More Catholic Than The Pope: An Inside Look At Extreme Traditionalism
Posted on 04/07/2011 9:45:42 PM PDT by verdugo
Thank you for reminding us to watch EWTN during Lent.
Streaming at:
http://www.ewtn.com/audiovideo/index.asp
Unsurprising...
More Catholic Than The Pope: An Inside Look At Extreme Traditionalism
>>Warning: This thread is posted by someone who has written on Free Republic that all post-Vatican II popes would be anathematized by a “real pope.” That makes him a sedevacantist, and as such, a Protestant slandering the Catholic Church. <<
So, we have a conundrum. The Post-Conciliar church is Modernist - condemned by Pope St. Pius X as heresy - but we can’t say so. Yet, a “sedevacantist” is a Protestant and has no standing.
As one who has fought this war and have the battle scars to show for it, looking at the history of the Catholic Church over the last 50 years is like watching our country devolve into tyranny.
More baseless allegations.......
Oh, snap! I wish I’d produced those rhythmically rolling clauses myself ;-).
.>> So, we have a conundrum. The Post-Conciliar church is Modernist - condemned by Pope St. Pius X as heresy - but we can’t say so. Yet, a “sedevacantist” is a Protestant and has no standing. <<
Are there modernists in the Post-Conciliar church? Yes. But to declare that the post-Conciliar church itself is beyond scandalous.
I say this intending the utmost respect: If you feel like you’re in a catch-22 by the fact that sedevacantists are apostates, then the way out of the conundrum is to reconsider any notions that lead you sedevacantism.
There’s something that’s VERY uncomfortable for we who live in a society dominated by modernism, but which I believe is necessary to being a Christian: When a modernist is confronted by two statements which appear contradictory, he rejects one statement, and keeps the one he prefers, or finds easier to rationalize. Thus, the bible becomes to modernist a veritable minefield, posing all sorts of false dilemmas, most famously Faith v. works. To the ancients, such apparent contradictions were instead enigmas to help them grow beyond their present understanding, as they challenged their notions of what seemed to be contradictions.
So you have the Council of Trent anathematize Protestants. Then you have Vatican II refer to them as part of the Church. Isn’t Vatican II being modernist?
But is it really?
Some traditionalists assert that Vatican iI simply isn’t authoritative, and therefore may be in error, without violating the notion of approved ecumenical councils being infallible. That’s actually well-founded, and it means that John XXIII recognition of Vatican II as a *pastoral* council doesn’t represent a break from infallibility.
Personally, I think the better tack to take (and I won’t call you a sedevacantist if you disagree) is that Trent doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means to the modern ear: A “Protestant,” in the usage of Trent is not someone brought up in the protestant tradition, since there was no Protestant tradition yet established. A Protestant was an apostate who cast his lot among people who were making war on the Catholic Church; notion central to 16th century Protestantism: the very person of the pope was not the anti-Christ; there was no imminent rapture; the New Testament deuterocanonicals were returned to the bible. And frankly, while clinging to the name “Sola Fides” most Lutherans’ notion of sanctifying grace is almost identical to that which Luther had rebelled against. They’d be horrified at his notion that indulging your most evil desires was the pathway to salvation.
But the big thing is that many Protestants now are obedient to the authorities they recognize; many worship in the church, tradition and doctrines of their fathers; and some are sincerely seeking Christ, but are restrained by the ignorance which is made more invinceable by such obedience and faithfulness.
Does that mean it’s fine for a Protestant to remain a Protestant? No, because that which is unchallenged can hardly be called invinceable. Does it mean that they are not anathematized? Well, they can hardly be included into the ordinary form of Catholic prayer, the mass, and therefore are excluded from the ordinary means of salvific grace, the sacraments.
But if they are saved, Christ acting through the Catholic Church is the font of their salvation, even if not through the ordinary means. Without the Catholic Church, Luther’s notion of “do evil, that ye may have faith” would have won the day. The Southern Baptists’ acceptance of abortion, birth control, divorce and masturbation would never have been reversed. And so the notion that individual Protestants may be saved through extraordinary means does not contradict Augustine’s assertion that “Apart from the Church, there is no salvation.”
