Posted on 07/26/2002 2:35:57 PM PDT by narses
As a traditional Jew, I'm deeply concerned over the plight of the Roman Catholic Church, which I consider to be the largest and most influential repository of conservative Judeo-Christian values in America today. I believe that those of us who care about the furtherance of a moral society have a stake in the future of the church as a moral force. The American church is under siege today, not only from the usual external forces but also from the weight of its own internal contradictions. The scandal of corrupt homosexual priests violating the innocence of minors in their care is, to put it mildly, a contradiction in Christian and Catholic practice and faith. When did this corruption inject itself into the system and why was the situation allowed to deteriorate to such a degree?
Much has been written regarding Communist methods of infiltration. The standard method was to "bore from within" which involved Communists disguising themselves as loyalists to an organization they sought to undermine. Once gaining entry, they would gradually and subtly change the values and principles of the targeted organization. The process of "change" can take a generation. Communists have exhibited unlimited patience and supreme confidence in the ultimate attainment of their goals. Examples in America include substantial inroads by Communists into organized labor, academia, the legal profession, race relations, cultural institutions, and the government itself.
When planning to infiltrate, the Communists probe for an institutional weakness to exploit and, in the case of the Catholic Church, perhaps they perceived the weakness to reside in the all-male celibate priesthood. Did Communists send their followers, particularly homosexuals, sexual deviants, and enablers, into seminaries to become priests in order to foster a homosexual culture within the church? Homosexuals, practicing their predilections in an overwhelmingly conservative Catholic community, while given protection by well placed minded superiors, could certainly contribute to the undermining of faith in Catholicism and could unquestionably shake the credibility and moral standing of the church itself down to its very foundations. Undermining Catholic authority has been a clear and often stated goal of the Communist left. Speculation regarding how the Communists attempted to implement their program is reasonable and necessary in order to better understand the present situation.
Two former Communists, Bella Dodd and Manning Johnson, spoke on Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church. Dodd, an important Communist party lawyer, teacher and activist, converted to Catholicism in April 1952 under the tutelage of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Stating that the Communist infiltration was so extensive that in the future "you will not recognize the Catholic Church," Dodd also asserted that:
"In the 1930's, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within."
"Right now they are in the highest places, and they are working to bring about change in order that the Catholic Church will no longer be effective against Communism."
Manning Johnson, a former Communist Party official and author of "Color, Communism and Common Sense" testified in 1953 to the House un-American Activities Committee regarding the infiltration of the Catholic Church:
"Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin ... the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the (Catholic) Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions (Europe also had its cells) and the religious make-up peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes This policy of infiltrating seminaries was successful beyond even our communist expectations."
As a radio talk show host and avid listener to talk radio in Boston, I've listened intently to comments by Catholics as the crisis has unfolded. Much has been said regarding the left dominance of the seminaries and a prevalence of the ideas of "liberation theology" which is a biblically contradictory Trojan horse within the Catholic gates. Establishment organs, such as the Boston Globe, continue to wring their hands over the homosexual activities of priests while supporting a homosexual agenda everywhere else. Hopefully, the Catholic flock will wake up and sweep the corruption out of their church in the same way that their founder, Jesus of Nazareth, swept the moneychangers out of the Temple.
Page URL: http://www.chuckmorse.com/communism_catholic_church.html Host Web site: http://www.chuckmorse.com
I agree with the handsome man that posted that. When one considers the universe of sources from which you select to post about The Catholic Hierarchy, The Magisterium or The Pope, one sees they are The Remnant, an infamous paper publicly in defiance of the authority of the Pope, edited by Matt who signed a public declaration opposing the Pope; Catholic Family News, am infamous paper publicly in defiance against competent authorities and edited by Vennari who sisgned a public declaration opposing the Pope, The Seattle Catholic which specialises in trashing the Pope and considers that in conjunction with this from some protestant who thinks the Church is run by commies then it appears your please are disingenuous.
Youhave yet to cite ONE post of yours that argues IN FAVOR of the Magisterium or the Pope on a controverted issue. Any action of the Pope that is a matter of controversy is cast in a NEGATIVE light by you and the sources you post from.
