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.

[patent]

>>>>Do ALL "traditional Catholics" fulfill their Sunday Obligation, either at a new Mass or old?

So far on this thread he has steadfastly refused to admit whether or not he thinks the Novus Ordo is invalid. You aren't the first to ask, I hope you have better luck, but I suspect by now he is afraid to answer that. Perhaps repeating the question will help.

patent

[ultima ratio]

The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was probably not valid. First, because it was imposed despite his defense of necessity, which was permitted by Canon Law. Right or wrong, the canons state explicitly he need only have believed such a state to have existed. Second, the canons do not equate disobedence to a papal command with schism. As the SSPX priests put it, if a child says no to his mother, it doesn't mean he is denying she is his mother. Apples and oranges. Most Vatican officials privately don't believe a schism ever occured, but they use the term to dampen enthusiasm for a movement that threatens modernism.

[sitetest]

Dear patent,

Yes, I see what you're saying. It hadn't occured to me that perhaps I wasn't getting an answer to my question because he would prefer not to admit that assisting at a Mass of Pope Paul VI would fulfill one's Sunday Obligation.

So, I'll ask it this way, "Do all 'traditional Catholics' at least attempt to fulfill their Sunday Obligation either by attending a traditional Mass or a Mass of Pope Paul VI?"

sitetest

[sinkspur]

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.

Got a link to these numbers? They look fishy.

[patent]

The excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was probably not valid. First, because it was imposed despite his defense of necessity, which was permitted by Canon Law. Right or wrong, the canons state explicitly he need only have believed such a state to have existed.

Once again, 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.

Second, the canons do not equate disobedence to a papal command with schism.

No, but when the Pope calls it a schism, it is one. He determines the communion, not you. And when he excommunicates you, e.g., you are no longer in communion with him, you are in schism.

Most Vatican officials privately don't believe a schism ever occured, but they use the term to dampen enthusiasm for a movement that threatens modernism.

Ah yes, now you are reading the minds of “most Vatican officials.” You not only want to be your own Pope, but God as well?

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

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.

Got a link to these numbers? They look fishy.

Not only that, but they ignore the fact that Mass attendance started dropping before the Novus Ordo in 1970, not when it was introduced.

Further, any sociologist would tell you that you can’t attribute a sociological shift to one variable changing when the fact is that in society hundreds of variables were all changing at the same time. It just isn’t logical or rational, but its done.

patent  +AMDG

[Siobhan]

May He give us strength to work for reconciliation, unity, and peace. May he keep us faithful to the teachings of the Church as we seek to follow the way of the Gospel. May we walk in the footsteps of Jesus as his beloved sons and daughters. With the help of Mary, our Mother, may His Church be the sign and sacrament of salvation for all people.

AMEN.

[Catholicguy]

The first trial had been conducted without reference to the pope, indeed it was carried out in defiance of St. Joan's appeal to the head of the Church

Totally different situation than Lefebvre

[sinkspur]

Your eminences (patent, sitetest, Polycarp, and even ole Catholicguy) are doing yeoman's work here. I've spent the last three hours on this thread (between some business calls). Oh, and bookmarked it.

Carry on.

[ultima ratio]

Are you referring to me? Yes, I think the Novus Ordo is valid--though with some priests I've had my doubts. It is subject to so much subjective caprice regarding matter and form from parish to parish. Be that as it may--so what if it is valid? That's not the question to be asking. A 1980 Ford might still take you to the corner grocery, but I wouldn't take it to California. Cardinal Ratzinger himself ascribed the woes of the Conciliar Church to the new Mass. No matter how you slice it, there has been no springtime as a result of its institution as was expected. What followed was one disaster after another.

[ultima ratio]

Well, we can go around in circles all day if you like. You may think the Pope can say black is white, but white is still white. Schism is defined as a morally evil act requiring an intention to deny the primacy of the papacy itself. This resides in the intention of the perpetrator, not in the objective act. But Lefebvre never denied the Pope's role as Supreme Pontiff. He merely refused to obey a command to do what would harm the Church. Most Vatican theologians dismiss the schism charge. The whole matter of SSPX was called "an internal affair" and removed from the usual ecumenical bureaucracy. In fact, it would be ridiculous on the face of it to think that people who are so thoroughly in line with Catholicism on every front were schismatic. Disobedient, yes. But that is another matter.