So, yeah, I do mean “respectfully,” because I have given such notions enough respect to have wrestled with them myself at considerable length, as I hope you find these words show. And I tell you, had I not discovered all the ways in which Vatican II had been misrepresented to me, I’d’ve certainly felt trapped by that catch - 22, as well.
The book substantiates every allegation pointed out in the OVERVIEW that I posted. The author shows the striking contrast between unbroken totality of the perennial doctrines of the Church, tradition, and some of what EWTN teaches. At the conclusion of reading the book, any Catholic that still has the sensus fidelius will see.
I have however posted specifics in prior threads of EWTN: a Network Gone Bad, and no one on FR was able to refute them. Rather than bringing forward evidence and Catholic doctrine supporting EWTN’s actions, all that has come from FR Catholics is short complaints with personal opinions, BUT mostly what has come from FR Catholics, is unreasoned hatred, blind disgust, aroused against the persons (calling the author or I - sedevacantes, SSPXer, schismatic, heretic, excommunicated, not Catholic). This can be seen in all the postings generated by this thread so far. I can't read minds, I can only judge from what people write, and from the responses that I've been getting, it appears that the Catholics on FR do not know the faith, nor how to defend it.
Bishop Sheen once said that if you want to convince a pagan you use philosophy, if you want to convince a Protestant you use scripture, and if you want to convince a Catholic you use doctrine. Not only in this thread but in all the postings I have ever posted, it is a rare thing indeed to find an FR Catholic that posts doctrine in response to all the doctrine that I post.
from page 210
As I noted in the Overview, by Tradition is meant the totality of the perennial doctrine, dogma, liturgy and practice of the Faith, just as it existed with unbroken continuity at the start of the Second Vatican Council the way Catholics always believed and the way they always worshipped. As our experience since the Council has shown us, the so-called post conciliar revolution is nothing but an attack on Tradition.
The Progressivist Cardinal Suenens observed that Vatican II was “the French Revolution in the Church,” while the equally liberal Cardinal Congar likened it to the Russian Revolution of 1917. When an organization like EWTN partakes of the postconciliar revolution and its revolutionary spirit, and not only refuses to condemn its evils but actively promotes many of them, it will tend inevitably to regard as “enemies of the People” faithful Catholics, commonly known today as “traditionalists”, who have refused to embrace the revolution. And, indeed, the faithful Roman Catholic is a natural adversary of the post conciliar revolutionaries in the Church. For the Catholic, animated by love of the Faith, charity and a zeal for souls, instinctively opposes unheard of novelties that undermine Tradition and thus the integrity and mission of the Church, which is the salvation of souls. He does so because, as St. Pius X taught in Pascendi, he must do so if he is to be worthy of the name Catholic.
In an almost incredible reversal of the proper order of things, however, Catholics who adhere to this perennial Catholic attitude who conserve with devotion the heritage, doctrine, and practices of the Church, as they are enjoined to do by all Popes, Councils, Fathers and Doctors of the Church are now painted as ecclesiastical outlaws and even “schismatics,” while the revolutionaries and those who defend them hold themselves out as the guardians of sound orthodoxy. As in the world, now in the New Church of EWTN, evil is called good, and good evil.
This tactic of the unsubstantiated smear, so typical of revolutionary movements in political society, has now found its way into the Catholic Church. As Professor Philip Davidson observed in his monumental study of the use of propaganda in the American Revolution, the most effective way to attack the established order and justify rebellion is not “reason, or justice or even self interest, but hate. An unreasoning hatred, a blind disgust, is aroused not against policies but against people.” That is precisely what EWTN has done in the case of Father Gruner and other prominent defenders of the Church's doctrine, dogma, liturgy and traditional practice.
"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)
The CCC is the Catholic basics, a brief teaching, for new converts to the faith. Telling a Catholic that they should read their catechism is like telling a senior in college studying engineering, that they should read on the subject in the encyclopedia. Mr. Ferrara is likely reading the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Here are the credentials of the author:
Christopher A. Ferrara
Born New York, New York 1952
BA Fordham University, 1973
JD Fordham University School of Law, 1977.