You want to both attack and be seen as the victim. Read what you posted from the catechism and tell me how YOU have applied that to the Holy Father who you have attacked since you first became a member.
I think that 5:01 post on 6/22/02 was the first, wasn't it? It attacked the Magisterium. Yir very first post, at least under the name "narses" is an attack on Divinely-constituted authority.
i know that as a catholic, my first post wasnt an attack on the Pope or The Magisterium. I wonder how many Catholic Freepers DO begin their Freep-career by attacking The Magisterium of Pope?
And yet he demands that those who do support the Pope treat HIM with more deference, charity and courtesy than he treats the Vicar of Christ. It is pure madness. He elevates himself above the Pope. He must be accorded the status of an innocent victim - even though I have cited how he goes to sites that oppose the Pope in any controversy about the Pope - but he is at liberty to, without opposition, accuse the Pope of error, novelty and bad Catholic practice even though there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence available that what the Pope does is not only permissible but traditional and heroic. Buthe NEVER gives the Pope even the benefit of the doubt. When the evidence is presented, like when TCR evidence was cited, narses savegly attacked Mr. hand. Again, a double standard. He can attack whom he chooses to but woe betide that man who decides wo withstand him to his face.
For narses, the Pope is guilty as charged. No need of a trial. Narses? Why he is just a sweet, little innocent person whose actions may NEVER be questioned.
Odd when one so offensive against the Vicar of Christ thinks himself free from anything that offends him personally
I still don't know what's going on but rest assured your best bet is to ignore the whole thing.
Undoubtedly.
In fact, while I cannot bring myself to include the Holy Father, I wouldn't doubt that the election of a Polish Pope to coincide with Poland's "Solidarity" as foreshadowing of Perestroika is probably not out of the question. Then again, I've spent far more time analyzing communists than I have the Vatican so perhaps have a greater respect for their ability to accomplish long-range objectives than the Church's who -- in my lifetime, anyway -- has proven extraordinarily weak and subject to corruption, heresy and rebellion.
I don't think anyone here fools themselves into believing the smoke of Satan hasn't entered the sanctuary. We know for a fact the faithful at the Vatican are surrounded by piranhas. I see no reason a certain Use of the papacy (which perhaps backfired when the assassin failed to kill him) is out of the question.
I am a huge fan of John Paul II's writings and believe his travels have indeed borne much fruit. That said, I couldn't care less about his Popularity Index and find the idea of a cult of Personality about the Pope unsettling.
It's precisely that sort of emotion-based adulation which tees the ball for them to try and install their own Pope.
I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade where the Pope's words and actions -- outside of his ex cathedra or doctrinal teaching -- are concerned. He had no business kissing the Koran as if it were the Gospel. I find his wink-wink, nudge-nudge approach to Medjugorje likewise unsettling. That's a fraud that should have been shut down long ago. The Church has no business engaging in the same self-deluding Pragmatism which has been the ticket to the West's destruction from within.
There's no "conspiracy." Just weirdness.
CG has a point, don't you think? I post an occasional, non-controversial article from NCR (you ought to see the stuff I DON'T post), and get pilloried, yet narses posts from near-schismatic websites almost exclusively. The people on these websites are more brutal to the Pope than anyone I've read in NCR, and patent and CG are the only ones who seem to notice.
There's no "conspiracy." Just weirdness.
CG has a point, don't you think? I post an occasional, non-controversial article from NCR (you ought to see the stuff I DON'T post), and get pilloried, yet narses posts from near-schismatic websites almost exclusively. The people on these websites are more brutal to the Pope than anyone I've read in NCR, and patent and CG are the only ones who seem to notice.
There's no "conspiracy." Just weirdness.
CG has a point, don't you think? I post an occasional, non-controversial article from NCR (you ought to see the stuff I DON'T post), and get pilloried, yet narses posts from near-schismatic websites almost exclusively. The people on these websites are more brutal to the Pope than anyone I've read in NCR, and patent and CG are the only ones who seem to notice.
