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 believe that we must support the Pope because he is the Vicar of Christ. This doesn't mean that there are times when respectful and courteous disagreements can help focus the church in times of crisis such as now. But where doesn't it stop? I feel that many of the conservatives are now jumping on the anti-JPII bandwagon, and in essense have ended up on the side of our enemies.
I sincerely don't know where to go or what to do. I pray on this nearly daily, and feel drawn towards protecting the institution of the Church, including the Pope, while speaking out against the individuals who have committed crimes. And, I do believe in the basic Michael Rose premise that many of our problems have come from homosexual and liberal attitudes in our seminaries and that they need to be cleaned up. But I listened to an interview with Michael Rose on Steve Wood's program last week and even Rose said that many of the seminaries that had the worst problems in the 70s and 80s and being cleaned up and fixed.
So, this brings me back to my dilemma: how far do we go while remaining loyal to the Church and its teachings?
St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and inasmuch was given authority over the church on earth. Jesus specifically commanded Peter to "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17), and this is why Catholics say that the Pope speaks infallibly on issues of faith and morals.
The debate on this thread is more a difference, I think, between conservative Catholics. Most of the Catholics in this caucus are conservative politically and theologically; we denounce liturgical abuses, believe that Catholics should live by the Magisterium, and that if the Church says that abortion or contraception or homosexual is a grave or mortal sin, we do not participate in them, regardless of our personal circumstances.
Our differences here is to the degree of dissent allowable under the Canon. Where do we drawn the line? I think it is a worthy discussion for Catholics because most of us want to be in full communion and not be schmatic (split from the Church).
Jesus is your Lord and Savior, and He is also mine. God bless.
The abuse is unacceptable, but don't buy the media line. Most of those abused were post-pubescent boys. This is a homosexuality problem, not a pedophile problem. While the teen-agers abused were innocent and should not be subjected to such evil acts, we need to address the problem of homosexuality, not pedophilia.
Hardly. My parable is spot on target.
Hand has branded so many innocent faithful Catholics, not just myself, as "integrist" or "extreme trad" or "schismatic" that its laughable, and he simply has no credibility.
He does not have the right to be judge, jury, and hangman for the reputations of these good conservative Catholics who he arbitrarily maligns.
Granted, he left the schismatic fold.
But he continues to use their bitter and bile filled MO to "evangelize," something that is not only counterproductive but also sinful.
Several conservative leaders told me to avoid Hand very early. Hand has burned so many of his former friends, who are IN NO WAY integrists or extremists, that among conservative Catholics who know the players and personalities he has a very poor reputation.
So its not that he is wrong specifically on issues, so much as that he judges mens souls and motives with abandon, just like his critics in schism do regarding the Pope and the post-conciliar hierarchy. He is the other side of the same nasty integrist coin. He may have left the integrist but he did not leave their spiteful, hateful, patronizing methods.
I listened to friends flirting with schism, examined their claims fully, but never went for it.
However, I kept the lines of communication open, and I did not use Hand's methods.
As a result, I've helped bring several home to Rome, even out of "Brother Diamond" style integrism. His methods drive integrists further into schism.
by Fr. William G. Most
The Church is sometimes called the universal sacrament of salvation. That use of the word sacrament is broad, not strict. It is true in as much as the Church is the divinely instituted means of giving grace to all. But the Church is not a visible rite - it rather confers these visible rites which we call the seven Sacraments.
From the fact that the Church is God's means of giving grace, is it is clear that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This truth has even been defined by the Church more than once, e.g., in the Council of Florence in 1442. However we must take care to understand this teaching the way the Church understands it. We just saw that the Church claims the exclusive authority to interpret both Scripture and Tradition. So one like Leonard Feeney who interprets the teaching on the necessity of the Church his own way is not acting like a Catholic theologian at all. The Holy Office, on August 8, 1949, declared that L. Feeney was guilty of this error. Because of his error, he rejected several teachings of the Magisterium, saying they clashed with this definition - but they clash only with his false interpretation, given in private judgment.
Pius IX (Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863) taught: "God... in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault." Vatican II (Lumen gentium # 16) taught the same: "They who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation." Pius XII had said (Mystici Corporis Christi) that one can "be related to the Church by a certain desire and wish of which he is not aware", i.e., by the desire to do what God wills in general.
Precisely how does this work out? We saw on our very first page that St. Paul insists (Romans 3:29) that God makes provision in some way for all. We saw that one of the earliest Fathers, St. Justin Martyr (Apology 1:46) said that some, like Socrates could even be Christians because they followed the divine Word. Now St. Justin also said that the Divine Word is in the hearts of all. Then we notice in St. Paul's Romans 2:14-16 that "The gentiles who do not have the law [revealed religion] do by nature the things of the law; they show the work of the law written on their hearts." And according to their response, they will or will not be saved.