In 1990 Mr. Ferrara founded the American Catholic Lawyers Association and, since approximately 1991, has concentrated his practice on the pro-bono (that means for free) representation of Catholics in religious and civil liberties cases, both civil and criminal, both plaintiff and defense.
Mr. Ferrara has a number of significant appellate victories to his credit including the recent decision of the Second Circuit in Spitzer v. Operation Rescue, striking down an expanded injunction against pro-life activists under FACE, and narrowing the grounds for liability under FACE for the alleged making of threats.
Mr. Ferrara has also won a number of acquittals and dismissals of pro-life activists at the trial level and obtained an appellate court reversal of a $109 million verdict against pro-life activists in Portland, Oregon, whose reinstatement by a sharply divided (6-5) en banc panel is now the subject of continued proceedings in the federal district court.
Mr. Ferrara is a widely published author on Catholic Church affairs and co-authored The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church (Remnant Press, 2002).
Everything that you post is wholely your opinions. You are wasting your time here. Go and learn and get Catholic doctrine to defend your position. We are not like the Protestants that only have "opinions". We are Catholics, we look to antiquity, the perenial unbroken tradition, for truth. Let antiquity speak what you are trying to make up. If you can't find your thoughts in antiquity, then it's not Catholic.
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (400-450 AD) CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH
"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)
Putting aside the name-calling (”sedevacantist” which I find as offensive a term as “teabagger” OR “modernist” which most people misunderstand) for the moment, my problem is exactly that Vatican II was called as a pastoral council and NOT a dogmatic council. The difference being that a dogmatic Council is called specifically to answer doctrinal issues. Yet, Catholics are told they MUST accept the teachings as dogmatic. No less a figure than the late Jihn Cardinal Krol wrote me once to say that all councils are dogmatic.
Taking him at his word, he never answered why the Mass promulgated in perpetuity by Pope St. Pius V is replaced by the Novus Ordo. Something promulgated in perpetuity cannot be replaced. So, the conundrum remains. Do you go against the Church and accept the Modernist heresy (see Lamentabili Sane Exitu) or do you remain with the teachings of the Church up to Vatican II?
Do you accept that the Church needed “hope and change” (there they go again!)to fundamentally alter the Church? Where did that notion come from? Are the results of hope and change positive?
Most people who are called “sedevacantist” did not start out that way. They are deemed unacceptable and thus labeled/libeled into a position they did not choose.
Do you have permission from the author, Christopher A. Ferrara, to put his book or chapters of his book - on the internet?
All the education in the world is pointless if you don’t comprehend the basics.
verdugo, do you consider the papacy of Pope Benedict to be a valid one?
Is he your pope?
A simple yes or no to each question would be appreciated.
I don't consider using the term sedevacantist as namecalling, since I've observed their own use of the term. Sedes have been very outspoken in their contention that the chair of Peter is vacant, so I'm not sure that they would find offensive this way of clarifying their belief. Also - "teabagger" has a sexual connotation, so I'm at a loss as to how you can even compare the two terms.
NTHockey,
Sedevacantism isn’t merely an epithet, like “teabagger,” (which I object to entirely because it’s among the most vulgar and crude of sexual terms). It’s a term which accurately describes an actual, objectively stated belief. And as I stated, I wouldn’t call you a sedevacantist if you made a distinction between pastoral councils and doctrinal councils.
Also, I already acknowledged that I would have the gravest of difficulties with Vatican II had it actually stated what people falsely characterize it as having stated. Vatican II did not inhibit, replace or otherwise challenged the Tridentine mass. In fact. it explicitly upheld the Latin Mass.
Verdugo,
This is where I think there is heroism among the SSPX crowd, yet evil among the Sedevacantists: They have done precisely what St. Vincent commended to them, without lapsing into the apostasy and heresy of SSPV.
Yes, I have permission from Christopher Ferrara. He owns the copyrights.
re: All the education in the world is pointless if you don’t comprehend the basics.
What exactly are these “basics” that you are speaking about?
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.