I've successfully helped friends out of schismatic circles. I understand the teeth grinding frustration that drives them there. Reality in our Church stinks right now. People, good decent honest people are looking for answers. Some of them go astray. They are honest in their zeal but incorrect in their conclusions.
Your approach does not work with them. It drives them further into schism.
Handle them gently, charitably.
Their anger grows from the destruction they see around them. In many ways it is a just anger, but what they see as the solution is not a solution but a dead end.
Pray for them. Their frustration is real, their anger legitimate, but their conclusions are simply wrong. They don't need condemnation, they need help, like a pregnant woman seeking an abortion.
Narses is sincere, even if in certain respects he is partly in error.
Sinkspur is sincere.
You are sincere, I am sincere.
Ascribing motives to narses does not help him. Condemning narses does not help him.
Lay off.
If you cannot engage him with charity and patience, you are doing a disservice to our faith, and driving him deeper into the very errors you perceive him to be in.
The teeth grinding frustration of average Catholics is REAL. We're all searching. We all need to step back and stop judging our neighbor simply because he has reached conclusions out of line with our own.
Such judgementalism and vitriol will never bring them home.
Even if narses is fatally wrong, your approach is just as wrong. Knock it off.
Narses became a member on 6/22/02. On that very same day, in response to my post that the SSPX confessions are invalid, he beings by attacking The Magisterium. My post was apt as we were discussing Confession on this thread. Narses, introduces a non sequitur, on his first day, in an attack on the magisterium.
If this is not Narses first post as a freeper, he can correct the record. It is undeniable that this was his first day - at least registered under this name. I have no doubt he has been here under another name. He is not newbie who just happened to jump in and start posting from schismatic websites. But, he is smart enough to know that most folks are not as vigiliant as are those who have had flirtations with the schism. He was prolly surprised to find one who could spot his bs so rapidly. The "game" continues and it is shamelesss.
I spotted him right away and I was man enough to withstand him to his face. He posts from infamous websites that publicly oppose the Pope and he attempts to explian this away by saying I am new here and I was just interested.....Please. That is so bogus.
To: Catholicguy A reminder that the SSPX Confessions are invalid http://home.earthlink.net/~gro ssklas/penance.htm 9 posted on 6/22/02 12:37 PM Pacific by Catholicguy [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Catholicguy And yet a Mass without the words of the Consecration in a heretical and schismatic church is.
“Last summer the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, with the full agreement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregations for the Oriental Churches, issued a series of guidelines for Eucharistic sharing between the Chaldean church (which is in communion with Rome) and the Assyrian church of the East (which is not). The guidelines are revolutionary in character. For the first time in modern history, the Catholic church has recognized the validity of a eucharistic prayer (the Anaphora of Addai and Mari) without the words of institution (“This is my body. ...This is my blood”), more commonly referred to as the words of consecration.
In the popular Catholic mind, especially before Vatican II, these words have had an almost magical quality. Whenever a validly ordained priest utters them over a large host (often times over a ciborium full of smaller hosts as well) and then over a chalice containing wine, Christ immediately “comes down” from heaven, taking the form of bread and wine to be received by the faithful as holy Communion, that is, His very “body and blood, soul and divinity.”
21 posted on 6/22/02 5:01 PM Pacific by narses [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
That was narses on the same first day he was a freeper - I mean the first day he was a freeper under this name. He came loaded for bear and his target was the Pope and The Magisterium.
Now, I have corrected his errors about this issue three times. patent and sisstetest have also corrected him yet he continues to persevere. He was wrong in labelling a Rite "heretical" which he has repeatedly done. And he was wrong to mischaracterise the decision of the Curial Office which acts in the name and authority of the Pope.
YOU may think he is acting sincerely. I think he came here with an agenda and he has implemented it in a dishonest, craven and duplicitous, unmanly fashion and I called him out.
Your approach does not work with them. It drives them further into schism. I disagree. They are not victims. They chose to be in schism. They are adults. Their decisions and the consequences of those decisions ought to be as frankly and honestly addressed as their dishonest characterisations of Rome are supposed to be attended to sympathetically. IMO, their constant badgering of the Pope and The Mgisterium is intended to keep the path to reunion strewn with debris if reunion means they will not get what they desire, a return to the staus quo ante of 1962.
