Posted on 07/14/2014 11:38:21 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, posting on his“Standing on my Head” blog (appropriately named given the frequency with which pontifications seem to flow so freely from his other end), recently suggested that traditionalists (aka Catholics) are “getting old.” Obviously, he’s never been to a “traditionalist” gathering to witness the overwhelming presence of young, often quite large, families.
“Not only are they dying out,” he wrote, “but their ideas are dying out.”
It isn’t immediately clear what “ideas” he has in mind, but presumably he is speaking of such notions as the Social Kingship of Christ as taught with such stunning clarity by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas, the reality of Christian unity as taught by this same Roman Pontiff in Mortalium Animos, and last but not least, the Mass of all Ages, the devotees of which he has castigated as unstable for daring to drive considerable distances to assist at such a liturgy.
Fr. Longenecker went on to opine:
Fifty years after the revolution of the Second Vatican Council we are moving on from the tensions it created. Those tensions existed because Catholics kept comparing the pre-Vatican II church to the post-Vatican II church. The ones who did this most were the folks who went through the Vatican II revolution … Everything was viewed through that lens. Well, at least we agree on one thing; the Second Vatican Council was a revolution.
Where I and every other reasonably well-formed Catholic parts company with Fr. Longenecker is his preposterous assertion that those who cannot help but draw comparisons between Catholic life before Vatican II and the bitter realities of the present crisis are necessarily “the folks who went through the Vatican II revolution,” and they are the reason tensions exist over the Council.
Does Fr. Longenecker believe that to be Catholic, no matter one’s age or personal experience, is to view everything through the lens of all that preceded us?
Does he hold the firm conviction that ours is the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles; not just the faith of the most recent “pastoral exercise” or the currently reigning pope?
Does he fully embrace the reality that this faith is immutable; may never be believed to be different, and may never be understood in any other way?
Apparently not, which actually makes perfect sense if you stop to consider his background:
Brought up as an Evangelical. Dwight Longenecker graduated from fundamentalist Bob Jones University. While there he became an Anglican and after graduation went to Oxford to train as an Anglican priest. After serving for ten years as an Anglican priest he converted to the Catholic faith with his wife and family. Eventually he returned to the United States to be ordained as a Catholic priest under the special provision from Rome for married former Anglican clergy. (Amazon.com bio) Is it just me or does there seem to be something missing from this curriculum vitae; namely, any kind of training in Catholic theology and protestant deprogramming?
In any case, I suspect, and Fr. Longenecker himself may very well admit, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell he would have swum the Tiber if awaiting him on the other shore was the “pre-Vatican II church” circa all the way back to 1958.
This raises yet another question: Did Fr. Longenecker convert to the Catholic faith whole and entire, or did he convert to some protestantized (read: distorted) conception of the same?
Clearly, it is the latter. Remember what he said:
Fifty years after the revolution of the Second Vatican Council we are moving on from the tensions it created. You see, only the protestant mind can conceive of a “revolution” in the Church in such terms; as if the revolution isn’t a problem in and of itself, but only the tensions created by the recalcitrant few who just can’t seem to let go.
Indeed, it may well be that the vast majority of converts over the last fifty years, priest or otherwise, more properly converted to a protestantized conception of “Church” and not necessarily to the Faith in its fullness.
It’s not necessarily their fault.
Think about it: One who embraces with gusto every word that has come forth from the mouths of the last five popes would have at least one foot in Protestantism. Obviously, Fr. Longenecker does, and this even as he stands on his head.
I accept your apology. I can understand it as I was once in your shoes.
I think the key to understanding the anger from sedevacantists (and I would argue from MOST traditionalists who agree with much of what I have to say except perhaps the pope issue) is that we believe that there is at least serious question as to the legitimacy of the New Catechism, the New Liturgy, the New Laws, and the Vatican II doctrine. We come to different conclusions about the pope(s) but I would say that all of us are angry....and righteously so. We get frustrated with those who think everything is just honky dory/literally in a state of naivete, explain away the discrepancies, or categorize the issues as mere “errors” as if these things are just oopsies.
I do not have the time, energy or the expertise to explain the sedevacantist position. You’ll notice that I don’t take the time and energy to get into it with the Protestant/Sola Scriptura folks either. I’m also still learning more about it. There are sites that explain it fully. I can point you (and others) in the direction of one that I think does a good job:
http://www.cmri.org/why-we-believe-the-chair-of-peter-is-vacant.shtml
On the side of this page there are links to responses to objections to/support for the Sedevacantist position, etc. I think you will find that it is not so clear cut given the current crisis in the Church (that is if you believe there even is one). I respect others who come to a different conclusion/opinion on the matter but, for me, this makes the most sense. To make myself abundantly clear though, I recognize that I could be wrong, but as time goes on I find it harder and harder to believe that Francis is a true pope. Even after this whole discussion I tried to believe he was and I physically can not do it anymore.
