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.
There are dogmatic issues between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. It's my understanding that the Orthodox don't explain the Real Presence through the doctrine of transubstantiation. Orthodoxy doesn't accept the doctrine of infallibility. Nonetheless, the Church credits Orthodoxy with faith that is not heretical.
"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)."
I agree with you. So, let's leave it to those with the competence to decide and act. Certainly, our Holy Father is chief of these. He has decided and acted. I accept that. It answers all my questions.
"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."
As you point out in your own words, this isn't a condition of the protocol, or for the limited intercommunion granted through this pronouncement of the Catholic Church.
"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."
There are issues of doctrine to be worked out between the schismatic but not heretical Orthodox, who nonetheless do not accept certain articles of divine faith of the Holy Catholic Church. As you said, better to leave these decisions to those who are competent, the chief of whom is our Holy Father.
As to Cardinal Kasper, this is not a pronouncement that he wrote and promulgated on his own, as bishop of his diocese. This is an act as a competent officer of the Curia, with designated authority directly from the Supreme Pontiff. If the Supreme Pontiff were in disagreement with this work of Cardinal Kasper, he could have prevented its promulgation, or he could have publicly repudiated it.
Regardless of Cardinal Kasper's opinions as a theologian, or even as a bishop, this is an act of the Curia, with delegated authority from the pope, thus, it's authoritative. Should the pope decide Cardinal Kasper has erred in making this judgement in the name of the Church, the pope can correct him. Until such time as the pope does that, a Catholic ought to accept this as authoritative.
Therefore, it's wrong to view the Assyrian Church of the East as heretical (even though there are remaining doctrinal issues being sorted out).
sitetest
One of his associates at TCRNews.com (Or Steve Hand himself, no one is quite sure) used the screen name "Cathway" then subsequently used the screen name "StillSmallVoice."
Steven Hand was banned from Free Republic ON THIS VERY THREAD apparently for his remarks on this thread which I did not see. He was using the screen name "theotokos" on this thread when he was banned.
If you review this thread and other recent threads for postings by "Theotokos" and "Cathway" and "StillSmallVoice," I think more of the big picture will come into focus.
If anyone has the posts saved that caused "theotokos"/Steve Hand to be banned, it would be helpful to further clarify this discussion. You may FReep them to me if you wish.
St. Joan of Arc?
* blush *
Well, thank you for the compliment. I return it in kind. You often say that you are here to listen and learn, and at least to me, that comes across, even when we disagree.
"...heresy is, it doesn't need to be declared."
No doubt, but you and I aren't competent to declare when it exists, at least not against the legitimate authority of the pope's delegates.
"Nonetheless, I disagree with them regards this decision and I believe that the Curia will review and change the decision because of the precedent otherwise established."
You could be right. I don't really know. But until it IS reversed, we oughtn't say, "one, particular, heretical rite." That is to say that we may judge as heretical what the Church views as merely schismatic.
sitetest
But his behavior already got him banned here in short order. What did he say that got him banned on this particular Religion Forum thread, in a forum for which Jim Robinson and the moderators have taken a very hands off stance?
I've been here posting as strongly and passionately as any other Catholic Freeper for over a year, and I've never been banned.
Hand was banned after being a FReeper for only several weeks.
That alone speaks volumes and contradicts your position.
"PS isn't it Catholicguy who insists that schismatic is the next thing to heretical? The Assyrian Rite (certainly schismatic and arguably heretical -- read the protocol and see the vagueness involved) is OK, the Tridentine Rite Society of St. Pius X not OK. Hmmmm. :)"
LOL. Schism IS the next thing to heresy. He is right in that regard.
The Tridentine Rite is perfectly acceptable, not heretical, nor schismatic. The SSPX, on the other hand, are arguably schismatic (I don't really want to argue about it, though.).