Clearly, it is this Divine Word, or the Spirit of Christ, the Divine Word, that writes the law on their hearts, i.e., makes known to them what they should do. If they follow that, although they do not know that that is what they are following, yet objectively, they do follow the Logos, the divine Word. And so St. Justin was right in calling them Christians. We can add that St. Paul in Romans 8:9 makes clear that if one has and follows the Spirit of Christ, he "belongs to Christ." But, to belong to Christ is the same as being a member of Christ, and that is the same as being a member of the Church. Not indeed by formal adherence, but yet substantially, enough to satisfy the requirement of substantial membership. Indeed, Vatican II even wrote (LG # 49): "All who belong to Christ, having His Spirit, coalesce into one Church."
So, St. Paul was right: God does take care of them; St. Justin was right too: they can be Christians without knowing it. Otherwise, God would be sending millions upon millions to hell without giving them any chance at all, if they lived far from places where the Church was known, e.g., in the western hemisphere before 1492.
That fact that salvation is possible in this way does not mean that there should be no missions or attempts to bring back the Protestants. Richer and more secure means of salvation are to be had with formal explicit adherence to the Catholic Church. Therefore we need to make every effort. In regard to Ecumenism, it is good to keep in mind a rule from Vatican II, in its Decree on Ecumenism (# 11): "It is altogether necessary that the complete doctrine be clearly presented. Nothing is so foreign to true Ecumenism as that false peace-making in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss, and its true and certain sense is obscured."
Basic Catholic Catechism
PART FIVE: The Apostles' Creed IX - XII
Ninth Article: "The Holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints"
By William G. Most. (c) Copyright 1990 by William G. Most.
The Special Danger of Ultra-Traditionalist MovementsColin B. Donovan, STL, EWTN's Heresy, Schism and ApostasyThere is within the Church today a special danger for those who, often for seemingly legitimate reasons (abuses of the liturgy, the open promotion of heresy even by clergy, and similar causes), have sought refuge in traditionalist movements on the margins of the Church. These groups, distinguishable from those who love the Tridentine tradition of the Mass and sacraments and who celebrate them in Communion with the Pope, go their own way outside of the laws of the Church. They typically rationalize their disobedience by attacking the Second Vatican Council, the current liturgical rites, ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, and often Pope John Paul II personally, never distinguishing between teaching and law on the one hand, and the abuse of it by dissenters and the disobedient on the other.
These groups, such as the Society of St. Pius X, of Pius V, the "We Resist You to Your Face" movement, Br. Dimond and Holy Family Monastery, make ready use of scandals to gain support among the unwary, who, discouraged by their local situation, may think they are joining a more perfect orthodoxy and a more loyal remnant of Catholics. Thankfully such motives may excuse the average person who takes comfort in such groups, at least initially, though as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches to take scandal in other's sins is istself sinful. However, there is a great danger that starting from the material schism of refusing submission to the Pope, that all these groups have in common, the Catholic cannot long maintain the schizophrenic position of saying they are being submissive to the Pope while disobeying him. At some point they must choose and formally adhere to the schism of the group. In some cases the group identity depends on some formal repudiation of the "Novus Ordo" Church, very effectively hastening the spiritual demise of the lay adherent.
Also unfortunate for such souls is the fact that these ultra-traditionalist groups profess to be doctrinally orthodox, an orthodoxy which necessarily includes the teaching that Outside the Church There Is No Salvation. This means that someone who has formally separated himself from the Church through heresy or schism, or knowing the Church to be true failed to enter her, cannot be saved, unless of course they renounce their own will and reconcile with the Church. Unlike the non-Catholic Christian, can the super-orthodox claim invincible ignorance of this teaching? Can they escape the condemnation of Pope Boniface VIII, who in first elaborating it said, "this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God ...? No wonder that given enough time such groups inevitably produce those who claim that the See of Peter is vacant, since the logic of their schismatic attitude is ultimately irreconcilable with the doctrine of papal primacy, as enunciated by both Pope Boniface and Vatican I.
Excommunications were invalid - read the 1983 Code of Cannon Law.I’ve read it, it doesn’t say that.
The Pope issued the excommunications under his own authority, not under the Canon law. The Canon law also stems from the Pope’s authority. Canon law can’t trump the Pope, he can abrogate it anytime he likes.
