When The Pope's Friends Walk Away

TCRnews.com ^ | 7-25-2002 | Stephen Hand

[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.

[Notwithstanding]

Ask my last pastor - I was so active in thwarting (often successfully) each and every one of his heresies that he actually ended up running some things by me before hand to avoid the hassle of getting heat later.

[patent]

Well, this could get tiring. Each time I respond to one of your claims you drop that claim and throw up a new one. I get the impression you wouldn’t ever admit error, no matter how clearly proven. Have we given up on Hawaii, Canon Law, Athanasius, Necessity, etc.? On to the Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration then.

The Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration which was signed in Augsburg in November of 1999: "By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and recive the Holy Spirit"

The above declaration contradicts the Gospel as well as the documents of the Council of Trent.

What part of Trent does it contradict? From Trent:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

.

By the way, as the wall Street Journal (who LOVES John paul II) reported at the time "it effectively concedes the theological debate to Luther"

Ah yes, the Wall Street Journal. Is that your normal source for theology? It is not mine.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[Notwithstanding]

Every abortion is evil and the actors incur automatic excommunication - even though the actors may not understand the evil (and consider their act a necessity) and therefore they are not guilty of sin.

So too are all schismatics excommunicated due to the evil involved - even if well-intentioned.

As I understnad it, excommunication is a medicine used to announce to the community and to those excommunicated that something is very seriously wrong and the conduct cannot be tolerated - for the good of the Church and for the souls of the faithful.

[narses]

Official declaration of the Superior Consistory of the Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Lorraine, dated 8 December 1973:
"... Given the present forms of the eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church, and by reason of present convergences in theology, many obstacles which might have prevented a Protestant from participating in its eucharistic celebration seem to be on the way to disappearing. It should be possible for a Protestant today, to recognize in the Catholic eucharistic celebration the supper instituted by the Lord (i.e. the Protestant communion service)... We attach great importance to the use of the new prayers with which we feel at home, and which have the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the sacrifice, than we were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite us to recognize an evangelical theology of sacrifice."

[narses]

Thank you. I am both humbled and certainly unqualified to be included in their company. I learn more every day here from them.

[narses]

"I don’t believe that a Pope can teach heresy."

I've always been taught that the Holy Ghost will prevent that. I don't recall the details but I recall the story of an atrocious, heretical Cardinal elevated to the Papacy who tried to declare his heresies as truth and simply couldn't do it. He tried, he failed. I wish my memory worked better.

[narses]

Interestingly enough (wrt excommunications), my understanding is that the mutual excommunications of the Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders have been lifted, EVEN THOUGH THE SCHISM STILL EXISTS.

[patent]

Thanks. Before I got to worked up about it though, I would like to see what was actually said. Father McBrien isn't a reliable source.

patent

[patent]

There are over 200 pages in the Catechism of the Council of Trent on the Sacraments and their necessity. Don't know where your tiny little reference came from but don't try to imply that the Council of trent declared that we are saved by faith alone. That won't work.

"Faith Alone" isn’t what I quoted. It isn’t even close. If you can’t understand the simple fact that we are saved by grace, rather than by anything else, than I can’t help you.

YOU do not save yourself. Salvation is a free gift (grace) from GOD. You accept it by faith. That is what Trent said. It also condemned the claim that we are saved by faith alone. But when you compare the statements I highlighted (from the sixth session, the DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION) you will see the Church hasn’t conflicted with Trent. That you can’t understand what Trent actually said, and need to reduce it to simplistic Protestant slogans of faith alone, does not mean that what I quoted is inaccurate. Justification is not a simple theological issue. Trent was not as far apart from the Protestants as people these days think, we are not saved by faith and works, as people think. We are saved by Grace, by our Lord Jesus Christ and His Sacrifice. Go read Trent if you doubt me. I gave you the link above.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

I don't have proof that St. Athanasius was excommunicated. I have no reason to doubt my pre 1950's Catholic Encyclopedia set.

Which edition is that, and what does it say? Regardless, you would have reason to doubt if you went back and read the source documents. I believe Pope Liberius is who is usually accused of excommunicated him, but there isn’t really any proof. Pope St. Anastasius I, only a couple Popes later, made it clear that Liberius has stayed firm during the Arian heresy, and commended him on his orthodoxy. See Denzinger 93. The previous Pope, St. Siricius, also mentioned Liberius in this light. It is believed that Liberius did actually repudiate Athanasius under torture, but that is far different than an excommunication, and not even remotely the same as an excommunication given freely. This is the action Athanasius refers to in his Apology, and from which the excommunication claims come.

Since you seem to be hung up on proving things that most consider common knowledge, please provide proof that John Paul II is actually the Pope.

Good grief. If you really wish to dispute that issue, I will take the time to prove it, otherwise your just being insulting. patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Interestingly enough (wrt excommunications), my understanding is that the mutual excommunications of the Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders have been lifted, EVEN THOUGH THE SCHISM STILL EXISTS.

