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.
Your parable sunk at the dock.
Mr. Hand didn't say they WERE overboard. He was cautioning them about the DANGER. Instead of your parable, think of Hand as a Beacon anchored to solid ground warning those about the the rocky shores of private judgement and selective obedience he himself was almost dashed against.
I think many of those who have responded to this piece missed the first sentence.
This was a warning not a condemnation.
As to those that noted being friends with others who are in varying degrees of union with the Pope,I will just note that in my case, when I had some pieces published in schismatic-leaning papers and in online sites, I was routinely applauded and flattered and told I was "bold" and "bright" and "faithful" and "very knowledgeable."
Once I quit my flirtation with schism, I suddenly became an "idiot" a "coward" a "traitor" and a "protestant" and my former friends do not talk with me. C'est le Vie
It's FORMER Archbishop Weakland, but your point is otherwise well taken. He was a law unto himself, and now that he has been disgraced it seems that they are not even going to prosecute him for misappropriating $450,000+ of Dioscesan funds. My purse will be zipped tight the next time the Bishop asks for a donation. We can't even get him out of the dioscese. His face is slapped on the front page of the newspaper everytime they write about the Catholic Church here. I wish he would go back to his "Order" house to live out his days and leave Milwaukee to recover under the new Bishop.
Sure, Jesus said ``Get behind me Satan,'' but he also gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom. Of course, St. Paul wasn't there for Jesus' ministry, he was busy persecuting Christians. So what's your point, that we should play, ``Who's the best disciple?''I think his point is that, since St. Paul (who was divinely inspired, miraculously chosen and converted by God, and who was an Apostle) rebuked Peter once, therefore Mr. McDuel and colleagues are free to rant and rave all they like about how horrible the Pope is, how he has done nothing for the faith, and of course they are free to schism and ordain their own Bishops as freely as they like.
Since, after all, St. Paul spoke to St. Peter once.
patent +AMDG
But for arguements sake, let's presume you are correct and I am a schismaticThe SSPX Bishops were excommunicated, and JPII called it a schism. Whether you are personally schismatic or not I’ll leave to the Church to work out, but the Church has spoken about your Bishops and the Society.
It has said they are schismatic.
According to the Holy Father John Paul II, there are many paths to HeavenActually the Holy Father has not said that. Jesus Christ is the only path.
and our "seperated bretheran" are able to share in the fruits of Christ's redemptive act. So what have I to lose by trying my best to follow the teaching of Christ, the saints, many Popes and doctors of the Church?The separated brethren can get there through a level of invincible ignorance, but even then their odds would be much better if they were to reside in the bosom of the Church.
You, fully knowing the Pope to be God’s representative on earth, do not have the luxury of invincible ignorance. You have the faith, should you leave it it is your choice. You are not a Protestant, don’t act like one.
You can have at least some of the Sacramental Grace in the SSPX, the liturgy is valid of course. But if you are schismatic, you recognize that, as Aquinas said, schism is a sin against charity. Sins separate us from God, especially one this serious. Were it me, this would be a cause for concern. That is what you have to lose.
You can’t claim you are doing your best to follow the teachings of “many Popes and doctors of the Church” and then proceed to ignore - in part or in whole - the Pope placed over you today. The Church is not a dead organism, as so many Protestants would have us believe. Its teaching authority did not end after Trent or Vatican I. To believe this is similar to believing that its teaching authority ended after the Apostles died, as most Protestants believe.
Vatican I also made it clear you have to do more than obey the infallible pronouncements. The Pope has ultimate jurisdiction, and a Catholic is subject to that. If you are not subject to that authority, you are schismatic, and that authority states you can’t properly attend a Society Mass.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
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.