Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Modernist Tactics according to Pascendi Domini Gregis
The Angelus ^ | April 2004 | Fr. Francois Knittel

Posted on 01/06/2005 12:04:16 PM PST by latae sententiae

We wish to honor Pope St. Pius X, the first canonized pontiff that the good Lord gave us since St. Pius V, by remembering his teachings. The task is not easy, since the teachings of his 11-year pontificate are abundant: his Catechism;1 frequent Communion2 and at an earlier age;3 Catholic Action;4 devotion to Our Lady;5 the responsibility of those who govern the Church;6 the Priesthood;7 the doctrine of St. Thomas of Aquinas8 and that of many others.

Some of the most interesting of St. Pius X's teachings to recall are those on Modernism. The three documents vital to the subject are Lamentabili Sane (July 3, 1907), Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Sept. 8, 1907), and Sacrorum Antistitum (Sept. 1, 1910). Without any doubt, the most well-known aspect of this teaching on Modernism is the description that St. Pius X gives of the successive faces of the Modernist: the philosopher, believer, theologian, critic, apologist, and reformer. It is a long and arduous text that measures up to the challenge which confronted the Church and its magisterium.

As for us, we will emphasize what St. Pius X wrote on the tactics of the Modernists. The holy Pope was worried not only about the doctrinal aspects of this question, but also about the progress of this error in minds and hearts. How could a doctrine so complex, overwhelming, and contrary to the natural structure of human intelligence have such dissemination? How can we justify all the new measures taken by the Pope-Anti-Modernist Oath, vigilance counsels, exclusion of Modernists from the priesthood and teaching positions, prohibition to publish, control over priestly conventions-knowing that the Church always had to fight against one heresy or other in the course of its history? Why such particular treatment? From the very beginning of his encyclical on Modernism, St. Pius X said:

Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ has in this days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself.9 What are these new arts full of subtlety used by the Modernists unmasked by the Pontiff?

Enemies Within Above all, they are the enemy inside the Church itself. For if we consult our catechism, we will see that those who are outside the Church are the infidels, the heretics, the schismatics, and the apostates. Some were never part of the Church (infidels), some abandoned the Church because of their sins against the Faith (heretics and apostates), or against charity (schismatics), but all, some sooner than others, separated themselves from the Church. That very same separation had the advantage of clarifying the situation and alerting the Catholic faithful against the teachings and actions of these "devouring wolves."

Nothing of the sort happened with the Modernists whose primary characteristic is to try to stay within the Church at all cost:

That we make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuous they appear.10 [W]e allude...to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself,...and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church.

...And this policy they follow willingly and wittingly, both because it is part of their system that authority is to be stimulated but not dethroned, and because it is necessary for them to remain within the ranks of the Church in order that they may gradually transform the collective conscience-thus unconsciously avowing that the common conscience is not with them, and that they have no right to claim to be its interpreters.11

Thus it is obvious that there is a firm desire not to get out of the visible structure of the Church, so that they can, at their whim, modify it from the inside. These are the wolves mentioned by Our Lord, "in the clothing of sheep" (Mt. 7:15). Their dissimulation is not accidental, but essential to their works; without it they could not do anything.

Destroying the Catholic Faith Itself By remaining within the Church under false pretenses, the Modernists try to modify, and thus destroy, the Catholic Faith. Their attacks are not going to be against an institution or a dogma in particular, but will aim at the very virtue of faith:

Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic Truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt.12

Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.13

And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies? Were one to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate the sap and substance of them all into one, he could no better succeed than the Modernists have done.14 It is true that any heresy destroys the Catholic Faith by implicitly doubting the authority of God the Revealer. For if we believe in the revealed truths (Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, Holy Eucharist, etc.] it is not by personal taste, whim, or opinion, nor because said truths are evident. The only true motive that makes us believe without the shadow of a doubt is precisely the authority of God, who cannot lie, who cannot be in error, who cannot be ignorant. But to deny a dogma is the equivalent of denying God, who unveiled His mysteries for us, His inerrancy and infallibility. It is in that sense that willful heresy will result in the loss of the virtue of faith.

Modernism, as St. Pius X teaches, not only will result in the loss of the virtue of faith like any other heresy, but will even make the existence of said virtue impossible. In Modernism, everything is reduced to a natural dimension, everything is enclosed in the subject, everything is borne out of the desires coming from the depth of consciousness. There is no longer any room for supernatural, mysterious, external, and objective realities. The problem is no longer on this or that particular point of doctrine or morals, but it is the very possibility of the act of faith as defined by our catechism which is destroyed.

Hence "there is no part of Catholic truth which they do not strive to destroy." Hence also the definition of Modernism as "the synthesis of all heresies." Hence finally, the ultimate consequence of this revolutionary movement is "atheism."

Smokescreen of Confusion in Modernist Doctrine At the service of his will to effect the radical subversion of Catholic doctrine within the Church, the Modernist will use several subterfuges. First, he will mix in his speeches and writings, in a strange and dangerous fashion, Catholicism and Rationalism. What is Rationalism? Pope Pius XI defined it in the Syllabus of Errors (1864) as:

Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural forces, to secure the welfare of men and nations. (Condemned Propostion No. 3) Upon reading this definition of Rationalism, we cannot but notice the radical opposition between Rationalism and the Catholic Faith. One of the infallible signs betraying the Modernist character of an author or some writing, is precisely that adulterous union between Catholicism and Rationalism:

For they double the part of the rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error.15

Hence, in their books you find some things that might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you will find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist.16

This adulterous union between Catholic thought and rationalist thought is the direct result of the Modernist's will to stay within the Church in order to change the Faith from inside. To speak clearly against the Faith would immediately render them visible and mark them in everyone's eyes with the infamous seal of heresy and apostasy! That is why they never speak clearly.

