When The Pope's Friends Walk Away

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.

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.

Name for me one Saint, Athanasius isn't one, who died unreconciled to the Church?

Yes, I read the CE entry for Joan of Arc. However, you left off the next sentence:

The illegality of the former proceedings was made clear, and it speaks well for the sincerity of this new inquiry that it could not be made without inflicting some degree of reproach upon both the King of France and the Church at large, seeing that so great an injustice had been done and had so long been suffered to continue unredressed.

Although the injustice was addressed after her death, it appears that she died unreconciled to the Church. Not a proud moment in Church history. And although with hindsight it was acknowledged that the former proceedings were illegal, I'm sure had some FReepers on these threads been there, they would have joined the Bishop of Beauvais and the Vicar of the Inquisition in lighting the match because the "prudential" judgment of the Bishop and Vicar are to be accepted without question. Unfortunately for Joan, no one questioned their judgment while she was alive.

Mediator Dei speaks of "gradual change." The New Order was not gradual.It was radical.

First, if you admit that Pius believed the Pope could make gradual change, that entirely kills your argument about Quo Primum not allowing anyone to change it. If you literally interpret Quo Priumum to limit future Popes, you must also interpret it to prohibit those Popes from making any change. Second, Mediator Dei indicated that much of the changes in the past had been gradual, it did not limit the Pope’s power to only gradual change:

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, [You don’t contend that when he refered to introducing new rites, which the Novus Ordo is, that he though they could only be minorly different from the old rite do you? That wouldn’t be a new rite then. Especially since it would then be redundant with the next sentence:] as also to modify those he judges to require modification. [50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] [and here he agrees with my interpretation of Pius V, above, that Quo Primum only applies to laity, clerics, and Bishops.] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

patent +AMDG

Although the injustice was addressed after her death, it appears that she died unreconciled to the Church.

Not really, she died unreconciled with a Bishop and a branch of the Church. The Pope had no role in it, directly contrary to the role the Pope had with respect to Archbishop Lefebvre. The local churches and bishops are subject to canon law, and there is a very good argument that their trial of Joan in violation of canon law was a nullity. (well, since the Church ruled that way, its better than a good argument, its true.)

Had Archbishop Lefebvre been excommunicated by the Bishop of Hawaii, for example, or a French Cardinal, he would have the same types of arguments, as these individuals are subject to the Pope AND subject to canon law. This is not true for an excommunication issued by the Pope.

Not a proud moment in Church history.

True.

And although with hindsight it was acknowledged that the former proceedings were illegal, I'm sure had some FReepers on these threads been there, they would have joined the Bishop of Beauvais and the Vicar of the Inquisition in lighting the match because the "prudential" judgment of the Bishop and Vicar are to be accepted without question.

Who is arguing that a prudential judgment of a Bishop is to be accepted without question?

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG

If this is the case, why cannot John Paul II be wrong?

Liturgy is a matter of discipline, not faith and morals. Liturgy does indeed convey faith and morals, but it still falls under matters of discipline which can be and are changed by Popes.

Popes have authority to change matters of discipine. Such changes are prudential decisions.

The prudence of such changes can legitimately be questioned by the faithful.

The authority to change them cannot be questioned. If you have the keys, you're allowed to use them.

You step from questioning a prudential decision to questioning the authority of Peter to loose anbd bind in disciplinary matters, when you try to use that Papal Bull to prove the invalidity of the new mass.

When you do so you obviously step from faithful and humble discernment into schism, and you have no leg to stand on.

No legitimate Catholic thinker takes anyone using your debate tactics seriously, for they have been examined and found to be unsubstantiated and untenable.

Debate the quality, quantity and fruits of the new mass all you like as a faithful Catholic.

Make the case by reason and intellect that the old mass was a better discipline and conveyed the Truths of the faith and sacred character of the sacrifice of the mass far better, and that the new mass comes up lacking in this regard, if you so believe.

But no orthodox Catholic will walk into schism with you in regards to the authority of the Pope over matters of discipline such as the form of the liturgy itself. A Pope can error in prudential judgement. But if he promulgates a new mass that conveys the graces of the sacraments, it is simply impossible that said mass will be inherently invalid or illicit. It might be imprudent, but the Pope has that authority, and it will by the nature of the Pope's authority be valid and licit.

And by that same fact, that it is a prudential decision regarding discipline, we faithful Catholic have the right and duty to question the fruits of that prudential decision, and are not unfaithful Catholics for doing the latter.

And anyone who says otherwise must retract such statements.