Handle them gently, charitably. Initially, I did. See the thread that Narses began on his first day. But, it didn't take more than a few exchanges to see he was flying the SSPX colors.
Their anger grows from the destruction they see around them. In many ways it is a just anger, but what they see as the solution is not a solution but a dead end. agreed
Pray for them. Their frustration is real, their anger legitimate, but their conclusions are simply wrong. They don't need condemnation, they need help, like a pregnant woman seeking an abortion. Totally inapt analogy. They are abortionists trying to assure any Reunion tween schismatics and Rome is a stillbirth.
Narses is sincere, even if in certain respects he is partly in error. I disagree he is sincere. I have posted my reasons why. He came with an agenda, clearly.
Sinkspur is sincere. agreed. And he acts like a man. He does not mask his intentions or claim to be a neophyte.
You are sincere,agreed I am sincere.
Ascribing motives to narses does not help him. Condemning narses does not help him. It is very helpful to have one with an agenda exposed.
Lay off. No way. Defending the Pope and The Magisterium is my bailiwick. When are you going to lay-on?
If you cannot engage him with charity and patience, you are doing a disservice to our faith, and driving him deeper into the very errors you perceive him to be in. Defending the Pope and The Magisterium, far from being a disservice,is a DUTY. He is spreading falsehoods, lies, distortions, confusion, dissension, antipathy to the Pope and The Magisterium. I am doing the opposite. A "Thank-you" would make more sense and instead I get a caution to adopt quietism in the face of opposition to the Pope and The Magisterium
The teeth grinding frustration of average Catholics is REAL. We're all searching. We all need to step back and stop judging our neighbor simply because he has reached conclusions out of line with our own. I am NOT "searching." I don't even know what the hell that means. I am HOME. He is reaching "comclusions out of line with mine," he is OPPOSING Divinely-constituted authority.
Such judgementalism and vitriol will never bring them home. They must bring themselves back home. They can BEFIN by STOPPING the attacks on the Pope. You seem oddly patient and sanguine with attacks on Divinely-constituted authority yet you seem genuinely moved in your concerns for the preciousness, dignity and feelings of those that attack the Pope. And as for my delicate fellings? Not even a mention
Even if narses is fatally wrong, your approach is just as wrong. Knock it off NO WAY. Hell, I aint even BEGUN yet. Rhetorically, I am just taking off the gloves. wait'll ya get a load of what I have in my ammo dump :)
is how that should have read
The rules here are pretty straightforward:
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
The rules of our Church are pretty reasonable too, at least with regards to conduct in this type of matter:
"2478 To avoid rash judgement, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable inerpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."
It isn't working, Narses. Folks are catching on to ya. Name a SINGLE post you have produced that gives the Pope the benefit of the doubt in any controversy. I have asked you this repeatedly - along with other pertinent questions - and you refuse to answer.
You can't successfully play the victim card now that I have trumped you with the historical record of your own actions.
BTW, thanks a lot for making me do all that work instead of you owning-up to who you are and what your agenda is. But, it is there for ALL to see. You began your (current) Freeper career by launching an attack on the Pope. Explain how that fits in with what you just cited to me?
Your double standard, where I must treat you with deference, respect and courtesy while you are free to attack the Magisterium and Pope with unopposed alacrity is evident to all who can read the English language.
I know you think you are gaining sympathy with this pleading but each time just gives me the opportunity to illustrate your hypocrisy. That you can't cite a SINGLE post of yours to illustrate you accord the Pope the same courtesy you demand a fellow layman extend to you only underlines the hypocrisy.
Well then, fire away. Wisdom ain't your strong suit, despite your impressive vocabulary.
Pity. When we reach the pearly gates, we'll see who won more souls.
You are a prideful fool if you think you know all the answers. I am still searching, and every real Catholic I know is still searching.
If you don't know what we are searching for, you are such a spiritual neophyte you should not be attempting apologetics here.
Go read Garrigou-LaGrange.
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.