Every Modernist sustains and comprises within himself many personalities which appear and disappear according to the necessities of the cause and the opportunities of the moment. It is this evidence which gave the encyclical Pascendi its particular structure. To reveal the Modernist in hiding, St. Pius X had to explain in detail all the disguises, tricks and feints used by the Modernist to avoid the judgment of the Magisterium:

It must be first noted that every Modernist sustains and comprises within himself many personalities: he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, an historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer. These roles must be clearly distinguished from one another by all who would accurately know their system and thoroughly comprehend the principles and consequences of their doctrines.17 Lastly, the final trait of the Modernist: he gives the impression that his doctrines lack global vision. Thus, in the eyes of an unwary Catholic, the doctrines of the Modernists will appear fluctuating, insecure, indecisive, and even contradictory. Pope Pius X did not share that view as he explained in several instances:

But since the Modernists...employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while in reality they are firm and steadfast, it will be of ad vantage... to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connection between them, and thus to pass an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil.18

In the writing and addresses they seem not infrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith.19

It may be...that some may think We have dwelt too long on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary, both in order to refute their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories but in a perfectly organized body, all the parts of which are solidly joined so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all.20 Undoubtedly, one of the benefits of Pascendi Gregis was to show the Modernist doctrine in all its scope and as a coherent system. To stick one's finger into the Modernist machinery is to lose your whole body. To be Modernist in history will lead, little by little, to become so in exegesis and philosophy as well. The adulterous union between Catholic principles and rationalist principles is a fundamental perversion very frequently condemned by the Popes.

Practice of Modernism After showing us how the Modernists are the enemy within, who endanger the very Faith without ever giving a global overview of their system, Pope Pius X unmasked three practical points that make the Modernists actions particularly dangerous. When in spite of their deceptions, some Modernists are unmasked by the authority, called to public retractation, or even publicly condemned, they usually give the appearance of submission to the measures that affect them:

But you know how fruitless has been Our action. They bowed their head for a moment but it was soon uplifted more arrogantly than ever.21

And thus, here again a way must be found to save the full rights of authority on the one hand and of liberty on the other. In the meanwhile the proper course for the Catholic will be to proclaim publicly his profound respect for authority-and continue to follow his own bent.22

And so they go their own way, reprimands and condemnations notwithstanding, masking an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of humility. While they make a show of bowing their heads, their hands and minds are more intent than ever on carrying out their purposes.23 That apparent submission is perfectly coherent with the deliberate decision of the Modernists to stay in the Church. If they rebelled against authority or openly despised the truths of our Faith, they would thus unmask themselves. That apparent submission to the decisions of the authorities, even hard penalties, is a key element of Modernist tactics.

The other side of the coin in that the return of a Modernist to the totality of the Faith is always doubtful. How can one be certain of the sincerity of such a conversion when dissimulation and hypocrisy are at the root of the system? Didn't all these fashionable Modernist theologians of the last 50 years repeatedly swear the Anti-Modernist Oath: Chenu, Rahner, Congar, Küng, Drewerman and Boff, to mention a few? With that apparent submission to the authorities, Modernists frequently lead as well an externally exemplary life:

To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they posses, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality.24 Here, too, they could not remain in the Church without apparently keeping the discipline of the Church and its way of life. The apostate or the one who seeks laicization will bring himself to the attention of the Catholic faithful.

In virtue of the necessary connection between what one thinks and what one does, it is legitimate to think that this exemplary life is nothing but external. Let us recall for instance, the weird relations maintained by Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner,25 or Hans Urs von Balthasar,26 and of the prince of liberation theologians, the Franciscan Leonardo Boff who recently abandoned the priesthood.27

Attracting Public Opinion The last Modernist tactic indicated by Pope Pius X is the manipulation of public opinion. This manipulation is done in two phases: 1) It is necessary to silence any serious opponent of Modernism. Any serious debate with said opponent will be avoided, his works opposed to Modernism will not be mentioned, and their publication will even be prevented if possible, and 2) at the same time, every Modernist speech or book will be praised to the sky. The use and multiplication of pen names used by some Modernist authors will give the impression of a wave of opinion, when frequently, in fact, we are dealing with a few authors singing one another's praises.

...[t]he boundless effrontery of these men. Let one but open his mouth and the others applaud him in chorus, proclaiming that science has made another step forward; let an outsider but hint at a desire to inspect the new discovery with his own eyes, and they are on him in a body; deny it, and you are an ignoramus; embrace and defend it, and there is no praise too warm for you. In this way they win over any who, did they but realize what they are doing, would shrink back with horror.28

But of all the insults they heap on them, those of ignorance and obstinacy are the favorites. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that render him redoubtable, they try to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attacks, while in flagrant contrast with this policy towards Catholics, they load with constant praise the writers who range themselves on their side.29

When one of their numbers falls under the condemnation of the Church the rest of them, to the horror of good Catholics, gather round him, heap public praise upon him, venerate him almost as a martyr to truth.30

Under their own names and under pseudonyms they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms to trap the incautious reader into believing in a whole multitude of Modernist writers.31

When truth is no longer the measure of the validity of an argument, then there is no other way than to look for palliatives to cover its intrinsic weakness. In an era of democracy, truth does not count for much, only the majority; neither does honesty, only power and fame. On the contrary, woe to those who do not blow with the prevalent winds of history. Woe to those who do not board the great ship of progress. They will be buried alive in a lead coffin. They will not find publishers for their books, nor a single magazine for their articles, no chair for them to teach, and the faithful will never hear their voice even though it is the voice of the Good Shepherd.