When has the Pope said that our seperated bretheren share the fruits of Christ's redemptive act only through invincible ignornace?How else could they share it? If they know that the Church is the one true Church and reject it anyway, they are at fault.
The Pope has never said that the faithful cannot attend the SSPX Mass.He said it was a schism, and his catechism is clear you don’t go to a schismatic Mass unless no other Mass is available.
Cardinal Ratzinger has stated that the SSPX is not in schism.When, where and what did he say?
Cardinal Strickler says I can attend the SSPX Mass.When, where, and what did he say?
patent +AMDG
It figures.
Folks keep citing Paul withstanding Cephas to his face; Galatians 2:11 "But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blameable." I didn't know that all those who were citing this "precedent" as liberty to oppose the Pope were, like Paul, A Bishop, an Apostle. I am happy to know we have so many Bishops in Freeperville.
"The fault that is here noted in the conduct of S. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving ofence to the Jewish converts: but this in circumstances, when his doing so might be of il consquence tp the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obligd to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of Christian living," is how my Douay explains the action of Paul
It happened ONCE, over a relatively inconsequential matter and it was done by a Bishop. Contrast that with the "Trads," layman all, who repeatdly, hundreds of times, thousands of times, day after relentless mind-numbing day, attack an Ecumenical council, the normative Mass, Papal Encyclicals, Canon Law, Univeral Catechism and Ecumenical activities.
There simply is NO justification for the actions of these Catholic quislings who routinely attack The Magisterium as though it were but the Campaign Party Platform of some Political Party - oh, I forgot, they do it as "loyal, Catholics."
Right
You had me worried there for awhile. LOL!
" It is certainly true that no man of good sense will ever believe that some private individuals or some bishops have more at heart the rights and liberty of the Church than has the Holy See itself, the Mother and Mistress of all the Churches. Or that in order to procure this good, the Roman Church needs to be prodded by those who, in order to be and to be held as good Catholics, owe the Roman Church submission and obedience before all else... "Therefore, there can be no legitimate cause for these men, whoever were the first leaders of those concerned today, to be separated from the most holy communion of the Catholic world. Let them not rely on the upright quality of their conduct, not on their fidelity to discipline, not on their zeal in safeguarding teaching and stability in religion. Does not the Apostle say plainly that without charity all this profiteth nothing? (1 Cor. 13:10)... "From this it follows that they cannot promise themselves any of the graces and fruits of the perpetual sacrifice of the sacraments which, although they are sacrilegiously administered, are nonetheless valid and serve in some measure that form and an appearance of piety which St. Paul mentions and which St. Augustine speaks of at greater length: "The form of the branch,’ says the latter with great precision, ‘may still be visible, even apart from the vine, but the invisible life of the root can be preserved only in union with the stock. That is why the corporal sacraments, which some keep and use outside the unity of Christ, can preserve the appearance of piety. But the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated member’"
(Serm. LXXXI). (Pope Leo XIII, Letter Exima nos Laetitia to the Bishop of Poiters, July 19,1893.), The Church (Papal Teachings), St. Paul editions, Boston, 1962, pp. 292-293, as cited in "The Pope, the Council and the Mass", Kenneth Whitehead, James Likoudis, pp. 165-166.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He hasn't changed. Have you?
Beautifully said. I think we all have changed to one extent or another since the media outbreak about sexual abuse in the Church.
I know I have done a lot more PRAYING and meditating on the Word of God than talking and throwing stones at those who have sinned.
We really cannot judge. And we must remember that God is all-merciful.
I think Benedictine. Why was he running a doicese? Got me.
Likewise.
Initially, I said your parable sank at the dock. Having read yur response, I now think it fell apart in the boatshop during initial construction. You need to reread what he wrote.
No credibility? When Bishop Bruskewitz wrote the preface to Hand's Series in "The Wanderer," did he count as one with credibility?
Hand goes out of his way to be balanced. ANYONE can go and read TCR and see you charges are without merit. I don't know what happened between you two, but it has caused you to lose any critical thinking/judgement re his website.
I ask any Freeper to go to www.TCRnews.com and cite for me ONE piece by Hand that even gets within a galactic distance of being as you describe them. Better yet, YOU do it. Substantiate your charge.
Get a grip
I was as cool as the other side of the pillow when I typed that word. It has the dual advantage of being both accurate and phonetically alliterative when paired with Catholic; as in "Catholic quisiling." I won't withdraw it.
Mike, I look forward to the time when you ask someone to "withdraw" their attacks against The Magisterium. I can send you a list of names. It is rather lengthy...
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.