The first thing to keep in mind is that this protocol for limited intercommunion isn't much different from the Church's view of the SSPX. The Church accepts that if someone is truly unable to attend Mass at a parish in full communion with Peter (even a "Novus Ordo" parish), that attendance at an illicit SSPX Mass is acceptable, and reception of the Eucharist is acceptable, as well. The Church is not saying that Chaldean Rite Catholics (or any other) may pass their local Catholic parish on their way to Mass at an Assyrian parish. As with the SSPX, the Church is saying that if one cannot find his way to a Catholic parish for Mass, he may attend Mass and receive the Eucharist at an Assyrian parish.
The judgement of the Church is really quite similar. The attitudes may differ a bit.
I once read something by William F. Buckley, Jr., concerning the uses of state power by the USA and the Soviet Union. In response to those who claimed a moral equivalency between the USA and the Soviet Union because sometimes the USA had performed actions in the pursuit of its foreign policy in a manner similar to that of the Soviet Union, Mr. Buckley said, (this isn't a precise quote), "They are saying that the person who shoves an old lady out of the path of an oncoming bus is the same as the one who shoves the old lady into the path of the oncoming bus. After all, both shoved the old lady."
Similarly, the Assyrians are on a path toward Rome. The SSPX have been on a path away from Rome. Though both may be in a similar place, one delights in the former, and is saddened by the latter.
sitetest
Autocephaly WAS too tempting to resist, wasn't it?
The so-called Tridentine Mass, for example, is really the Mass handed down from Apostolic times.No its not. The Tridentine, or the early forms of it, was a combination of two Rites that came, supposedly from near Apostolic times. You cannot find a written record of anything closely resembling the Tridentine before the fifth century.
This is at the heart of the clash with modernists who believe the Catholic Faith began with Vatican II.No it isn’t. This is a clash between people who believe, as did Pope Pius in Mediator Dei, that the current Pope controls the liturgy, and those who believe they are free to stick with the liturgy of a past Pope, despite disobeying the present one.
not to mention numerous statements and documents contradicting centuries of Catholic teaching.Really? Please demonstrate this.
But it is exceedingly doubtful that Archbishop Lefebvre was anything less than a saintly man who placed the Faith before even his obedience to the Pope. Canon Law explicitly provides that no penalty accrues if one disobeys the pope out of a state of necessity. Not only this, but even if such a state did not in fact actually exist, no penalty accrues if an individual in good conscience simply believes a state of necessity existed. No one can doubt that the Archbishop believed the Church was indeed in crisis and that a state of necessity existed. Nor can anyone who is honest fault him for believing this.Completely fantasy. The Pope wrote Canon law, he decides what is or is not a state of necessity.
Canon law depends from his authority, not from Lefebvre’s state of mind. Canon law cannot reverse what the Pope does, that would be an absurdity. And the Pope declared it a schism, and declared Lefebvre excommunicated. If you think you can judge the Pope’s decision, you are a heretic.
patent +AMDG
"I concede your ultimate point. I hope that my brothers here will see that same point and withdraw their claims that the SSPX is heretical."
I agree with you. It seems to me that it is Peter himself who is working to try to bring the SSPX back into full communion, and it seems to me that it is Peter himself who regards the SSPX as schismatic, and not heretical. Otherwise, the talks toward reunion would not be about things like Apostolic Administrations and such.
That notwithstanding, some SSPXers, even at high levels in their hierarchy, seem to be materially heretical.
sitetest
. . . in the Novus Ordo rite, . . .Not that he is actually present.Are you contending the Consecration in the Novus Ordo is invalid? Please prove this, its also laughable.
patent +AMDG
Point them out to me on freerepublic.com. I haven't seen Ferrara, Guimarães, Michael Matt, Vennari, or Horvat posting here.
O.K. There is narses over there and next to him, standing extra ecclesia, is Ultima Ratio. The ball is in your court :)
Yes there is something you can do to merit Grace. Receive the Sacraments!!!Look, go read what Trent actually said on justification. It isn’t so terribly long, and this is important. The Link again.
patent +AMDG
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.