A Secret Society? To conclude his analysis of Modernist tactics with practical advice, Pope Pius X called for the unmasking of Modernism. Faced with such hypocritical and deceitful error, only one thing needs to be done: bring it out to the light of day so that all can see its evil.

We must now break silence, in order to expose before the whole Church in their true colors those men who have assumed this evil disguise.32 It is very interesting to compare this order of the Holy Pontiff with that of his predecessor Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Humanum Genus in condemnation of Freemasonry:

We wish it to be your rule first of all to tear away the mask from Freemasonry, and to let it be seen as it really is.33 The comparison of these two texts-one on Modernism and the other on Freemasonry-does suggest a similarity between these two revolutionary events. The two Pontiffs seems to suggest a kinship between the Masonic sect and the Modernist sect. Perhaps some will think excessive the use of the expression "Modernist sect." However, here too, we are only echoing the teachings of Pope St. Pius X:

We think it is obvious to every bishop that the type of men called Modernists, whose personality was described in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, have not stopped agitating in order to disturb the peace of the Church. Nor have they ceased to recruit followers to the extent of forming an underground group. In this way they are injecting the virus of their doctrine into the veins of Christian society, publishing books and articles either unsigned or under false names. A fresh and careful reading of Our said encyclical reveals clearly that this deliberate shrewdness is to be expected from those men We described in it. They are enemies all the more formidable as they are so close. They take advantage of their ministry by offering their poisoned food and catching the unguarded by surprise. They supply a false doctrine which is the compendium of all errors.34 Thus, St. Pius X did speak of the Modernists as an "underground group." Few authors have noticed and examined this detail. In an article of April 1964, Jean Madiran did made the following observations:

In the encyclical Pascendi, Pope Pius X mentioned several times and in various manners the "occult" action of Modernists. Is it a secret society in the strict sense? The encyclical Pascendi implies it though does not affirm it clearly. Three years later, however, this formal accusation was made by Pope Pius X (Sacrorum Antistitum of Sept. 1, 1910):

"[the] Modernists, whose personality was described in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, have not stopped agitating in order to disturb the peace of the Church. Neither have they ceased to recruit followers to the extent of forming an underground group."

...We have consulted books and magazines that gave the "history" or the "results" of Modernism since World War II: we did not find any mention of this specific aspect of the question. Not only is the secret society is omitted, but the presentation of Modernism made by many authors implicitly denied it ever existed. It is denied by the fact that their presentation of Modernism is incompatible with the existence of the secret society of Modernists. They do mention writers, investigators, editors, and clergymen undoubtedly in error, but guileless souls: certainly true for many, but insufficient to explain the historical phenomenon of Modernism. It does not explain its organized preponderance, nor the concerted campaigns, nor the medley of insults and praises, nor the premeditated tactics, nor the occult activities described in the encyclical Pascendi. Neither does it explain the accusation of "underground group" of the Motu Proprio of Sept. 1, 1910 [Sacrorum Antistitum].

All the stories of the Modernist crisis, these "analyses" of Modernism, and the judgments expressed have been radically corrupted because of the systematic ignorance and dissimulation of such an important element of judgment... By hiding the existence of the secret society, the historians obviously did not shed any light on its disappearance.

Nonetheless, this is an unresolved historical question, indeed, an open question, that is, when did the secret society of Modernists cease to exist? We cannot even ask if they were "reconstituted" at a later date, for to be reconstituted it is necessary to have ceased to exist; but we do not know if and when it was dissolved. Not only is no answer given, but the question itself is not even raised.

Historians of the crisis think that the encyclical Pascendi in 1907 mortally wounded Modernism and that that was the end of it, and even too brutal and complete of an end. That was not the position of Pope Pius X who, three years later, on Sept. 1, 1910, clearly affirmed: "Nor have they ceased to recruit followers to the extent of forming an underground group." They had not ceased. But then, when did they cease? Or did they ever cease?35

The Modernist Is an Apostate and a Traitor

In conclusion, we will let Fr. Calmel, O.P., give us a panoramic view of the question of Modernism in its theological, moral, spiritual, and tactical aspects:

The classic heretic-Arius, Nestorius, Luther-even if he had some wistful desire to remain in the Catholic Church, did everything necessary to be ousted. He fought openly against Divine Revelation, the sacred deposit of which is guarded by the Church. The heretic, or more accurately the Modernist apostate like a Loisy or Teilhard de Chardin, deliberately rejects the whole doctrine of the Church, but desires to remain in the Church and takes the necessary measures to stay in. He dissembles and feigns with the hope of changing the Church in the long run-or, as the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin wrote, to rectify the Faith-from the inside. The Modernist has in common with other heretics the rejection of Catholic Revelation. But he differentiates himself from other heretics, because he hides this rejection. We must insist on this: the Modernist is an apostate and a traitor.

You may ask, "Since the position of the Modernists is fundamentally disloyal, how can he keep it all his life without destroying his internal mental balance?" Is psychological balance compatible with a perpetually maintained duplicity in the most supreme questions? We must answer that yes it is, as far as the ringleaders are concerned.

With respect to the followers, the question of the psychological imbalance within a never-failing hypocrisy is less acute. When these followers are priests-alas, only too frequently-they usually end up marrying, thus putting an end to the necessity of dissimulation. For once they are married, they will continue to be apostate, but will stop being Modernists. Things become clearer with respect to them. They no longer have to fake the virtues of a Catholic priest.

Concerning the ringleaders, prelates with important charges, if they can practice their Modernism without serious damage, it is with a doubt because they are distracted by accomplices who never get tired of singing their praises. Distracted from looking at themselves, they manage to escape the burning questions of a slowly dying moral conscience.