Link.
Did the Holy Spirit simply decide to abandon the College of Cardinals? If so, wouldn't this imply that the gates of hell DID prevail against the Church?
Additionally, what is the formula for restoring a pope to the Holy See? Let's say that Francis or a subsequent pope were to declare the Second Vatican Council and Novus Ordo null and void, would he then be a "legitimate" pope?
In short, what SPECIFICALLY do sedevacantists desire for the Church? The stated goals of preserving tradition and eradicating modernism, etc. are quite noble on the surface, but they seem to lack an actual formula for restoring the papacy to their satisfaction.
I find it hard to believe that these questions are not answered on that site. Check the links to the side of the page I linked above. Again, I’m not interested (nor well-versed enough) in teaching the sedevacantist position. There is plenty out there.
Not sure why you chose to ping a long list of people. I’m certainly feeling like I’m being put out there for display and not for positive reasons.
That's the kicker for me, I'm stuck in the "to whom else shall we go" position. I'm not happy where I am but there doesn't seem to be any option
I pinged a number of people who I know are interested in this. It WAS NOT to single you out.
I have been fascinated by the sedevacantist position for quite some time, I am sympathetic to many of their issues even though I disagree with their conclusions.
Their actual position seems to be more along the lines of, "We don't believe their has been a real pope since 1958, so there."
Well they're so unorganized that it's unlikely that will happen. But beyond that I'm not sure some group of like minded Catholics from around the world COULD elect a new bishop for the diocese of Rome even if they all agreed that the see was vacant.
Actually, I would disagree with that.
The SSPX has disobeyed the Holy See on a number of occasions; however, they still recognize the post-VCII popes as legitimate.
Moreover, they have maintained dialogue with the Vatican (though it is questionable if this will continue during the current papacy) in hopes of genuine reconciliation. To the best of my knowledge, none of the sedevacantist groups has expressed any willingness to meet with papal delegates (though Archbishop Thuc did as an individual).
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
"My theory that the Peter Principal on occasion applies to the Throne of Peter when a geat many Bishops and Cardinals are overly flawed was not well received by some in our discussion group"
Very often I don't respond because stuff ends up way, way down the queue, so far distant that I literally lose sight of it. (That happens with my e-mail box too --- a lot.) In those cases, lack of response doesn't signify anything but my slothful inefficiency.
I assume that's true of other people, too. I never think a lack of response is "deafening."
However, on your above statement, I read it and couldn't think of a relevant response. I think the Peter Principle (people tend to rise to their level of incompetence) unquestionably can occur in the Catholic Church, even at the top, just as it does in every other human society. It's practically a fact of organizational sociology.
I have no idea why people would think that recognizing this fact, makes you an apostate. Do they think infallibility applies to clerical bureaucracies? Do they not understand that there's a difference between "apostolic hierarchy" and "clerical bureaucracy"?
If we had only human executive effectiveness to count on, the Catholic Church would have gone belly-up millennia ago.
Thank you for clarifying that. Certainly I’m feeling a bit of an outcast in this thread, so I’m sure you can understand why I took it that way.
For answers, I would suggest looking around. Fr. Cekada also has a lot of good writings on the subject. I think the web address is traditionalmass.org.
Most sedes do not believe in electing their own pope. Then we would have just another Pope Michael running around.
And I’ll leave it at that.
SSPX: This is where we get into the recognizing the pope, but not acting like one recognizes the pope (aka a cardboard pope):
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=66&catname=14
It doesn’t make sense to me to “say” a pope is true, to have a picture of him on the wall and at the same time disobey his laws, his liturgy, and his doctrine (ie. not act as if he is the true pope).
The pope is the bishop of Rome, right? Historically the bishop of Rome is elected by the chief clergy of the diocese of Rome, the cardinals of the Roman Church. There isn't another mechanism in Tradition for the selection of the Roman Pontiff. The pope could easily change the process but that hasn't happened.
Suppose Francis died with the entire college of cardinals tomorrow, how would we get a new pope (barring divine intervention)? I don't think it's possible, I'm open to being wrong about that, but I don't think I am.
I’m guessing the reason why people wouldn’t like that comment is because it makes it seem as if the Church behaves like a man-made organization. You see comments similar here like, “Doesn’t the Holy Spirit guide the conclave”?
We've been in that situation for over 50 years though, almost universally. Dissent against the Roman Pontiff by the "liberals" has been as blatant as anything the SSPX has done or said, except for the consecration of bishops of course. But in every other way the "establishment Church" has been disobeying the pope, it's just that the popes haven't called them out on it.
This of course puts us all in a very weird position, if none dare call it schism then what is it?
It's a matter of God accomplishing His Holy will on the field of history --- "history" being defined as "Stuff that actually happens," also defined as "Acts of the Schlemiels," also defined as "One Damn Thing After Another." This is, I sincerely think, how the Church is protected from formal, doctrinal error:
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.