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.

[ultima ratio]

Forget the fancy "boilerplate rhetoric." Now I will quote the only significant and pertinent passage:

"when [the Roman Pontiff] speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accordance with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that his Church be instructed in defining doctrine of faith and morals."

What struck contemporaries at the time was how much this definition of infallibility constrained the Pope. Cardinal Newman said, "These conditions contract the range of infallibility most materially." There was a belief by many at the time--just as on this site--that a pope could do no wrong and make no mistakes in judgment, that he was always guided by the Holy Spirit. But this was precisely what Vatican I was not saying. In fact, it gave instances of historic wrongs perpetrated by popes to illustrate its point. The only claim a pope has to infallibility is when he speaks ex cathedra--and that is exceedingly rare. Otherwise, he is like other men, prone to make mistakes--though he is owed our respect and obedience UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS. The crisis we're in is not normal.

[Notwithstanding]

...by changing the subject to one which I was not addressing - I was addressing caprice. I made a valid point - and you immediately tried to minimixe the validity of it.

[ultima ratio]

No one denies there were creeps in the Church in the old days. They were the exception. We're talking subculture here. Open dissent regarding Church teachings on morality. Dissent was never tolerated before Vatican II. Never.

[Catholicguy]

Your skin is thinner than a cell's membrane. I leave it to you to cite where I misrepresented you.

I have never asserted I know your motives. I can see your actions in what you post.

You have repeatedly down both and to claim otherwise is absurd.

The Church tells us that to be Catholic, we need to be in UNITY inWorship, Doctrine and Authority.

Let me ask you if you think you can be in UNITY when you reject various parts of the Magisterium (Doctrine)and reject the decisions of the Pope (Authority). <p. Does The Magisterium anywhere teach we may decide for ourselves what Doctrines we can accept? Does the Magisterium anywhere tell us we can either obey or disobey the Pope dependent upon our own will?

[Catholicguy]

And the difference is?

As Twain said, The difference is between fire and firefly

[patent]

The only claim a pope has to infallibility is when he speaks ex cathedra--and that is exceedingly rare.

You just don’t get it. No one is contending that JPII infallibly excommunicated Lefebvre. Just that he did it. Infallability isn't even relevant here, its not an issue. An excommunication is not a teaching on faith and morals. Its a disciplinary act, a matter of judgment, jurisidiction, etc.

Yes, Vatican I limited the Pope’s infallibility. It also, however, made it clear that he has universal jurisdictional authority, which would obviously include the ability to excommunicate. Again, read it, from Vatican I:

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.)

The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

. Dissent was never tolerated before Vatican II. Never.

It was in this country.

[Catholicguy]

I think his piece needs rereading. I have read it more than once and I honestly don't see it as a condemnation. I see it as a warning

[ultima ratio]

You miss the point of the State of Necessity. It is not what the Pope thinks. Canon laws 1321 and 1323 explcitly state that if the individual, right or wrong, believes in all honesty there is a state of necessity, no excommunication applies.
Lefebvre believed the traditional Church was deliberately being destroyed. He saw this as an unparalleled crisis in the life of the Church. By the way, he died in all serenity--even joking with the nurse that since he could take no nourishment, he shouldn't be paying the same rate as someone who had a good appetite. The man was serene in what he did. He has been demonized by his opposition in the Church (we conservatives know how that works) but he was really a great man. He worked in the African missions all his life among the poorest of the poor.

[Notwithstanding]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/659531/posts

[narses]

Review your own posts to me. Try really hard to stop attacking me, or posting to me or about me unless you intend to do so with honesty and charity. As for my "thin skin", maybe so. Should you refrain from attacking me that won't be an issue now, will it?

[ultima ratio]

In unity with which Church? The new liberal Conciliar Church or the Church of the past two millenia?

[Notwithstanding]

When a stream of Mexicans came to town I tried like heck to get the pastor offer one N.O. mass in Latin each week as an active step to promote unity of faith and community and to help all feel part of the same universal family. (To no avail of course).

The rationale you bring up is valid (One language unites). But it is a prudential matter - and the one whose pridence is in charge is the pope - not you or any other person.

[patent]

You miss the point of the State of Necessity. It is not what the Pope thinks. Canon laws 1321 and 1323 explcitly state that if the individual, right or wrong, believes in all honesty there is a state of necessity, no excommunication applies.

The Pope issued the excommunication under his own authority. Please explain how Canon law trumps the Pope’s authority.

You can’t, because it doesn’t. As silly as the necessity argument is, it isn’t even relevant.

patent  +AMDG

[Notwithstanding]

You really seem like a johnnie one note.

I am quite sure you would not recognize the Mass of the earliest Church if you were seated at the table next to Peter himself 5 years after the Last Supper. None of us would.

[patent]

Why are you relying on documents from Vatican I?

Why are you ignoring them?

patent  +AMDG

[ultima ratio]

Cardinal Ratzinger: "The primacy of the pope cannot be understood on the model of an absolute monarchy." Later he said pretty much the same thing, "The Pope is not an absolute monarch, but must, like all the faithful, obey the transmitted Word and Tradition." He is not, in other words, an innovator, like Paul VI who acted outside of tradition. But at least we're getting somewhere since you now admit that an excommunication, even if imposed, may be pronounced in error.