In any case, the blindness of the mind and the hardening of the heart will always be the end of the road, but without necessarily leading to dementia. We are certain that closing oneself in spiritual darkness does not happen at once, but it is prepared slowly by numerous acts of resistance to grace. This divine chastisement is merited by numerous sins. What is more, if any other sinner can recognize himself as such and beg divine mercy, we must admit that a sinner of that type cannot convert if not for a great miracle of grace: a very rare one.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: modernism; piusx

1 posted on 01/06/2005 12:04:19 PM PST by latae sententiae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish; ultima ratio; AAABEST; sspxsteph; MarineMomJ; pro Athanasius; Maximilian; ...

ping


2 posted on 01/06/2005 12:07:05 PM PST by latae sententiae (Last Things first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: latae sententiae
Can you imagine what it would be like to get Saint Pius X canonized today with the current climate in the Vatican?

I am sure the seagull would point out he is not qualified because he was left handed and it would be hypocritical to make a Saint out of him because of his hostility toward liberals, communist and modernist.
3 posted on 01/06/2005 1:20:49 PM PST by Mark in the Old South (Note to GOP "Deliver or perish" Re: Specter I guess the GOP "chooses" to perish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South

I am sure he would. The sinple parish priest who became pope.


4 posted on 01/06/2005 2:17:38 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: latae sententiae

The owner's servants came to him and said, Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?

An enemy did this, he replied.

The servants asked him, Do you want us to go and pull them up?

He answered, "No, because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them."

Did He nail that one or what?


5 posted on 01/06/2005 5:03:50 PM PST by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: latae sententiae
Thanks so much for pinging me to this. It is an excellent piece. When you get a chance, and if you're so inclined, could you or anyone who might be reading this post a picture of Pope Pius X? I love the sight of his face.

It's hard to know where to begin and end my comments here, there are so many points that one could address.

Nothing of the sort happened with the Modernists whose primary characteristic is to try to stay within the Church at all cost:

That we make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuous they appear.10 [W]e allude...to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself,...and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church.

The Priests will have to answer to God in a special way, but we in the laity just fled. I say we, including myself, because I fled eventhough it had nothing to do with the rot of modernism setting in. And many more people fled as well, one for this reason, one for that. And as a consequence we were instrumental in not stemming modernism's insidious ascendency.

Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic Truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt.

Even when you cannot name this, it is palpable in the lack of reverence that abounds in many a Liturgy, and the inability of so many Priests to preach forcefully, beautifully and with ardor about what it means to be a Catholic.

Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural forces, to secure the welfare of men and nations. (Condemned Propostion No. 3) Upon reading this definition of Rationalism, we cannot but notice the radical opposition between Rationalism and the Catholic Faith. One of the infallible signs betraying the Modernist character of an author or some writing, is precisely that adulterous union between Catholicism and Rationalism:

For they double the part of the rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error.15

Hence, in their books you find some things that might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you will find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist.16

This adulterous union between Catholic thought and rationalist thought is the direct result of the Modernist's will to stay within the Church in order to change the Faith from inside. To speak clearly against the Faith would immediately render them visible and mark them in everyone's eyes with the infamous seal of heresy and apostasy! That is why they never speak clearly.

The definition given for rationalism could easily be interchanged with the definition of humanism. Pope John Paul II seems taken with humanism. That has made me feel uneasy about him.

I believe JPII takes his role as the Vicar of Christ very seriously. He is a lover of people. You can see that in his face. For both theological and political reasons, I think it is mainly Christ's immeasurable love of man that captured the Pope's mind and heart. He, as Christ's Vicar, wants to extend that same immeasurable love to all, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. I think it is the reason the Pope himself is so loved. And it certainly is an admirable thing.

The problem is though, that humanism by it's very existence and name either totally rejects Christ, or seeks to modify and marginalize his influence as the Son of God.

So, while our dabbling with humanism will certainly leave its mark on the Catholic Church. Humanism will bear no such reciprocal Catholic stamp.

The other side of the coin in that the return of a Modernist to the totality of the Faith is always doubtful. How can one be certain of the sincerity of such a conversion when dissimulation and hypocrisy are at the root of the system? Didn't all these fashionable Modernist theologians of the last 50 years repeatedly swear the Anti-Modernist Oath: Chenu, Rahner, Congar, Küng, Drewerman and Boff, to mention a few? With that apparent submission to the authorities, Modernists frequently lead as well an externally exemplary life:

To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they posses, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality.24 Here, too, they could not remain in the Church without apparently keeping the discipline of the Church and its way of life. The apostate or the one who seeks laicization will bring himself to the attention of the Catholic faithful.

This whole passage made me think immediately of Walter Kasper. His book, Jesus The Christ, seems to me to be one big, navel-gazing excursion into perpetual vacillation, so that you come away from the book not really feeling confident in calling him a heretic, but feeling quite confident in coming to the conclusion that he doesn't seem to know what he really believes. And he was Professor of Dogmatic Theology when he wrote the book.

It's dispiriting and unsettling to have to admit that their largely running the earthly show, and probably will continue to do so for quite a while yet.

6 posted on 01/06/2005 6:42:58 PM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: latae sententiae; Akron Al; Alberta's Child; Andrew65; AniGrrl; apologia_pro_vita_sua; attagirl; ...

Thanks for posting a great article.


7 posted on 01/06/2005 6:58:28 PM PST by Land of the Irish (Tradidi quod et accepi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: latae sententiae
Here is what Pope John Paul II said in a short farewell speech at the end of his visit to the U.S. in 1976, and which was published in the Wall Street Journal following his election to the Papcy.

"We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think the wide circle of the American society or the wide circles of the christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the Anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence; it is a trial which the whole Church, and the Polish Church in particular, must take up.

It is a trial not only of our nation and the Church, but in a sense it is a test of 2000 years of culture and Christian civilization with all its consequences for human dignity, individual rights and the rights of nations."

