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.
"Where's all the charity from the Vatican II, Novus Ordo crowd? They constantly call for charity towards the Pope and turn around and hurl epithets at people who are trying to defend the Faith."
Don't you think that's an unfair generalization?
sitetest
Actually, the ICEL English translations of the Latin standard of the Novus Ordo provide much to loathe also.
The problem is not only in disobedience to rubrics.
It lies alsi in the vernacular translations themselves which are loaded with liberal agendas and the watering down of any Latin phrases that bespeak "sacrifice."
But John Paul II's own 1983 Code of Cannon law said that the penalty could not be applied.Where? The Canon does not say that, it says if he acted in a state of necessity, unless the the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls First of all, this is presuming the penalty is meted out under Canon law. JPII did not resort to Canon law, he issued the excommunication by his own authority, so this Canon law argument is facially irrelevant.
Second, since he is the supreme judge, he determines what is or is not necessity. He determines when this canon applies in the first place, not you. Unless he states Lefebvre acted in necessity, you cant make any claim that this necessity thing overrides HIS excommunication. No Bishop, priest, theologian, canon lawyer, or layman can make a decree overriding the Pope.
Third, schism is intrinsically evil, and it clearly tends to be harmful to souls. There can be no doubt on this point. Therefore, schisming was not the answer, and having done so Lefebvre cannot turn to this Canon.
patent +AMDG
Vatican I made it clear that the Pope is circumscribed in his power.You have been previously asked for a quote supporting this statement. I again ask for it. Please provide the quote to support or demonstrate what you mean. Again, Vatican I was quite broad in describing the Popes power:
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. (Vatican I, Session 4 , Ch. 3, 8.)His infallibility is narrow, his jurisdictional power is not.
He must speak ex cathedra to be infallible. Otherwise he can err.Of course he can err, but he still has jurisidiction over you. His excommunication of Lefebvre could have, prudentially, been a stupid thing to do. But he did it, and its valid.
A good example, by the way, of the double standard employed by the Vatican these days is its attitude toward China's Catholic Patriotic Association headed by President Jiang. This is a Communist- created organization that is decidedly pro-abortion, and it recently had its puppet bishop illicitly consecrate new bishops, despite papal disaproval. What was Jn Paul's reaction? A Vatican spokesman expressed "surprise" and "disappointment." Pius XII had reproved the same organization for doing the exact same thing some decades ago, only he called the consecrations "criminal and sacriligious."Oh, MY WORD! JPII didnt use the same exact words to describe new Consecrations! Surely, the chair is empty.
patent +AMDG
Apology accepted.
However, my impression is that there are some rude posters on both sides, here. I've noticed that some of your posts, in particular, here at FR have been combative in the extreme.
But you are correct in noting that not all the defenders of the Magisterium have done so charitably.
sitetest
Shanley was given free reign AFTER ordination--after Vatican II.He was well taught in the seminary, and was ordained in 1960. His abuse started nearly immediately. Plus, you are ignoring James Porter, who was mostly pre Vatican II, and was coddled by pre Vatican II Bishops, etc.
Does anybody think the pre-conciliar Church would have tolerated a priest who openly preached on behalf of NAMBLA?When did the first Bishop who tolerated him get ordained and Consecrated? Where do you think all this stuff came from in the 1960s? Vatican II was written, and poof, the poofters appeared? Before the Novus Ordo even? The seminary out in Boston was rife with homosexuality long before these events.
Look, you guys won't even admit there's a problem.There are huge problems, but you arent even close to the source.
But not on this scale, not with so little effort by the episcopacy to stem the floodtide.It was out in Boston.
patent
Exactly. Therefore, he is excommunicated."Unless he states Lefebvre acted in necessity, you cant make any claim that this necessity thing overrides HIS excommunication"Why would he need to state that it was a necessity. If the Pope believed it was a necessity, then there would be no excommunication.
I hate using analogies but it's as if a cop pulled you over on the side of the road and told you he wasn't going to give you a speeding ticket beacuase you weren't speeding.Right, by the very act of giving the speeding ticket, he is saying he believes you were speeding.
As it is here. By the very act of excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre, JPII states he believed there was no necessity, and that Archbishop Lefebvre is no longer in communion with him.
patent +AMDG
I agree, myself included.
However, we are all qualified to view the present crisis and discern its roots.
Every orthodox Catholic knows the current scandal revolve around laxity in sexual morality, and particularly homosexuality.
All of us agree this is harmful to the Church.
The evidence is too overwhelming to argue otherwise.
Some few lay people, Michael Rose for instance, have attempted to take a closer look.
For this, the "establishment" Catholic media and Catholic commentators like Steve Hand have eviscerated Rose.
This is frustrating, especially when those critics use slurs regarding the company Rose and others keep to discredit the facts instead of acknowledging the underlying crisis and the Truths Rose has revealed.
???
It would be easy for me to say to you "just ignore those hateful emails" I suppose, since I am not the one receiving them. I have read your posts for awhile and they clearly show the love you have for our faith.
There aren't many Catholics where I live and it is such a joy to come here where there are so many sincere, faithful catholics. Look...I'm just an average person of average intelligence who doesn't post often because I'm sure to say the wrong thing, misspell something or use the wrong term. (I can't imagine why Siobhan thinks so highly of me, but she couldn't be more right about you and patent. GEMS you are. Anyway, I just wanted you to know that I, for one, greatly appreciate your contributions here.
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.