[Catholicguy]

Your continued rudeness grows less and less funny. Your attacks grow more and more angry. Please cease them.

After you. Stop attacking the Faith and I will cease counter-attacking.

It is very odd, to me anyways, that so many desire liberty to attack The Magisterium and demand they be able to do so unopposed as though there was some Canonincal Right to oppose Divinely-constituted authority.

Several times on this thread you have made statements about facts concerning the magisterium and Patent, Sitetest and myself have provided documentaion your attacks are without merit. You have yet to apologise and admit your charges were false. Perhaps instead of being so sensitive about your own self, you could be more aware of who it is you are attacking - The Pope. I at least have the sense of fairness to resist you to YOUR face, not behind your back

Patent and sitetest and I all have different approaches to defending the Faith. When I was Confirmed I accepted the duty to defend the Faith not attack it. I am doing my best.

I suggest that if you cannot stand the rhetorical heat than you flee the schismatic kitchen.

I see you have no problem calling a Cardindal a heretic, and rejecting the Curia that speaks in the Pope's name, so, buck-up :)

[ultima ratio]

True, they dropped when the word first got out that the old Mass would be superceded. They dropped from around 80% to 74%. Then when the Novus Ordo hit the parishes, the bottom fell out. It's been downhill ever since. It's now around 17%.

[narses]

I see you have no problem calling a Cardindal a heretic,...

When a Cradinal rejects the Gospels and questions the Divinity of Our Lord in published works, I will speak up. As for you -- you attack people, you don't correct them. You also misreprented what I said and pretended to know what I think. Your approach is vastly different from anyone here I have encountered EXCEPT Mr. Hand. Once again I will ask you to refrain from personally attacking me.

[sitetest]

Gentlemen,

"I see you have no problem calling a Cardindal a heretic,..."

"When a Cradinal rejects..."

Gee, I hadn't realized that you guys were so far apart. Can't even agree on a common spelling for cardinal.

;-)

sitetest

[Polycarp]

That is open to debate.

Show me any church official (ie Cardinal) who says its open to debate. Your Msgr is respected but not the final word. The final word is that of JPII and Ratzinger. They both trump your Msgr card.

[narses]

I look forward to seeing it published and widely distributed.

[Catholicguy]

LOL

[patent]

Schism is defined as a morally evil act requiring an intention to deny the primacy of the papacy itself.

No, it isn’t. Denying the primacy of the papacy is heresy, per Vatican I’s definition.

Canon law defines schism as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” When the Pope excommunicates you, you are not in communion. Furthermore, most the SSPX will not act in communion with the members of the Church subject to the Pope. They won’t obey bishops, they won’t attend the Novus Ordo, etc. They won’t even attend an indult. They are not in communion.

But Lefebvre never denied the Pope's role as Supreme Pontiff.

That only means he is not a heretic.

Most Vatican theologians dismiss the schism charge.

Reading minds again? Please prove this.

In fact, it would be ridiculous on the face of it to think that people who are so thoroughly in line with Catholicism on every front were schismatic. Disobedient, yes. But that is another matter.

Yes, after all when the Pope issues a decree of excommunication, and calls it a schism, it is ridiculous to think he is right, and that he has the authority to do these things. How dare he excommunicate our hero!

You deny a papal judgment, in contravention of Vatican I’s strictest statements, and you say I’m being ridiculous on the face of it? You have chutzpah, but your theology is wrong. I’ll stick with the Pope on this, not you.

True, they dropped when the word first got out that the old Mass would be superceded. They dropped from around 80% to 74%. Then when the Novus Ordo hit the parishes, the bottom fell out. It's been downhill ever since. It's now around 17%.

LOL, nice save attempt. The Mass attendance rates began dropping before the Novus Ordo. You can’t deny it. Nor can you prove it’s the Novus Ordo’s fault, and not some other aspect of society, or of our Church, such as bad priests and bishops, factors you by your very bent believe are out there.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Gentlemen,

"I see you have no problem calling a Cardindal a heretic,..."

"When a Cradinal rejects..."

Gee, I hadn't realized that you guys were so far apart. Can't even agree on a common spelling for cardinal.

;-)

sitetest

Heretics.