8 posted on 01/06/2005 6:59:34 PM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl


9 posted on 01/06/2005 7:13:49 PM PST by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pascendi

Thank you so much, you picked great pictures.


10 posted on 01/06/2005 7:21:10 PM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl


11 posted on 01/06/2005 7:23:27 PM PST by Land of the Irish (Tradidi quod et accepi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

Bump and thank you.


12 posted on 01/06/2005 7:28:09 PM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl

I wonder what happened to him after 1976 - and I'm not being sarcastic. While JPII occasionally issues a plaintive statement regretting the course of things, mostly in Europe, he has never really come out fighting very agressively.

We (my family and I) were very happy when he was elected, because he seemed to be heading in the right direction, following the course of JPI.

Perhaps it was the assassination attempt, but he never really carried through on things that many of us thought he was going to do. Aside from his inability/unwillingness to govern, he hasn't even been that forthright in confronting the horribly anti-Catholic European governments, or at any rate, not until very recently.


13 posted on 01/06/2005 7:30:25 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: latae sententiae

Thanks for posting this!


14 posted on 01/06/2005 7:31:48 PM PST by murphE ("I ain't no physicist, but I know what matters." - Popeye)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius
I think that Pope John Paul II is a Socialist. Not hard for me to understand, really. My parents are not socialists now for the most part, but they certainly had socialist tendencies when they emigrated from Italy in 1958. Disparity between rich and poor was immense.

It is considered nearly dishonorable to be on the right in Italy now, and no doubt was much the same in '58 both in Italy and Poland. JPII socialist tendencies are probably what spurred his affection for humanism.

Several weeks ago PAX TV aired a special on Fatima. One of the people who was given a pretty good size role in the special was a Rabbi, and I'm sorry but I can't remember his name. The Rabbi, outshone all of the other speakers in the special, with the possible exception of Gerry Matatics (sp?).

Anyway, he posited that much of what Pope John Paul did was in direct reaction to what he believed Traditionalists sought. And I found his argument to be persuasive.

IMO, JPII views Traditionalists as a non-progressive force, and as part of that left/right battle, carried over from the political strife in Poland to the Theological strife in Catholicism.

In Pope John Paul's statement where he addresses the Faithful who are attached to the Latin Mass, and in which he proclaims that a generous attempt to meet that request be honored, there is a sense in the Grant of giving the Faithful something they're attached to simply because they're attached to it. I never got the sense from his words that it was something to be preserved because it was part of our Faith for so many, many years.

I feel like I know this Pope better than any other Pope because he's made himself known. And I like that. Growing up, the Pope seemed a distant figure to me, I felt nearly nothing for them. I was always comparing them to St. Peter who I felt I did know, and who I felt might possible deign to know me, as his imperfections were known to all.

15 posted on 01/06/2005 8:05:26 PM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl
"We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the Anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel--- it is a trial which the whole Church, and the Polish Church in particular, must take up. --- It is a trial not only of our nation and the Church, but in a sense it is a test of 2000 years of culture and Christian civilization"

Pope JPII can sound so pious and in tune with the crisis going on in our Church, but at the same time you must shake your head and wonder why he's never done anything about it. Many of his statements and stated desires for the Church would make a man like Pope St. Pius X cringe. In fact, the Cardinal who founded this great pope's namesake society was excommunicated by JPII. The stated cause for his excommunication was 'disobedience', while the actual cause was his bold attempt at propagating the classical, traditional Catholic faith.

16 posted on 01/06/2005 9:33:46 PM PST by TheCrusader ("the frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" - Pope Urban II, 1097 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
In fact, the Cardinal who founded this great pope's namesake society was excommunicated by JPII.

Lefebvre never got the red hat.

17 posted on 01/06/2005 9:37:45 PM PST by sinkspur ("How dare you presume to tell God what He cannot do" God Himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

It was an Archbishop, not a Cardinal.


18 posted on 01/07/2005 4:55:42 AM PST by CouncilofTrent (Quo Primum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl

Good analysis of JPII, I think. ALL Europeans are much more Socialist and government-oriented than Americans, and they do tend to view everything in political terms.

It is also true that Traditionalists are usually seen as being opposed to Socialism, an attitude that is incomprehensible to the sort of soft-leftism that is pervasive in the European Church. This may well be something that influences JPII's dealings with the Traditionalist movement. As you said, he doesn't really treat the indult as something that relates to the Faith, but as more of a political concession.

Very interesting analysis, and it would certainly explain many puzzling things. (BTW, I think Socialism is becoming much more agressive and overtly anti-Catholic in Europe right now - look at Spain, for example - so it will be interesting to see if there is any change in this attitude if this trend continues).


19 posted on 01/07/2005 6:09:56 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: latae sententiae; livius; AlbionGirl; Land of the Irish

"A Secret Society? To conclude his analysis of Modernist tactics with practical advice, Pope Pius X called for the unmasking of Modernism. Faced with such hypocritical and deceitful error, only one thing needs to be done: BRING IT OUT TO THE LIGHT OF DAY SO THAT ALL CAN SEE ITS EVIL.

We must now break silence, in order to EXPOSE BEFORE THE WHOLE CHURCH IN THEIR TRUE COLORS THOSE MEN WHO HAVE ASSUMED THIS EVIL DISGUISE.32 It is very interesting to compare this order of the Holy Pontiff with that of his predecessor Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Humanum Genus in condemnation of Freemasonry:

We wish it to be your rule first of all to TEAR AWAY THE MASK from Freemasonry, and to LET IT BE SEEN AS IT REALLY IS."


IMHO God heard the prayers and intents of these Holy Pontiffs and acted so that Modernism could be exposed in all its stinking infidelity.

