Posted on 07/25/2002 5:31:43 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
A number of disturbing reports are heard lately that some of the Holy Father's former friends are in danger of collapsing in the storms; collapsing into the chaos of selective obedience, into the dangers of private judgment's non sequiturs. Michael Rose is trucking with pope-bashers and marketing his books through them, Robert Sungenis is rashly attacking the Pope on Assisi, Patrick Madrid is selling his books at a notorious pope-trashing website and giving "exclusive" excerpts to that site which also peddles the works of the worst schismatics who publicly call for an official "suspension of obedience" to the "Popes of Vatican II," and who gleefully and absurdly predict that JPII will be deposed for heresies. A group called "Roman Catholic Faithful" is openly publishing the works of these men too. Gerry Matatics, of course, has long shown aggressive solidarity with all these.
At first one hopes there is a misunderstanding. Maybe it's just the fact that a certain small percentage of converts or reverts will inevitably go off the rails for a time; maybe they have not fully overcome their fundamentalist spirit and suspicions toward "Rome," or their instinctive splitting into "remnants," and their personalistic "evangelism" wherein if they feel they are "called" to go on the circuit preaching tour, then they infer they must be "sent" by God, though this is contrary to all Catholic teaching, obedience and humility.
Maybe, though---which God forbid---it is a less innocent motive: simply the desire for money. What many, if not most, of these have in common is something to sell. Books, tapes, magazines, whatever...And maybe they haven't considered how immoral it is from a Catholic point of view to put marketing and personal security above the Truth. Michael Davies has long allowed the most virulent Pope-attackers to publish and sell his books and has led the way in all this. Cottage industries need "markets". Ask Fr. Gruner.
Better to sell no books, or just one book, with the Pope, than a million apart from him. Better to have Our Lord's warning about millstones around ones neck and judgment than to scandalize Christ's innocent ones by leading them into wolves dens to sell ones books or magazines.
Whatever the case, some of these cannot easily plead ignorance, even if others are merely confused. Most know what is what where websites and infamous Integrists are concerned. The goal of the older, more cynical Integrists has long been to pretend that conservatives and integrists are doing the same thing, which is absurd.
It only takes a little poison...
Whatever the case, it appears that some are showing signs of whithering on the Vine. They seem to be moving from complete loyalty to the Holy Father and the teaching Church to a place of shadows where fidelity mixes with persecution.
Invariably, when one points this out and shouts a warning, the more experienced and cynical in the ways of schism and anti-papal doctrinal collapse encourage their neophytes to respond with absurd charges of ultramontanism or to cynically shout down, ad hominem, the ones who try to warn them, as if no dogmatic certainties were at stake: "Who made YOU the measure of the Catholic Faith! Canon law allows criticism!"
Yes, but not this kind of criticism which moves qualitatively from inner personal concern or "dissent" to outright public attack, which even has the temerity to charge the Popes with heresies or rupture with Tradition which is the second prong of revelation itself.
The Holy Father and living magisterium, the teaching Church, is the measure of the Faith, not Catholic persons or groups.
We are living in sad times. When, earlier, I saw my old friends moving toward the cliffs of schism, well beyond constructive criticism, when they refused to hear the warnings, I knew it was time to bail. One's soul was at stake. I saw the logical trajectory of private judgment toward which Integrist presuppositions were leading .
The Holy Father is being persecuted from all sides today in something like apocalyptic storms. And now, some of his former friends are showing signs of deserting that cross and blaming him for the consequences of not heeding his own teachings-----and they do not see how ironic and absurd and tragic that is.
Real traditionalists---such as we are proud to be--- have their wheels on the dogmatic rails. Ask any Neo-modernist and he'll tell you where TCR is on the theological spectrum and they will not hesitate to say we are traditionalists, but with our wheels on the tracks, with Peter, who, together with his bishops, alone has the right to mediate, interpret, and develop Catholic Tradition.
Sometimes a warning must be sounded.
The Pope is a wonderful and holy and erudite man. But the truth is that Michael Rose's books expose a dirty and disgusting set of truths about the Church. The Pope bears a significant part of the responsibility for what has happened with the rapes of thousands of teenage boys by homosexual priests. It would do the Pope well to find the courage to address this issue while in Toronto, before the Church's youth.
I do believe that it is acceptable, and perhaps even necessary, to highlight inadequacies in individual dioceses or where parished or priests deter from the Living, Teaching Church because we are then supporting the Church and her teachings, as long as we are respectful and loving. But trying to bring ones parish into full faith is different than attacking the Pope's teachings.
We don't know everything. We don't know what the Holy Father has or hasn't done regarding the Priest scandals. We must have faith and trust in the Lord that the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding the Holy Father, as Jesus Christ said He would. If we don't have that faith, what do we have? We become no better than the Protestants, who dismiss clear Truth for personal revelation.
God bless His Church.
I pray to understand that. As of yet, I don't.
I prefer to place my faith in the Bible, rather than men.
In fact, as an SSPXer, you're outside it. WAY outside it.
God Bless Our Wonderful Pope.
Let's be discerning here. To attack the office of the Papacy is to attack Jesus Christ. To reject something that is solemnly defined is to attack the truth of Jesus Christ proclaimed by the Church of Jesus Christ.
However, to differ with the Pope's prudential judgement on a matter of discipline or personal behavior is not an "attack on Jesus Christ". It was not an attack on Christ when Christ himself called Peter "Satan" in Mt 16, it was not an attack on Christ when Paul "resisted Peter to his face" in Gal 2, and it was not an attack on Christ when St. Catherine of Siena told the last Avignon pope that he belonged in Rome.
Believing that Assisi, or kissing the Koran, or making Roger Mahony Cardinal Archbishop of LA were blunders in prudential wisdom (IMO, all of them were) does not make one less of a Catholic, and is not somehow tantamount to sedevacantism.
Only God knows how many of the various traditionalist and conservative lay groups which have sprung up are truly loyal subjects of the Church and which are pushing their own agenda under the guise of "true" Catholicism.
Those with misgivings about the various actions of the Pope should leave these in the hands of God during prayer, for that is all the Holy Father truly needs from us. Our prayers.
I guess it would depend on just who is monitoring the Bishops. We don't know just how much information the Pope is privy to and who is telling him what. I think of Cardinal Weakland, who was told by the Vatican to stop the wreckovation of one of the most beautiful churches in his diocese, and who totally ignored the directive and did what he wanted to do.
If the Bishops "obeyed" the Vatican, there would be no need to send in a Vatican team to see just what condition the seminaries are in. Reminds me of having little kids...you have to watch everything they do, who they are hanging out with and whether they are adhering to the rules of the house.
Perhaps my difficulty is that I have recently (three years ago) come back to the church after more than 20 years as an Easter-Christmas Catholic. I am still learning, as we are all called to do until our death, and therefore I don't want to make grave mistakes.
Personally, I think that homosexual priests should be removed from the priesthood, or placed in a non-parish, non-public position (like a monestary) to repent and seek forgiveness for their sins. But I am reminded of the Scripture from Mass last Sunday, the parable of the wheat and the weeds. The need for tolerance and the call to not judge, but to leave the judgement to our Lord, because we do not know who the wheat and who the weeds are.
God bless.
Thanks, marshmallow.
Only God knows how many of the various traditionalist and conservative lay groups which have sprung up are truly loyal subjects of the Church and which are pushing their own agenda under the guise of "true" Catholicism.
And they sow the seeds of confusion among the faithful when they do this.
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.