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.

[Catholicguy]

and, it is worth noting that many folks just used to pray the Rosary during Mass and many Masses were said in under 30 mins. My old priest in Vt, could say the Mass in 18 mins :)

[Catholicguy]

Wrong. Your arguement IS with the Pope.


THE ROMAN CURIA

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use
of the departments of the Roman Curia which,
therefore, perform their duties in his name and with
his authority for the good of the churches and in the
service of the sacred pastors.
CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9

[narses]

After the Council of Ephesus (431), the Church of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, which had hitherto been governed by a catholicos under Antioch, refused to accept the condemnation of Nestorius, cut itself and the Church to the East of it off from the Catholic Church. In 498 the catholicos assumed the title of "Patriarch of the East", and for many centuries this most successful missionary church continued to spread throughout Persia, Tartary, Mongolia, China, India, developing on lines of its own, very little influenced by the rest of Christendom. At the end of the fourteenth century the conquests of Tamerlane all but destroyed this flourishing Church at one blow, reduced it to a few small communities in Persia, Turkey in Asia, Cyprus, South India, and the Island of Socotra. The Cypriote Nestorians united themselves to Rome in 1445; in the sixteenth century there was a schism in the patriarchate between the rival lines of Mar Shimun and Mar Elia; the Christianity of Socotra, such as it was, died out about the seventeenth century; the Malabarese Church divided into Catholics and Schismatics in 1599, the latter deserting Nestorianism for Monophysitism and adopting the West Syrian Rite about fifty years later; in 1681 the Chaldean Unia, which had been struggling into existence since 1552, was finally established, and in 1778 received a great accession of strength in the adhesion of the whole Mar Elia patriarchate, and all that was left of the original Nestorian Church consisted of the inhabitants of a district between the Lakes of Van and Urmi and Tigris, and outlying colony in Palestine. These have been further reduced by a great massacre by the Kurds in 1843, and the secession of a large number to the Russian Church within the last few years. In the late nineteenth century there was an attempt to form an "Independent Catholic Chaldean Church", on the model of the "Old Catholics". This resulted in separating a few from the Eastern Rite Catholics.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14413a.htm

[ultima ratio]

One magisterium condemns modernism and lists a Syllabus of Errors, this one nullifies the Syllabus and embraces modernism. One magisterium condemns the Lutheran position on Justification, this one embraces the Lutheran understanding. One Magisterium defines the Catholic Church as being the Church of Christ, this one speaks of the Church of Christ as merely subsisting in the Catholic Church. How can it be that this magisterium can deny other magisteria and its own tradition, all the while claiming to be traditional? Conservatives would respond that it is up to the Pope alone to decide what's traditional. This cannot be a Catholic answer. The Pope can't invent an apostolic tradition--he can only pass it on. This is why Vatican I made the point that while the Pope was infallible when speaking ex cathedra, he was conditioned by the nature of his office. He was not an absolute monarch, but bound to transmit only the deposit of faith he had received. Cardinal Ratzinger many times has made this very point: "The Pope is not an absolute monarch, but must, like all the faithful, obey the transmitted Word and Tradition." The Pope can no more create a new tradition than he can create a new Sacred Scripture. Yet there are Catholics who do not understand this and ascribe to the Pope miraculous powers he does not possess. Many worship the Pope and place him ahead of the true Faith.

[Catholicguy]

Ok I think I understand now. Simply because it was standard boilerplate rhetoric you can take it upon yourself to dismiss the teachings of a Pope and a Saint. Very convenient. Is there now a fifth condition for a Pope to be speaking ex cathedra: It would probably read as follows:

Do youu think I was the one that promulgated a restored order of the Mass? It was Pope Paul VI.

BTW, your error is in thinking a Pope can circumscribe the Supreme Power of a future Pope in matters that are not Dogmatic. Please re Mediator Dei and see the Pope has ALWAYS had the power to change the Liturgy.

Or, maybe you don't accept the author of Mediator Dei as a legitimate Pope, who knows...

[narses]

Not true. Frankly you are trying to be offensive and refusing to see how you mischarecterize what I say and believe. It is not conducive to either learning or civil discourse. If I were of the same mind set as your friend, I'd accuse you of being SH, as it is I will simply say you are acting with a similar lack of integrity and charity as he did. There is clearly a difference between Card. Kasper (who has publicly doubted the validity of the Gospels and questioned indirectly the Divinity of Our Lord) and His Holiness. While the section you quote, out of context, could appear to make your claim correct, it isn't. Nor can you, with any honesty, deny my words as to what I believe and whom I disagree with. That you do (and mischarecterize what I say) again, speaks volumes. Whatever good you are trying to do gets lost in that kind of error.

[narses]

He was. It was EditorTCR Review as I recall. Hde is no longer.

[Catholicguy]

One magisterium condemns modernism and lists a Syllabus of Errors, this one nullifies the Syllabus and embraces modernism. One magisterium condemns the Lutheran position on Justification, this one embraces the Lutheran understanding. One Magisterium defines the Catholic Church as being the Church of Christ, this one speaks of the Church of Christ as merely subsisting in the Catholic Church. How can it be that this magisterium can deny other magisteria and its own tradition, all the while claiming to be traditional? Conservatives would respond that it is up to the Pope alone to decide what's traditional. This cannot be a Catholic answer. The Pope can't invent an apostolic tradition--he can only pass it on. This is why Vatican I made the point that while the Pope was infallible when speaking ex cathedra, he was conditioned by the nature of his office. He was not an absolute monarch, but bound to transmit only the deposit of faith he had received. Cardinal Ratzinger many times has made this very point: "The Pope is not an absolute monarch, but must, like all the faithful, obey the transmitted Word and Tradition." The Pope can no more create a new tradition than he can create a new Sacred Scripture. Yet there are Catholics who do not understand this and ascribe to the Pope miraculous powers he does not possess. Many worship the Pope and place him ahead of the true Faith.