He did this by causing John XXIII to call a "pastoral" Council of the Church and to invite the modernists to run it and attend as "experts". Their m.o. was exactly as St. Pius X described: they admixed novelty and rationalism in one paragraph followed by Catholicism in the next.

Perhaps the post-conciliar Popes have just been unwitting instruments in the continuation of this process over the last 40 years. Their inability or failure to use their authority in the fight against modernism has allowed the unmasking to continue.

Dread to think what might come next.


20 posted on 01/07/2005 8:10:47 AM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CouncilofTrent
"It was an Archbishop, not a Cardinal."

Thanks, I knew archbishop Lefevbre wasn't a cardinal, don't know why I wrote that. In any case, my point was made. The Holy Father can say or write whatever he pleases praising tradition, but until he actually does something to help restore it, rather than tear it down, his words remain empty to me.

21 posted on 01/07/2005 10:16:10 AM PST by TheCrusader ("the frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" - Pope Urban II, 1097 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl
"I believe JPII takes his role as the Vicar of Christ very seriously. He is a lover of people."

There is a Commandment that is even greater than loving people, it is loving God. The people need to be fed spiritual food from the Pope, not earthly pablum.

"And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" Jesus answered, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mk 12:28-31)

22 posted on 01/07/2005 10:43:02 AM PST by TheCrusader ("the frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" - Pope Urban II, 1097 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: livius

I think about what's with the Holy Father on and off myself. Some options:

1.) He's a Modernist himself.

2.) He's afraid of the danger to the Church of a formal schism and/or heresy.

3.) He is doing something: he's trying to ride it out and hope the Modernists die off.

4.) He doesn't think anything is wrong. Or if he does, he thinks it is something that can be borne with.

5.) He thinks he doesn't have the legal authority to stop it, especially because of concerns about "Collegiality".

6.) He thinks he doesn't have the real power to stop it and feels that a pro forma effort for the sake of principle would be counterproductive in the face of the inevitable political defeat the Church would take.

7.) He won't admit to himself the source of the problem because it lies with the new currents of thought he is partially an advocate of, which are imperfectly reconcilable to Catholicism at best; in other words, intellectual pride.

8.) He's a coward.

1 is nonsense

2 is likely, given the materialistic bent of some of his other thinking, e.g. his opposition to the death penalty and war.

3 is possible, but deluded, in light of the fact that Modernism has been around for generations. This option sounds like the false hope people might delude themselves with. It amounts to wishing for things to get better.

4 is possible and perhaps probable, given the degree to which he removes himself from day to day Church governance. He was not a die-hard defender of the old order by any means; perhaps he really believes all that springtime of Vatican II baloney.

5 is possible too, given his orientation towards the newer ideas in the Church.

6 is possible, and another form of materialism.

7 is likely to be found at some level or another. The Pope is a conciliarist, even if he isn't a Modernist in the strict sense. Being told that his theological hopes were all moonshine would be very painful.

8 is also nonsense.

Personally, I think he is unwilling to pull the trigger because he fears the collateral damage of the war more than the continuation of the present order of things. Which is objectively depraved, since it puts the health of souls beneath the possession of temporal goods and a false herd like unity. But he is surely deceived on that point. I hope he is either in total ignorance of his failings or sincerely repentant at death.


23 posted on 01/07/2005 11:15:29 AM PST by jmc159 (Never seen a bluer sky.../ I can feel it reaching out and moving closer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jmc159
Your options are the same as those that I have run through from time to time (whenever I'm particularly mystified by something he has done/not done).

I agree with you that #4 is very possible. As anybody can see, with the empty seminaries all over the world, and the empty churches in Europe, the "springtime" isn't exactly a fertile one, but for some reason, the advocates of VatII ignore that or even seem to see it as a success. They believe they have gotten rid of the chaff, and only the pure remain, or that the fact that the Church has nearly ceased to exist in certain areas means that it has triumphantly merged with secular culture.

And this is also possible, as you say: he is unwilling to pull the trigger because he fears the collateral damage of the war more than the continuation of the present order of things.

At his age, it's a battle he's probably not up to fighting. But is it going to get any easier if we have to struggle along like this for another 10 years or so, only to have a real outright war for control erupt when he dies? That, at any rate, is what I firmly expect to happen.

24 posted on 01/07/2005 1:53:28 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
I know I asked you a similar question a while back. But I don't think I got to the core of what I wanted to know, so I'd like to broach the subject again, if you don't mind.

It has to do with obedience and the Magisterium. First of all, I have seen the Magisterium referred to as the Living Magisterium, which gives me the impression that it is a forever changing thing. That parts of an augmented Faith may be added to it, defunct or what would be considered outdated parts of the Faith can be taken away.

Let's say that 10 years from now, based on what science has reliably affirmed, the Church proclaims homosexuality to be an acceptable variant of human sexuality, and for all intents and purposes elevates it to parity with heterosexuality. Am I obliged as a Catholic to accept this teaching? To follow whoever the Pope is at the time, and whoever the Cardinals, Bishops, etc are at time, in this direction? If I had children and wanted to rear them in the Faith, would obedience to the Vicar of Christ require that I instruct my children according to the new development?

Also, on another thread today, there was a picture of a Mosaic ostensibly of a female Bishop. The Mosaic is somewhere in Rome. I think the thread title was Pope Joan. Do you know anything about this?

25 posted on 01/07/2005 5:07:59 PM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: livius; jmc159; AlbionGirl
Thank-you, Albion Girl for the pictures of PiusX. I have seen other pictures of him, and his holiness shines through.

I have never criticized JPII but I have expressed puzzlement on occasion about some of his actions. I remember when he first became pope, it seems as if he was trying to rein in some of the abuses and false teachings that were being perpetrated in the Church. Now his actions seem less clear.

