barely remaining in faithful obedience to the Magisterium.
That said, unless I'm mis-reading this article, the author unequivocally states that he is faithful to the Pope. What he questions is a perceived bias within the Church so-called orthodox leadership (both beneath the Pope and within the laity) in its denunciation of Traditionalist Catholics, while generally ignoring or downplaying what he believes is one example of a real, dangerous, and legitimate schism of the Church, namely the CPA. (And actually, I think he's spot on in that asseessment, at least -- there should be cries of outrage for the atrocity of that disgusting abomination that purports to be Catholicism, under the name of the CPA). I disagree with him about his perceived victim status as a Tridentine-rite loving Catholic -- although I think the reason is not some concerted effort handed down from Vatican heirarchy, rather its peculiar to American Catholic bishops in general. It's no secret that orthodoxy is at a premium in many seminaries today.
The author supports the WE RESIST YOU [Pope JPII] TO THE FACE manifesto. This manifesto isn't exactly a decaration of fidelity to the Pope.
By comparison, the SSPX professes its acceptance of papal authority and has entered into papally-ordered negotiations for regularization as an apostolic administration directly under the Holy Father. (As Cardinal Hoyos told the press, Bishop Fellay said to him that "when the Pope calls we run.")
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.