You have obviously lost the faith. My condolences....

I am not wasting another second with one who believes the magisterium contradicts itself. Jesus established the Catholic Church as the Pillar of Truth, sent the Holy Spirit upon it to teach it all truth and, via Infallibility, the Magisterium is incapable of teaching error.

Stop relying on your own intellect as it is not serving you well

[Catholicguy]

So, is it your idea the Curia is not acting in the Pope's name? What is wrong about what I posted? Are you now going to correct or reject Christus Dominus?

The temptation to autocephaly is all about.....

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

I appreciate the article which you cited from the Catholic encyclopedia. I read the excerpt that you provided.

Did you read the article that Catholicguy cited? Here is a quote from near to the beginning of this official pronouncement of the Catholic Church:

"With the 'Common Christological Declaration', signed in 1994 by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV, the main dogmatic problem between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church has been resolved."

It appears that, at least as far as Pope John Paul II is concerned, the Assyrian Church of the East is not heretical. Though the Assyrian Church of the East is still in schism from Rome, their status is akin to the Orthodox.

Thus, unless you are disputing our Holy Father's judgement, this church isn't heretical.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Bells may have been rung for your Novus Ordo, but in a thousand different ways it is a Mass that is closer to a Methodist Worship Service than it is to a traditionally Catholic Mass. It has erased all mention of Christ's sacrifice and focuses on the eucharist as a meal. This is not Catholic tradition. It is Protestant. It did not evolve over the millenia but is a concoction that was written by a Catholic freemason and six Protestant clerics--and it shows. Is it any wonder that in a single generation the notion of a Real Presence is denied by a great majority of Catholics?

I don't know what traditional Mass you have attended, but the one I attend is nothing like the one you mention. Perhaps the inattentive people you saw were visitors like yourself. Where I attend people remain in the pews after Mass to give thanksgiving. They are in no hurry to leave the church. What they have experienced was virtually no different from that which was experienced by the ancients Roman Christians. If Saint Augustine walked into an SSPX Mass, he would be right at home.

[narses]

Part of the problem resides in trying to deal with extraordinarily complex issues on an ad hoc basis (generally a reason to leave these discussions to theologians trained in the Church). Not all of the dogmatic issues are resolved, nor is the Rite defined in a fashion that is certain to be acceptable. The protocols, for example, call on the Assyrian Church to change their Rite voluntarily (not as a condition to the protocol) to make it "more acceptable" to the Catholic Faithful when there are Catholics present. There remain real issues of heresy and Rome and their Patriarch are still working on them. Further, I suspect strongly that Card. Kasper was furthering his and Fr. McBrien's agendas with this decision. I am sorry, but I suspect everything a cleric (even a Cardinal) who doubts the very Divinity of Our Lord does.

[ultima ratio]

Of course it contradicts itself. What do you think the fight is about? Do you think traditionalists are all bad Catholics? Look at the men this Pope has put in positions of power. Are they holy men? Do you think they are interested in the Faith? By their fruits you shall know them...

[ultima ratio]

Your ignorance is showing. The traditional Mass you mention is not invalid. The priests were validly ordained. The bishops were validly consecrated. You are confusing invalid with illicit. The Pope understood Lefebvre had the power to consecrate validly. But not, in his view, licitly. There is a world of difference.

[Notwithstanding]

You: "The Pope understood Lefebvre had the power to consecrate validly. But not, in his view, licitly. There is a world of difference."

The real "world of difference" is between the import of your/Lefebvre's view and the import and effect of the Pope's view.

A "world of difference" indeed.

[ultima ratio]

"Standard boilerplate rhetoric." You should use quotation marks when you quote other sources--particularly biased ones. This kind of dismissal is to be expected from modernists who think they can hoodwink the public into believing what goes on now in their churches is Catholicism. It's a new religion. It has nothing to do with Catholic tradition.

[Catholicguy]

Of course it contradicts itself

It is an ontological impossibility for the Magisterium to contradict itself. Those who claim it does are engaged in Prot-thought.

You and your ilk, however, specialise in confusion, contradiction, poor theoloy, poor history, poor reasoning and are generally ill-informed when not flatly ignorant of rudimentary Catholicism. Perhaps if you EVER stopped attacking the Magisterium and thought about the absolute absurdity of what you are charging - that the Magisterium is a source of confusion and error and contradiction, you would remain silent out of a desire not to embarass yourself publicly.

I do not know how many share your views, but if they do, they are similialy protestant in their orientation even while they proclaim themsleves Super Catholics - "Trads."

You have lost the Faith. Pray....

[ultima ratio]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You think what some guy says in the Angelus about the Mass is proof of a movement's heresy? Do you even know what a heretical view is? Doesn't sound like it.

[ultima ratio]

Wrong again. Pope Paul VI, in the opinion of many of the best scholars, did not have the authority to impose a new liturgy. A pope cannot innovate, he can only pass on what he has received. This may be why the old Mass was never officially abrogated and why the new Mass was never officially promulgated. No papal authority can fabricate a liturgy.