Malachi Martin indicates in many of his writings and tapes that JPII saw the terrible state the Church was in when he became pope; he saw how completely the Church had been infiltrated by modernists and by evil and he knew that nothing he could do could turn the Church around. M.M. believed that JPII, as a very holy man of constant prayer has heard from God, and knows he is reigning over the end of Catholicism as we know it, not the end of the Church, mind you.
Have any of you read Malachi Martin? Do you give his theory any credence?
26 posted on 01/07/2005 5:45:37 PM PST by k omalley (Caro Enim Mea, Vere est Cibus, et Sanguis Meus, Vere est Potus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: k omalley; pascendi
I absolutely love his face! And it's because of what you said, his Holiness just shines through. Look at his eyes; just look at them!

Now to your question: the only thing I've read of Fr. Malachi's are parts of his book on the fall of the Jesuits. The reading was unbelievably astounding, both because of what he was relaying and his undeniable erudition. I was in awe of his intellect, and his Christ-like (and what appeared to be natural) evenhandedness, and sense of fairplay reminded me so much of the true spirit and nature of Christ.

Fr. Malachi could be right in his thinking on the matter, he was certainly in a great position to make a solid assessment. And I think Pope JPII is a Holy Man.

But I don't sense anxiety from the Pope. I think he thinks in historical terms, and perhaps views this as one of the many convulsions of the Church, which will ultimately be addressed by the Holy Spirit.

I really try to keep a positive outlook, but dread has a firmer hold on it. You and I have discussed the various experiences we've had with Mass and Ecumenism (sp?), and that's the locus of my dread.

Those Churches are filled, the Traditional Churches and the Traditional Faith are on life-support, if you ask me. I know there are Traditional Churches here and there that boast a decent sized congregation, but they are anomalous, as far as I can see.

And the thing is, the Traditionalists and the NO Congregations have very little in common. Niceties can be exchanged, goodwill, on both sides can abound, but the values of each, and their respective concepts of what Catholicism entails and what it demands of one seem to be drifting further and further apart.

I'm reading a book by Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J. titled The Antichrist, maybe that is what is making me so melancholy, and focused on the dangers the Church faces, I don't know. And finally, K, I wasn't the one who posted the pictures, pascendi was, so your thank you is rightfully his. K, nice to talk to you, as usual.

27 posted on 01/07/2005 6:33:50 PM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl; pascendi
Oops! Thank-you, pascendi, for the wonderful pix of PiusX.:-}
28 posted on 01/07/2005 6:44:45 PM PST by k omalley (Caro Enim Mea, Vere est Cibus, et Sanguis Meus, Vere est Potus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl

"First of all, I have seen the Magisterium referred to as the Living Magisterium, which gives me the impression that it is a forever changing thing. That parts of an augmented Faith may be added to it, defunct or what would be considered outdated parts of the Faith can be taken away."

Doctrine can develop in the terms of deepening of understanding, however, it can never change to the extent that future developments contradict or negate Traditional doctrine. Also meanings cannot be spun - the meaning that the Church has always had of a particular doctrine is the meaning that must stand for all time. Vatican I's De Fides et Ratio is critical for a correct understanding of the limits of doctrinal development:

13. "For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
14. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

This is an infallible Decree of an Ecumenical Council which reinforces its doctrine with the following Canons:

"4. On faith and reason

1. If anyone says that
in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that
all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles:
let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that
human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that
they may not be forbidden by the church:
let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that
it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see."

Hopefully the above decrees will answer your following questions:

"Let's say that 10 years from now, based on what science has reliably affirmed, the Church proclaims homosexuality to be an acceptable variant of human sexuality, and for all intents and purposes elevates it to parity with heterosexuality. Am I obliged as a Catholic to accept this teaching?"

No! It would be contrary to Scripture, Tradition and 2,000 years of consistent Magisterial teaching. Homosexual acts are sins abhorred by God and any Pope or bishop who taught otherwise would be a heretic, apostate and abomination, and by virtue of your Baptism and Confirmation as a soldier of Christ you would be obliged to reject their teaching and fight against it.

"If I had children and wanted to rear them in the Faith, would obedience to the Vicar of Christ require that I instruct my children according to the new development?"

No! For the same reasons. Our obedience is always to God first, and if any Pope felt himself mighty enough to trample the Word of God and the Divine Law, then he should be resisted and not obeyed.

"Also, on another thread today, there was a picture of a Mosaic ostensibly of a female Bishop. The Mosaic is somewhere in Rome. I think the thread title was Pope Joan. Do you know anything about this?"

If its "Episcopa Theodora" that you are referring to, then its most likely that she was the wife of a bishop. Western Catholics tend not to think of the obvious, because we like to pretend that all the clergy have been celibate since the time of the apostles! This is, of course, not true. However, even if all the Latin clergy had been celibate, you will note that the lady concerned has a Greek rather than a Latin name.

Even today in the Greek Catholic Churches, the female suffix is often still appended to a rank of clergy to give a clergyman's wife a title.

Consequently my Melkite deacon friend is the "diakonus" (Greek for deacon) and his wife is the diakonissa (deaconess). Episcopa Theodora was probably the wife of a Greek bishop. The Greeks don't have married bishops these days - married men are only allowed to progress to the diaconate and priesthood - however they certainly used to, as several of the bishops took their wives to the Council of Nicea.

That's my opinion of her anyway! ;)


29 posted on 01/07/2005 6:57:11 PM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
Hopefully the above decrees will answer your following questions:

They really did, and thank you.

And it was "Episcopa Theodora", and you're right the thought of her possibly being a Bishop's wife never crossed my mind.

