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.
And for the record, I NEVER said that the Catholics who “prefer” the Latin mass are not Catholic. I said they weren’t “Traditional Catholic” (meaning there is more to be a TRad Catholic than preferring the Latin Mass).
In fact, I also never said that the Novus Ordo Catholics aren’t Catholic. I believe that most conservative NO Catholics mean well and are faithful, but I do think they are ignorant of Traditional Catholic teaching. I know I was. Not too long ago, I was in their/your shoes, but I also know that I was ignorant of the Faith. I unknowingly converted to a Protestantized version of the Faith (juts like the author stated above).
**I believe that most conservative NO Catholics mean well and are faithful, but I do think they are ignorant of Traditional Catholic teaching.**
Your proof of this other than your own opinion, please.
What about all the priests and Bishops who say the NO Mass?
Are you taking on God’s role and condemning them too?
I didn’t condemn them. Don’t play this game with me. Besides, like I said to Mrs Dono, the post Vatican II Church doesn’t require anyone to be a member of their church. Francis doesn’t wish to convert! So why should this bother you?
It bothers me because I believe you are mistaken. I think Pope Francis will go down as the Great Evangelizing Pope.
You know I am humble enough to admit that I could be wrong. However, every time I think I might be wrong, he comes along and says/does something that a pope shouldn’t do or say. He just reinforces my overall belief that the current Church has been infiltrated by Modernists so much so that they have reached the top.
| CCC 846 ...they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. |
Good luck with your Old Catholic project, though. The other Old Catholic groups have banded together in the Union of Utrecht. Are you joining that? You'd have a lot bigger fellowship that way.
I'll suggest a name for it: Catholics United Against Catholicism.
I’ll suggest a name for it: Catholics United Against Catholicism.
...what nonsense...a sincerely held belief that the Church has been infiltrated by modernist heresy is not evidence of anti-catholicism...
He effectively confirms error through various words, actions and omissions.
A short list of examples: He has publicly counseled Muslims to read the Koran, he has promoted Cardinal Kasper and praised his heretical theology, he speaks with Eugenio Scalfari and makes outrageous statements which Scalfari is then accused of falsifying (rinse, repeat). How is calling an adulterous woman and telling her she can receive Holy Communion evangelizing? And let's not forget his public participation in religious services outside the Faith, which promotes the error that false religions are on a par with Catholicism. And likewise his mockery of practices such as Rosary bouquets and abuse of the FFI (people who would have been considered ordinary Catholics before VII and before the post-VII apostasy) is harmful to true evangelization.
Seems like he's embarked upon an anti-evangelization spree since his election (shortly after which he withheld the Sign of the Cross at a press gathering in order to avoid offending non-Catholics).
"Poor Holy Father," said Jacinta, "there is a great need to pray for him." Clearly, these words are especially true of Pope Francis.
Father Longedecker apparently has his supporters as he defends the VII Church. And Satan, I am also quite confident, is having a field day as he watches well-intentioned Catholics argue amongst themselves as to just what the changes of the Council actually mean for the Church. So be it.
But defend to your hearts content all those who can rationalize away what has happened to our once holy Church, SOLEY, because of the Council’ s actions. Many souls will be lost exclusively because of the modernist approach advanced by the Council.
It is not simply the TLM vs the Novus Ordo Mass, it is the the teaching of the true Catholic faith and what we must do to attain salvation, vs. the warmed-over Protestantism that passes today as Catholicism.
But sadly enough, inasmuch as the secular media, the fallen-away Catholics (as well as the Protestants the atheists and the rest of the crowd) are all on the side of our modernist pope and our modernist bishops supporting this tragedy of neo-Catholicism, I have no doubt they will eventually drive the true Catholic Church to an underground. But it will continue there, and in the end, there will be an accounting to Jesus Christ for all that transpired since 1960.
No, of course it isn't. But to abandon the Ark to the modernist mutineers is to put one's soul at grave risk of perdition. We must remain aboard and resist them.
Which says more about you and the author of this garbage than Fr. Longenecker.
The interesting thing is that the two groups of folks, those who more or less reject the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and those who falsely embrace its “spirit,” both have essentially the same understanding of the council, that the proper hermeneutic by which to interpret the council is the hermeneutic of rupture, rather than Pope Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity.
I'll stick with Pope Benedict XVI.
sitetest
Great comments.
So you know what the Bishop of Rome, First among Equals, should, or should not, do or say? Feel free to enlighten the rest of us with respect to how this is known.
It's like communion in the hand. Bishops decided to ignore Rome and have done so.
The Catholic Church in America has become Protestantized because that's what the Bishops have wanted and either actively encouraged or not resisted and therefore permitted to happen in spite of their knowing better.
Hey, I've only been Catholic a few years and am still studying all I can find but it's not difficult to see that this isn't a new problem. In fact,
“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
St. Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, AD 325
it's part of the same battle that's ebbed and flowed ever since Christ founded His Church on Peter. For some reason a lot of Americans seem to have been of the opinion that, "it can't happen here" when it came to the Church having this sort of revolt just like they thought "it can't happen here" when it came to having the sort of society we now all wallow in like pigs (reluctant or not).
The talk about how Catholics lived together in a "Catholic ghetto" kind of sums it up IMO. When Catholics were a tight knit community they apparently longed to be accepted as part of the larger predominantly Protestant community and when they were accepted, they joined the Protestant party across the board including the cafeteria approach to what they believe. Those who remain faithful Catholics and ignore the Cafeteria approach find that whether or not they're "accepted" as Catholics outside the "ghetto" depends entirely on how little they behave like Catholics.
Whether its' crossing them self or wearing a crucifix rather than a cross they find that any display of being Catholic rather than "one of the boys" is still sufficient to trigger the same old "whore of Babylon" and "Papist" trash that's been a part of American culture ever since the country was founded. It's just like Malamud's "The Fixer", the trick to being accepted outside the ghetto is to never behave like "those folks down there".
Now a significant percentage of Catholics knowingly or not long for the good old days in "the ghetto" when they could be openly Catholic without having to defend every little thing but how many of them would even consider doing what it takes to predominantly Catholic neighborhoods? Folks who want enjoy the "Lifestyle Cafeteria" are always going to end up dining at the "Pop-Culture Faith Cafeteria" as well, hence Cafeteria Catholics predominate.
So, maybe I still have a lot more to study (hey, it's only several thousand years of material and I'm just now working through the post-Nicean Fathers). The way I see it, the Church in the US was heading for problems a long, long, time before VII or there would have never been a Papal Encyclical about the heresy of Americanism.
. JMHO
Amen.
Exactly how is the resistance going though?
That is absolutely true.
YOU "think about it".
Universal pastor of all Christians. Pontifex. Vicar of Christ in Earth.
By all means, think about it. Think hard.
“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” - Saint Athanasius
Tell me: which of the post Vatican II popes have taught non-Catholics that they must be Catholic to be saved?
They don't because they're too busy attending non-Catholic services, kissing Korans, encouraging interfaith prayer.....the list goes on and on.
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.