They have been. I don’t think an excommunication is declared for every schismatic, nor should one be. I will, however, leave that entirely to the judgment of the Church.

patent  +AMDG

[Notwithstanding]

Father McBrien isn't a reliable source.
Father McBrien isn't a reliable source.

Father McBrien isn't a reliable source.
Father McBrien isn't a reliable source.

Father McBrien isn't a reliable source.
Father McBrien isn't a reliable source.

(Well worht repeating.)

[patent]

>>>>The Sacraments are works.

Who grants the Grace. You or God? The priest or God? Is there something you can do to merit Grace, or is it as the words itself means, Free?

patent

[ultima ratio]

Stephan Hand is at war with the traditionalists in the Church. He represents a middle group between traditionalism and liberalism. (He would call himself a conservative, though it would be a misnomer.)

Right now the liberals have control of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and are doing all they can to wreck two thousand years of Catholic tradition so that it is indistinguishable from mainline liberal Protestantism. Many bishops and cardinals are in open opposition to the Faith itself.

Hand is the kind of Catholic who will on the one hand deplore the present crisis in the Church, but on the other hand will blindly absolve the Pope from any responsibility for it. This is because he believes to be a good Catholic above all means obeying the pope in all things--even if it means contravening the Faith itself. He ignores the long tradition of Catholics who criticized their popes, including many saints such as St. Paul, St. Augustine and St. Catherine of Sienna. For him, obedience trumps all else--a decidedly unCatholic attitude which is tantamount to Pope-worship.

Traditionalists will cite St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine, two of the most eminent doctors of the Church, who advocated disobedience even to the pope himself if he commands something harmful to the Church. Traditionalists also cite the First Vatican Council of 1870 which stated that the pope is not an absolute monarch. His power is bound up in his transmission of the Faith. The deposit of Faith and its transmission is his provence--not doctrinal novelties and innovation.

One way to descrie the difference between conservative (or liberal) Catholics and traditionalists is that conservatives view the past through a lense of the present (Vatican II), whereas traditionalists view the present through a lens of the past (2000 years of Church history).

[RobbyS]

I suppose that you all have seen the following by Cardinal Dulles

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9912/articles/dulles.html

[RobbyS]

It may be that the difference is that the two see a conflcit between Trent and Vatican II (or between Vatican I and Vatican II) that I do not. Liberals, of course, act as though John Locke and James Madison were doctors of the Church rather than political thinkers.

[livius]

LOL! Yes, Richard McBrien is anything but reliable.

Unfortunately, in this case, he's right, although he is clearly trying to use this fact (the acceptance of the Chaldean rite) for his own purposes.

In the Orthodox Church and among Eastern rite Catholics, the words of institution are actually not considered, in themselves, to be what one might describe as the "sacramental moment." Below is a quote from a book on the Orthodox liturgy:

"In the Divine Liturgy, the words of the Epiclesis are crystal clear on what is happening:

Priest: Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here set before You and make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.
People: Amen.
Priest: And what is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.
People: Amen.
Priest: Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.
People: Amen, Amen, Amen.
As is plain, these are not symbols:

"...the Orthodox Church believes that after consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the reality of the change, it has never attempted to explain the manner of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the neutral term metaballo, to 'turn about', 'change', or 'alter'."
(The Orthodox Church, p. 283, by Timothy Ware)

As you can see, this does use the words of institution, but not quite the way they are used in the Roman rite. Clearly, the intention is the same, in any case.

However, I don't know what is actually in the Chaldean rite, whether the words are in there somehow but buried in other text, or whether they're not there at all. From Richard McBrien's exulting, it sounds as if they're not there at all, which is curious. Like all dissenters, he wants to get away from the reality of the Eucharist, and I think he's trying to use this as yet another line in his attack.

We've been discussing the Pope on this thread, which I just joined, and I don't mean to drift away from that. But this is an interesting sidelight, and of course, the Eucharist is certainly as fundamental to the Church as the Pope!

[Catholicguy]

Sorry, you've hitched your wagon to the wrong star,

My wagon is hitched to the Barque of Peter, the Ark of Salvation and I see no sense in hectoring the Captain of the ship.

RE your parable, Hand is on board (he never walked the plank of private judgement) - warning certain others of the dangers near the shoals of schism. He has seen others leave the Barque (Remnant, SSPX etc) and, rightly, wonders if they will make it back aboard. If one looks about, one sees MANY who are weak in Faith and doubt the ability of the Captain to keep the Barque on course. They set-out in their little lifeboats, on their own, and they use their rolled-up periodicals as megaphones to scream at the Captain - "This way to safety" - never realising they are about to be dashed on the rocks of the recalcitrant right and may not make it back to the Barque. <p. Ultimately, of course, God is in control and I think we should all agree to abandon this parable as I am becoming green around the gills trying to force a response into it :)