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 agree with that. I was just trying to explain why Rashputin may have been (wrongly) called an “apostate” for his comment.
Interesting thread. Thanks for the ping!
But isn’t it interesting that popes have called out traditionalists? Archbishop Lefebrve? FFI? The Traditional College (can’t remember the name)?
>:o}
I think we agree more than you think.
I think it is important to recognize the impact that Protestantism has had on the Church, especially in America.
It goes without saying that the Novus Ordo simply doesn't begin to compare to the richness and holiness of the Tridentine Mass. Although I don't remember the real reaction to the changes (I was born in 1967) it's obvious to anyone how contentious it was. Perhaps if they had simply allowed the Mass to remain as it was but be said in the vernacular (along the lines of what Martin Luther did) it would have been a little less shocking.
But the reality is that the Novus Ordo changed the focus from the Blessed Sacrament to the congregation (which immediately began to don itself in shorts, t-shirts and flip-flops) and the singalongs and sermons became the highlights for the attendees. ALL of this seems to stem from the influence of American non-denominational Protestantism (traditional European Protestantism, particularly the high Anglicans and Lutherans, is not at all similar to the modern Evangelical churches in America) where the sermon is considered to be the most critical aspect of the service.
I think, and I may be totally wrong on this, that it is important to remember the state of the world during the time of Vatican II. Europe was less than two decades removed from World War II and had just been rebuilt with AMERICAN MONEY. The Soviet Union was firmly in control of Eastern Europe and the only thing that would prevent further expansion was AMERICA. One has to wonder just how concerned the Vatican was in the early 1960s about the potential consequences of American Catholics breaking from Rome. How much did the Church depend on American money during the post-war years? Was the Church prepared to risk there being an American Catholic Church that was not even nominally in Communion with the Vatican?
So was I! Maybe you can tell me something... when did we get to be so old?
I think your points are well made.
Is the Pope above Divine Law? Can a pope contradict the Deposit of Faith? Are Assisi prayer summits, blasphemy towards the Virgin Mary, and indirect promotion of adulterous marriage by praising the theology of Cardinal Kasper contradictory to the Deposit of Faith? When the pope (in a fallible capacity) promotes ideas and examples contrary to the Deposit of Faith, are Catholics obliged to accept and emulate them?
IMO the cognitive dissonance so many of us struggle with is the result of a false premise that the pope is infallible in all things.
The responsibility of the Pope before God is to guard and transmit the Deposit of Faith. When a pope (or a cardinal or a bishop or a priest) is demonstrably engaged in contradicting the Deposit of Faith, that speaks more of his poor job performance than of his legitimacy.
The Pope is infallible ex cathedra. He is not impeccable in his daily dealings.
I don't know, parts of it I like, but other parts not so much. My wife and I just bought a new house on 8.5 mainly wooded acres. When we moved in I fully intended to clear out a lot of the underbrush, but my body hasn't seemed all that cooperative.
Thank you for so quickly supplying this link.
"Had the desire" sounds like a temptation. You can have a desire (it pops into your head; it even repeats and persists) without "entertaining" it or "consenting" to it.
John Vennari interprets it as "she may have been tempted." Pope Francis indicates that if she were tempted, she resisted, because he praises her as an "icon of silence."
So this works out to be, not heresy or insult toward Our Blessed Lady: it suggests that she could be tempted, like her Son was tempted, and that like Him, she resisted temptation.
This shows her in a beautiful and sympathetic light, as one whose Sorrowful Heart is pierced by this most painful trial --temptation: yet she stand by her Son and is faithful to the end.
I don't understand why you find this offensive. It fits in beautifully with what St. Louis Marie de Montfort said (Tagline)
Publically contradicting the Deposit of Faith is not just a job performance issue. It is much more serious than that. It calls into question his very Catholicity which calls into question his legitimacy as the leader of the Catholic Religion. Does Francis profess the Catholic Faith as it was promulgated for 1960 years? Does Francis profess the same Faith that the pre-Vatican II popes professed?
ugggh. Here we go.
I think I need to back out of this thread now before my blood pressure pops.
And my present intention is this: I don't want to get into any more such arguments. My own behavior has not been free of unnecessary offensiveness, and I apologize to piusv and others who may have borne the brunt of my sarcasm.
Examining my conscience, I see that I have been unduly swayed by strong emotion, and I am in the process of untangling that emotion to see where it comes from and where it's going. (I have always told me RCIA n00bies that emotion is not always to be obeyed - nor always to be suppressed or rejected - but is always to be examined.) -- so please pray for me.
I want to thank those who have tried to keep the thread on the level of charitable living-and-learning, and I have learned (some)!!
So, Tiny-Timmishly, "God bless us every one." Think of what St. Louis Marie de Montfort said, and what it implies about holy humility and silence. (Tagline) Thanks again.
Mrs Don-o, let’s pray for each other, k?
I find you to be one of the most sincere posters here despite our differences. All of us who consider ourselves Catholic are going through a rough time. We are trying to make sense of what is going on in the Church.
May God bless all of us here.
I might also say that if my comments on this thread offended anyone, I sincerely apologize, this was never my intent.
This is certainly a matter that we all hold dear. I know that many of us are, at the very least, concerned with things that have taken place in the Church during the past half century. And, even though we disagree on the specifics, I know that we all desire to preserve the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Amen.
The Blessed Mother knew that Jesus was the Son of God from the moment of the Annunciation. As a Jewish woman, she also anticipated the coming of the Messiah, which was foreshadowed in the Old Testament.
For instance, she would have recognized the events of the Passion from Psalm 22:16. “For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet.”
And likewise in Isaiah 25:9 “And they shall say in that day: Lo, this is our God, we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the Lord, we have patiently waited for him, we shall rejoice and be joyful in his salvation.” In the Hebrew word for “salvation” the Blessed Mother would have recognized the name of her own Son, Yeshua.
Bless you, Mrs. D.
He was duly elected in accordance with Tradition. Holding fast to Tradition requires accepting that he is pope. It doesn't preclude us from believing that he's a bad pope.
It's not within the province of the the laity to declare a pope invalid.
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.