30 posted on 01/07/2005 7:11:53 PM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: latae sententiae

bump


31 posted on 01/07/2005 10:59:29 PM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: k omalley
Have any of you read Malachi Martin? Do you give his theory any credence?

No. Believe Malachi Martin at your peril.

32 posted on 01/07/2005 11:03:41 PM PST by sinkspur ("How dare you presume to tell God what He cannot do" God Himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: k omalley

Malachi Martin was someone who knew the inside workings of the Vatican very well, and who also knew the inside workings of the American Church and the players involved. Windswept House, for example, has an absolutely chilling but very believable plot that involves characters who represent some of the "biggies" in the destruction of the Church (Bernardin, etc.), and it probably is based on reality.

But most of all, Martin was keenly aware of something we have all forgotten about now, the influence of Satan, and how this ancient enemy of the Church is now attacking with renewed vigor because he knows he is almost unopposed.

I've always thought that Martin's theory about the Pope does have some weight. It is certain that, even if this is not the "final" crisis, there is going to be a massive power struggle after his death and the Church is certainly going to be different. Perhaps he could have done something to prevent this, to set it back on course earlier, or perhaps not. But I do think there's a a real upheaval coming. Watch and pray.


33 posted on 01/08/2005 3:44:43 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl; pascendi; k omalley

Ping to another interesting thread with some related material. The article deals with someone returning to the Latin Mass, but whether you are a Traditionalist or not, it has a very interesting analysis of JPII and some of his positions (around the middle of the article).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1316396/posts


34 posted on 01/08/2005 3:50:24 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Believe Malachi Martin at your peril."

Why? Will I go to hell?
35 posted on 01/08/2005 5:45:39 AM PST by k omalley (Caro Enim Mea, Vere est Cibus, et Sanguis Meus, Vere est Potus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: livius; k omalley
livius wrote:

They believe they have gotten rid of the chaff, and only the pure remain, or that the fact that the Church has nearly ceased to exist in certain areas means that it has triumphantly merged with secular culture.

Maybe. I'd like to think it is something other than self-delusion and cowardice, but I'm cynical about these things.

k omalley wrote:

M.M. believed that JPII, as a very holy man of constant prayer has heard from God, and knows he is reigning over the end of Catholicism as we know it, not the end of the Church, mind you.

Have any of you read Malachi Martin? Do you give his theory any credence?

His more melodramatic stuff (Satanic rituals in the Chapel of Sts. Peter and Paul, etc) is questionable, but it isn't really important in the context of his work. His basic argument is that many members of the clergy, and especially people in high bureacratic positions in Rome, are 1.) no longer Catholics, 2.) actively evil in a way that your lapsed friends who never go to Mass except on Christmas and Easter are not, 3.) are networked with each other, and 4.) want to change the Church so profoundly as to destroy her in all but name.

Each of those items hardly requires proof at this point, IMAO. 1 and 2 and 4 flow directly from the process that even Paul VI (God have mercy on him) went so far as to call "auto-demolition". 3 is clearly observable in both the fact that they win so often and that others have such a hard time standing up and fighting back; look at the scale of the damage and the time frame it was inflicted in and then ask yourself if that was the result of isolated actions. Also, consider in this light the influence that the USCCB and it's ilk wield, despite the fact that the only body of bishops established by the Lord and possessing sacramentally granted authority is the whole College of bishops united with the Pope. They ain't a Parliament, and Christ did not hand down Robert's Rules of Order as a guidebook for governing His Church.

I'd like to believe that JPII has been told by God the Father (or whomever) that he should just mind the store because it's all going to come crashing down regardless of what he does. I like JPII personally and have no doubts regarding the absolute sanctity of his personal life. He may well shine as a white martyr in the age to come (or maybe as a confessor, since we don't really know who got whatshisname to take that shot at him).

All I can say for sure is that if I were Pope, I would help push the teetering building over. The Curia, the College of Cardinals, etc. can come and go, for good or ill, but they ain't the Church. The Church is the whole body of Catholics united with the Pope through their clergy. The Modernists need to keep the human structures to win, while driving out the maximum possible degree of actual Church-ness (pardon that barbarism) from them; the infrastructure is the very prize they are at war for, since it can be twisted to serve their ends while the Church, per se, cannot. But we don't need the infrastructure to win, we just need the Church - which can't be destroyed anyway. In other words, we can win RIGHT NOW by destroying what they need but we don't need. It's the infrastructure and it's value, which is real but limited, that they use to bait us and make us think we need to play these games (conveniently, they wrote the rules to those games; how odd!). If we were willing to go back to the catacombs for a generation or two we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Rome just doesn't have the courage.

It's ironic - Luther turned the Church into a "spiritual" (i.e. notional and metaphorical) community, and that was heresy. The Church is a real living organization. Now, five centuries later, we have the opposite ecclesiological heresy, that tries to turn the Church into nothing but it's most material and human facets - as if Jesus established a flowchat outlining a bureacracy rather than a living society of saints. It's like Docetism and Arianism rolled into ecclesiology; first Satan got people to deny the humanity and then Divinity of the personal Christ, and now he is getting people to deny the divinity of the Mystical Body of Christ after he got someone else (the "Reformers") to deny it's humanity.

36 posted on 01/08/2005 12:08:32 PM PST by jmc159 (Never seen a bluer sky.../ I can feel it reaching out and moving closer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jmc159
Interesting point about Luther. As for this:

the infrastructure is the very prize they are at war for

When some famous feminist flake (I think it was Rosemary Reuther) was asked years ago why she continued to teach in a "patriarchal" university, she said, "because that's where the Xerox machines are." In other words, she could just do what she wanted and use the infrastructure for her own purposes.

37 posted on 01/08/2005 1:08:04 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson