Posted on 01/06/2005 12:04:16 PM PST by latae sententiae
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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! ;)
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.
bump
No. Believe Malachi Martin at your peril.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.