Look, your notion of what is meant by "changing" the Mass is foolish. Of course slight changes are made--but they are so minor no one would notice--like removing the second Confiteor at the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, or an insignificant change in rubrics, such as sitting instead of kneeling. This is not truly what is meant. What was done by Paul VI was unprecedented. No pope for the almost two thousand years since Apostolic times had ever introduced a wholely new Mass that was a radical departure from what had preceded. (It was, in fact, based on the Lutheran worship service for the Lord's Supper, virtually word for word.) He himself recognized the Novus Ordo as a huge mistake--Mass attendance declined in a single year after it was instituted, from 74% of all Catholics, to 60%. (Gallup.) The number is now down to 17% and still dropping like a stone annually.

By the way, the number of American Catholics according to Gallup is
60,000,000. The number of Catholics who call themselves traditional is 45,000,000. The number of those who are committed traditionalists is 15,000,000. The number actually attending a traditional Mass (they are hard to come by!) is 1,000,000--but growing by 10% annually.

Not really, she died unreconciled with a Bishop and a branch of the Church.
patent, you can do better than that.

ELS, this is the difference between a divorce and an annulment. One is a validly issued marriage that someone is trying to change after the fact. One is a decree that the original marriage was not validly issued, and thus never happened (in fact). That is what we have here. The people who excommunicated her did not follow proper procedures, just like the Bishop of Hawaii didn’t do so when he tried to excommunicate the Hawaii four. Therefore it never happened.

The same cannot be said about the Pope’s excommunication of the Archbishop. That was valid, and per Vatican I there isn’t anyone else to appeal to.

The Bishop and Vicar were duly appointed authorities of the RCC, not some fictitious branch. The Bishop had not been declared at the time of the trial to be acting without Papal authority.

Neither was the Bishop of Hawaii declared at the time of the trial to be without authority. The Vatican doesn’t judge these things immediately, they take their time. In Joan’s case it can be legitimately said they took too long, but after all she was already dead. Wasn’t going to change her situation much.

The ruling of nullity occurred after her death. They can change her legal standing, but they cannot take back her execution.

True. Doesn’t change the argument though.

patent +AMDG

"All Trent did was codify one version and impose unity."

You might be interested in knowing that many of these older rites, or at any rate, those that haven't completely disappeared, are being revived.

In Spain, for example, the native rite, known as the "Mozarabic Rite," is being revived. BTW, the name refers to Christians in Arab lands, since Spain was under Islam at that time. However, it is also known as the Visigothic Rite, and was the rite that was used in Spain after the rejection of Arianism in the 6th century. It is closely connected to the Eastern rites.

It was replaced by the so-called "Frankish Rite" in the 11th century, when French clerics came into Spain as Islam was being driven back from the North of Spain.

It continued to be celebrated in some places, and was officially revived in the 15th century for use in the Cathedral in Toledo. Now permission has been granted for it to be used in other parts of Spain, most notably the Cathedral de la Almudena in Madrid. The unfortunate thing is that, while its chant was transcribed, no one is very sure of how to read it, so restoring the Mozarabic rite is not as easy as it might seem.

I have also heard that the Ambrosian rite is being restored in some places in England.

Perhaps this is the future? Or part of it, at any rate...

Disagree. Not with your argument about the Pope's right to change the Liturgy. That is open to debate. Mgr. Klaus Gamber, the most eminent of all liturgical scholars, had his doubts. Be that as it may, I have a problem with your casual use of the word schism. These are not normal times. The great majority of Catholics could care less whether doctrinal orthodoxy prevails within the Church. But those who do, agree with St. Paul who said that even if an angel should come and preach a Gospel different from the one that had been handed down, let him be anathema.

The Church concluded 24 years after her death that a mistake (Oops!) had been made and yes, they declared that the her conviction was null. Saying so 24 years later doesn't change the events that actually happened.

Correct. Does granting an annulment 24 years after the ceremony change events that actually happened?

No. Correct?

Because the marriage never happened. Yes, people walked down the aisle, said some words. There was cake, a minister, presents. But the marriage never happened. Correct?

patent +AMDG

I give up. You are stubbornly resisting giving a Trent a fair reading, and then comparing it to the quote you cited. You have a preconceived notion. No matter how close they are, you won't accept it, and there is no way I can break through that stubborness, no matter how true. Yes, it said "BEGINNING OF SAID JUSTIFICATION", it is still saying the same thing. Trent winds up going into more detail, but the statement does not conflict. There are other statements from the joint accord that do seem to conflict, and the Church dealt with that in its appendix.

I have to leave you to that, just as I have to leave those fundamentalists who won't accept that we don't worship Mary. Good luck, God bless.

patent

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.