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.

Where is the UNITY in worship over the past 40 years:

Where was the unity of the first 400 years? There was no one Rite back then, there was no universal Rite. Read the link narses provided above, anyone with any liturgical history knows that the Rites developed from a pretty loose and free situation wherein there were certain parts that were always there, but each Bishop was free to innovate.

Was the Church in disarray then?

No, because the Pope is the unity, so long as you are in communion with him, you are in unity with the rest of the world’s Catholics. Same as today.

patent +AMDG

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."

That is nice. How does that change Vatican I’s definition of the Pope’s jurisdiction? And to whatever extent you think it changes that, please explain how Cardinal Ratzinger trumps an Ecumenical Councils solemn pronouncement?

He is not, in other words, an innovator, like Paul VI who acted outside of tradition.

Disciplinary tradition, like the Mass, does not bind the Pope. You are confusing two concepts. There are traditions on faith and morals that have been held by the Church consistently from the beginning.

Then there are disciplinary traditions. Discipline changes. You cannot deny that.

But at least we're getting somewhere since you now admit that an excommunication, even if imposed, may be pronounced in error.

I have never denied that an excommunication can be reversed. What I do deny, and which you can’t seem to rebut, though you keep talking about necessity over and over, is that canon law can trump the Pope’s personal authority. Hey, the Pope can make a mistake and excommunicate you for bad reasons. Your still excommunicated, and still in schism.

patent +AMDG

Dissent was not tolerated before Vatican II, here or anywhere else. Give an example of open dissent on any important issue. I can only think of Fr. Feeney--and he got clobbered by the Vatican.

Again, Boston’s seminary. It was rampant with a homosexual subculture prior to V2, and at least for a time afterwards. It was well known, but they essentially took control and threatened to blackmail the Cardinal with all the seminarians leaving if he tried to get control back.

Eventually, years later, he took control, but for some time he tolerated the dissent. That is one.

I can also give you examples of where dissent has been cracked down on post Vatican II. Or I can cite to how long it took to crack down on Luther, the arch heretic, way back when. That the Church doesn’t move as quickly as you would like is not your position to judge.

patent +AMDG

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.

You are right in that the decline is not fault of the Novus Ordo, in and of itself. However, it is the fault of those who used the opportunity of the change from one rite to the other to transform the Novus Ordo into something it was never intended to be -- the universal change to the vernacular, the bland ICEL translation, the gender norming, the "innovative" wording of the canon. Those 'bad priests and bishops' you mentioned would have had a lot less to work with if the Mass had remained in Latin, you must admit. I'd even go so far as to speculate that there would be a good deal more Catholics attending mass in this country if the change had never occurred.

I guarantee you, without the grace of God, I would have left the Church for all the banal preaching and cheesy music I was exposed to as a child and a teenager. Many of my contemporaries have done just that. Hence, the empty pews...

I know you will go back to the argument that he is the ultimate authority despite what cannon law says, but what is the point of cannon law if everything simply comes down to a judgement call by the Pope?

It governs everyone else, no? The Pope is not the only person in the Church who can excommunicate. Everyone else is subject to the law he set down to govern them.

>>>>I guarantee you, without the grace of God,

Heh. I agree. Without the grace of God you would be a heretic, a pagan, and spiritually dead as a doornail.

As would I, and 1 billion other Catholics.

patent

So if one is excommunicated even for bad reasons then they are outside the Church and if they die before acceptance back into the Church, they go to hell, right? Do they get released from hell when another Pope comes along and reverses the excommunication?

LOL, good question. I don’t know, and I never presume to judge who is heaven and who is hell bound. I’m sorry, I just can’t answer that.

patent +AMDG

One big difficulty I find with Hand is his position on clerical celibacy,an issue wherein he chooses not to follow the Pope's clear techings. Yes,I know it is a "discipline" and could change but in the present fray,I see it as laughable that he,on one preaches total allegiance to the Pope on all matters except one with which he disagrees,on that issue its okay to offer other opinions.

I have only attended a Tridentine Mass five or six times since the 60's because our bishop will not provide the Indult for us.Those times I also went to my own parish to attend the N.O.,because the way I read what the Pope has said unless the bishop authorizes it,we must attend the N.O..Nonetheless,I am grateful for the fact that the Tridentine Mass is alive and well,I just wish it were offerred more generously as the Pope has requested.More accurately,I wish that it was offered in every diocese not as an indult but as a right.

without substantiating all of the accusations

So you believe the press regarding Rose's book?

I've read Rose's book, the criticisms, and Rose's response.

Frankly, the criticisms ring hollow. Rose did his homework, he substantiated his accusations, and the mainstream Catholic media has rejected it. They have not succedded, in my mind, at undermining the validity of Rose's work.

I happen to agree with you. I merely bring up the canons to illustrate the unfairness of Rome's treatment of Lefebvre. The fix was in. The same thing happened in China recently and Rome shrugged and said it was disappointed. Rome tolerated all kinds of heretical nonsense from corrupt bishops and seminaries for three and a half decades, but at the slightest whisper of criticism from the indult priests of the FSSP and the Vatican fired their general and replaced two orthodox priest-professors in their seminary. The order had been growing by leaps and bounds with more vocations than they could handle. Rome sought to break its spirit--and did. Meanwhile the other seminaries teach gay rights and deny the Real Presence and the divinity of Christ . You tell me what's going on. It sure ain't the Catholic faith.

While I, too,

"just wish it were offerred more generously as the Pope has requested. More accurately,I wish that it was offered in every diocese not as an indult but as a right,"

until that time, I will obey the pope who has not instructed that we ignore our local bishop's lawful directives - however imprudent they may be.

I have read it more than once and I honestly don't see it as a condemnation. I see it as a warning.

The title of the piece is: "When the Pope's Friends Walk Away." Of course it's a condemnation. It's a hit piece. Anyone who is even an occasional news reader knows a hit piece when they see one. And even if you read it as "just a warning," who exactly gave Mr. Hand the authority to issue such a warning?

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.