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.
But then the Vatican needs to take steps to require compliance. Otherwise, any Bishop of ill faith will see that he doesn't need to listen. Which is, of course, the case. The Vatican desperately needs to reestablish control. This IS the Pope's responsibility. He needs to rise to it.
Regrattably, with the American bishops, that's true. They've had a huge party of depravity in their house, and now the parents need to come home. Where are the parents? Time to come home...
I have a sense that this is a straw-man argument, designed not to defend the Pope, but to silence the critics of the RCC problems, and implicity to advance liberalism.
I don't recall the published books and authors accusing the Pope personally. At most they implicitly ask what is the Pope's response to the problems.
But Hand seems intent on painting the messengers as the problem and portraying them as against the Pope, which conveniently takes attention off the message.
Michael Rose,
Robert Sungenis,
Patrick Madrid,
Brian Barcaro at the Diocese Report,
Steven Brady at "Roman Catholic Faithful"
and others such as Helen Hull Hitchcock of Adoremus
and Alice Von Hildebrand, who wrote the forward to Rose's book,
and her late husband Dietrick Von Hildebrand who wrote eloquently about the Latin Mass,
and Cardinal Ratzinger, who has publicly voiced grave misgivings over recent liturgical changes,
over the patronizng and arrogant and self-important rantings of this author any day.
"Michael Rose is trucking with pope-bashers and marketing his books through them,..."
Oh my! How dreadful! Mr. Rose permits his book to be sold by people to whom Mr. Hand takes exception. Well, I see his point! Anyone who publishes a book ought to be very careful about whom he permits to sell it! And we who purchase books, likely ought to be very careful not to buy books that are sold through people to whom Mr. Hand takes exception.
Oh dear. I was just looking at books available at Angelus Press (associated with SSPX). It seems that they're selling the St. Joseph First Communion Catechism AND the St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism! We have been using these two books for homeschool catechism for our son! NOW what should I do? My pastor approved these! Perhaps he is an evil "off the rails" sort of traditionalist! I hadn't known! He gives no evidence of it! He never speaks out against the pope! He uniformly celebrates the Mass of Pope Paul VI! I'm not sure he even knows any Latin!
And... worse yet... Angelus Press is selling... St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica! I have a copy at home! Perhaps I should go home and burn it! One doesn't want to be associated with those awful SSPXers by buying books that one might be able to buy at their site. Likewise, Mr. Rose really ought not permit his own works to be sold by folks with whom Mr. Hand has a problem.
Mr. Hand is long on assertions and accusations, but short on logically-sound arguments and specifics. That Mr. Rose's book is promoted at The Diocese Report or The Wanderer or The Remnant or some other place with which Mr. Hand has a problem is little more than guilt by association.
At church, I know and love many Catholics who are, let's say, not entirely orthodox. They are dissenters. You know a bunch, I know a bunch, everyone here knows a bunch. If topics come up related to Church teaching, I have no problem letting 'em know where they aren't quite in sync with the Magisterium. Gently. With charity. But firmly.
Nonetheless, I GO TO CHURCH with these people. I eat with them. Sometimes, I play with them. We do church activities together. Some of them are in my Knights of Columbus Council with me. We give away Tootsie Rolls together, collecting money for the mentally-handicapped. We do things for our local crisis pregnancy center together. We hold parties for the kids of the parish, we take care of the needs of families when someone dies. We visit the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and yes, some of us even care for those who are in prison.
I suppose that by my association with these people, with whom I am not in agreement about the status of Church teaching, I'm just as "off the rails" as they are.
* * * * *
Or let's take those who think our Holy Father shouldn't have held the event at Assisi. It's true that one can get carried away and move from reasonable criticism to unreasonable attack. But to say that our Holy Father was wrong to hold the event at Assisi, as Campion has pointed out, isn't to attack the pope. I have a more benign view of what occured at Assisi, but many of the folks who view it dimly are not attacking the pope.
I think that the key sentence in Mr. Hand's effort here is this:
"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."
As he watched his old friends move toward schism, he was certainly right to speak his mind to them. He was certainly right to take a stand apart from what it was they were doing, thinking, and believing. To "bail" on schism is a really good thing to do. But, apparently, he also bailed on his friends, themselves. It may have been necessary. It may be that the only way he could escape being swallowed up in their schismatic views (if, indeed, his friends really were schismatics) was to leave them. Okay.
Not everyone who works with, or is friends with, or who has business dealings with or through, a "schismatic" is also a schismatic. Not everyone who associates with people who are imperfectly orthodox is called to disassociate with them. Perhaps the less orthodox might be positively influenced by the more orthodox with whom they have associations. Perhaps that's what God wants.
Mr. Hand should be careful in applying the lessons of his own life broadly to the lives of others. They may not fit other people's lives quite as well.
sitetest
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.
Well said. This author paints with such a broad brush that he condemns not only most loyal and faithful traditionalists but also a very large percentage of conservative Catholics as well.
He is a loose cannon just as dangerous as the extreme trads and integrists he bemoans.
That is the biggest pile of CRAP I have ever heard! How dare you insult my Lord and Savior like that!!!!!!!
Neither St. Paul nor St. Catherine of Siena limited themselves to prayers when, in their view, the Pope was doing the wrong thing. I see no reason why their example should be ignored or disparaged, notwithstanding the fact that it may not always be productive or possible to emulate it.
Hey, Saundra, I'll make you a deal. You don't call a central pillar of my faith "the biggest pile of CRAP I have ever heard," and I won't call any pillars of your faith "the biggest pile of CRAP I have ever heard."
Or, to put it another way, you ain't loving your neighbor as yourself, dear. How dare you disobey my Lord and Savior like that?
Why don't you just do yourself a favor and avoid Catholic themed threads?
No, you said what Gophack said was a pile of CRAP. However, he was stating Catholic belief, so what you said, in effect, was that Catholic belief was a pile of CRAP.
The leader of the Catholic Church has allowed this horrible abuse of innocent children to go on unchecked and unmonitored.
First of, you are making a judgement you know nothing about. Care to post your proof of what the Pope knew and when he knew it? Otherwise, perhaps you'd like to consider the possibility that the Pope, too, should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
How could the Pope be representing my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ of Nazareth?
Your savior ate with sinners, walked with sinners, talked with sinners, died with and for sinners, and appointed sinners to preach his message in his name throughout the whole world. That's in the Bible, Saundra, not anywhere else.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He hasn't changed. Have you?
Good one.
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.