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.
"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."
I'm sure that you're right that that is Mr. Hand's intention. However, I think that Mr. Hand gets carried away in some of his "warnings".
After all, he cites Mr. Rose for the offense of selling his book through websites which Mr. Hand views as suspect, and for having friends which Mr. Hand views as possibly schismatic.
That sort of cricitism just doesn't seem fair. It sounds more like guilt by association than anything else.
As to some of the other criticisms of other people in this opinion piece, he doesn't relate enough facts to know whether or not his "warnings" are warranted or not. It's only because I've read Mr. Rose's book that I know that Mr. Rose doesn't speak against the pope or the Magisterium in his book. I'm unfamiliar with the work of the other people "warned".
And, in fact, this is a general criticism I have of Mr. Hand's opinion pieces: they are often long on "warning" and short on facts upon which he is basing his opinions. A lot of the material on TCRNews is good stuff, but Mr. Hand's opinion pieces often seem off-the-mark, or at least, not well-argued from any evidence provided in the pieces themselves.
Commentary like this comes off as hysterical and unreasoned.
sitetest
C'mon now, be fair and stop ascribing motives. I was not attempting to minimize anything. I was simply noting an aside, that was tangential to your point.
I apologize for entering into your debate. It was not my intent to minimize your point, which was completely valid and with which I agree.
Its frustrating to see so many good faithful Catholics, even those of us who have been traditional allies and friends on these threads, so divided and engaged in infighting here and elsewhere. It really upsets me, as I'm sure it does others here. And I'm at my worst here when I'm upset. Sorry.
I happen to agree with you.I will be back in a couple hours. I have to run to the hospital to be treated for shock. ;-)
I merely bring up the canons to illustrate the unfairness of Rome's treatment of Lefebvre.OK, now this is a whole different issue. Has Rome treated traditionalists badly? There is legitimate room for discussion on this. Personally, I think they have at times. I know people who think they always have, others who think they never have. But I can’t criticizing you for saying its unfair.
The same thing happened in China recently and Rome shrugged and said it was disappointed.China is a very different situation. Many of the Bishops in the Patriotic Association are actually a part of the Church, they have (underground) sought out and unified with the Pope. Things over there are very complicated, and since its all being done out of the public eye, its hard to know what is the truth.
The order had been growing by leaps and bounds with more vocations than they could handle.It still is. Every time I check my mail at home they are talking about how badly they need to expand the seminary. I think they know a sucker when they see one. ;-)
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.That part is not the Catholic faith, true. However, that stuff is not universal. This is not the first time a portion of the Church has abandoned the faith, and it won’t be the last. 200 years from now, though, we will still be here, whereas the amchurch will be history. As will the Society, unless they reconcile, which I pray they will.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
It takes two to Tango, Narses. Whenever I click on "comments" I have a message from you. I would think that were I you and I was feeling under attack, I would just ignore the cruel man attacking me and I would stop hitting him for a response - unless, I was trying to tempt him into a response that would have him banned.
But, my skin is as thick as Roseanne Barr's ass is large. I am Irish and Algonquin and I do the best with what I have. You know me and what I consider to be my bailiwick and my manner of posting. I know some think it rude, abrasive, counterproductive and I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that other posters are inane, insipid, whiny, obtuse, otiose, anfractuous and, one or two, even sesquipedalic. HOWEVER, I acknowledge that God created each of us individually and I don't go about instructing others that my preferred way of communication ought to be the norm. Good Lord, are we men arguing over literally Salvific issues or are we jaw-boning about how to fold the napkins?
I think of G.K. Chesterton remarking how if men argued loud and long into the night, they did it over important matters. I don't recall that great man tut-tutting over rhetorical probity.
Seriously, I think you ought to reconsider your presence as a Freeper person. I am the same age as Israel and the men I argue with about Doctrine and Theology wouldn't even notice the accidents of the florid rhetoric - except to relish it's presence - and they would attend to the substance of the debate.
In any event, sitetest and patent and others can attest to the fact that I can be tenacious in an arguement but I don't think they would accuse me of intending the harm of another and I think they know I admire their thought, restraint and presentation; but there are others I admire just as much - such as LaBelle sans Merci who can cut a rhetorical rug with anyone.
It is often the case that those the argue the loudest love the best. Maybe I will claim St. Jerome as my role model. Nevertheless, I think you might want to consider NOT sending a post to me and, seriously, I mean this sincerely, you might want to reconsider your presence as a Freeper.
You sound like you might be too sensitive a man to mix it up
Amen. Were it relevant, any Bishop at any time could declare "an emergency exists" and he could go off and start his own mirror church. Imagine Bishop Weakland with a line of his own Bishops....
As far as the sspx arguing canon law, please. They reject much of the new code and rewrote the parts they didnt like
You are confusing doctrine with discipline. Not long ago I saw you repeatedly defend the discipline of celibacy as if it were Church doctrine.
Please go learn the difference before you post further insults to those who have displayed that they at least grasp this foundational difference.
To engage in dispassioned critique and debate of the form of the liturgy is not to engage in deciding for ourselves what Doctrines we can accept.
You are making the same fatal error as your Mr Hand, proof of the poor fruits of his purposeful blurring of distinctions between dissent on papal authority or the validity and licitness of the mass and the completely legitimate discussion of the prudence of the disciplinary changes in the liturgy.
You are proving my thesis here with these posts of yours.
It's almost identical to the Lutheran worship. Check it out. Word for word.Care to post the text of the identical “word for word” Lutheran service?
I would agree with you that many of the steps being taken resemble Protestant steps, but there aren’t any Lutherans saying the Novus Ordo at Church.
patent +AMDG
That must be big news to the many other valid liturgical rites besides the modern "Latin" rite.
My own bishop used this we need to be in UNITY in Worship line in trying to prevent faithful Catholics from genuflecting in line before receiving communion.
It is at best a two edged sword.
"OPINION pieces at TCR are obviously or clearly identified as such."
I hadn't suggested otherwise. But opinions can be based on facts, or can be formed without regard to facts. When you wish to argue your opinion, it helps to introduce facts into your argument, to make folks want to think that your opinion might accurately describe what is true.
Mr. Hand is arguing, in his opinion, that several gentlemen, Mr. Rose, Mr. Sungenis, and others, are "walking away from the pope". He introduces an item or two of evidence - that Mr. Rose's book is sold from websites that Mr. Hand has a problem with, and is friends with people who may be schismatics, that Mr. Sungenis is critical of an act of the pope. But the "evidence" against the former is nothing more than saying that Mr. Hand doesn't like Mr. Rose's friends, and the "evidence" against the latter is so unelaborated that one can make no judgement on it oneself.
It would be helpful to offer something that Mr. Rose has said against the Magisterium or the pope. It would be helpful to offer some of Mr. Sungenis' argument against the Assisi event. Rather, we are to take Mr. Hand's word that Mr. Rose is up to no good with schismatics, and that Mr. Sungenis' arguments comprise a rash attack.
Well, I really don't know what Mr. Rose does in his spare time, but I read his book. I can't recall a single attack on the pope or the Magisterium. So, what's the beef? That makes me view Mr. Hand's criticism of Mr. Sungenis with a little skepticism. Mr. Hand needs to provide a little more evidence to sustain his opinions, or folks may come to think little of them.
sitetest
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.