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.
He did, It is his website and it his opinion.
WE will disagree as to whether it is a warning or a "hit piece." There are a bunch of qualifers "it seems,".."it appears"..etc etc. Hit pieces don't usually include so many qualifiers
Commentary like this comes off as hysterical and unreasoned.
Good summary. Much better than my own previous hysterical and unreasoned attempts at clarifying.
Was this not Cardinal Cushing? He attended and participated in Vatican II, did he not?Yes he did. So did Archbishop Lefebvre.
Do we have any idea what his views were? I'm asking honestly because I do not know. A quick web search, however, revealed the following:IIRC, Cushing was all over the board on the state law regarding contraception. There was a lot of dissent in Boston when Humane Vitae came out.From a speech from a member of "Catholics for Free Choice:"
"Interestingly enough, closer to our day, in 1965 Massachusetts was beginning to legalize birth control. Cardinal Cushing was asked what his opinions were on the legalization of birth control. He said: "Catholics do not need the support of civil law to be faithful to their religious convictions and they do not seek to impose by law their moral views on other members of society." "
By and large, the seminary problems were both his and his predecessors, I believe, but I’m going entirely on memory on that. Supposedly, it is cleaned up today.
Make of these what you will....I don’t have a remarkably good impression of the Cardinal. Nor, frankly am I overly impressed with anyone in the Boston line that I’m aware of, pre or post V2.
The notion that the liturgy is a mere disciplinary matter is false. Nothing is more bound up in dogma than the liturgy. And it is the dogmatic ambiguity of the Novus Ordo that is so painful and problematic to traditional Catholics. It is noticably Arian in its tendency.The Rite is disciplinary. There are certain things that, dogmatically, are necessary for a valid Rite, and many, many things in the Rite that reflect dogma.
But the Rite is discipline.
False. The form of the liturgy is indeed a disciplinary matter. This is accepted throughout Catholicism.
Nothing is more bound up in dogma than the liturgy.
True. But that does not make liturgy a matter of faith and morals or doctrine and dogma. The regulation of the liturgy remains a disciplinary matter over which Popes have authority.
And it is the dogmatic ambiguity of the Novus Ordo that is so painful and problematic to traditional Catholics.
True to an extent. But even dogmatically ambiguous liturgies can be valid and licit when promulgated by the Pope. The Holy Spirit provides it will indeed be valid and licit. It does not guarantee it will be pretty, or that it will not be dogmatically ambiguous.
To paraphrase a saint, our generation has received the liturgy it deserves. It ain't always pretty, its awesome truths may be hidden under banal music, and its vernacular translations may truly stink.
But it is valid and licit, and Christ is Truly Infinitely present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity none-the less. By obsessing over the disciplinary matters, the form of the liturgy, and denying the valid Real Presence, you reduce Christ's Real Presence to a mere mascot, thrust aside in your obsession with returning to the old mass.
Such return may in the end be the prudent and actual result.
The method some use to arrive at that hoped-for goal is often counterproductive, and lost in the noise is the Reality of the Eucharist, an Infinite Reality not limited by the discipline of the mass rite used to bring that reality into our lives.
To be honest I really don't know. The history he has that I know of is a terribly mixed bag, but I don't at all know his view of V2. The quote you provided above actually expanded my knowledge.
patent
You know the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist, right?
You can negotiate with a terrorist.
I know its the post-VII liturgists this applies to, but I thought a moment of (weak?) humor might help...
While the communists may or may not have been homosexuals they were certainly smart enough to know that if they could inculcate that vice into the seminary culture,it would serve their ultimate objective well.
And another technique of liberals,marxists,socialists and others seeking to wrest power is to keep subdividing groups into smaller and smaller sub groups.Take a look at this thread and weep,all who care.
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.