The Logical Flaw in the Agenda of the Post-Conciliar Church

Commentary by Robert Sungenis: The Logical Flaw in the Agenda of the Post-Conciliar Church
Commentary for December 5, 2003

Today, one of the main battle cries of the post-conciliar Church, as exemplified in the massive amount of formal “apologies” John Paul II has issued for a whole host of former Catholic saints, doctors, popes and councils, is that the Catholicism of history was ignorant and mistaken on many issues.

The church of the past is castigated as a close-minded, authoritarian, exclusive and self-righteous entity. Conversely, the church of today promotes itself as an open-minded, egalitarian, utilitarian and self-deprecating entity.

The church of yesterday said salvation was only in the Catholic Church, while the church of today says that salvation can come to anyone, Protestant or pagan, without seeking membership in the Catholic Church.

The Church of yesterday said that many of the world’s people, due to their own choice, would not be saved, whereas the church of today teaches that most people will be saved and hell indeed may be empty.

The church of the past refused to allow Catholics to associate with other religions or mesh with any of their beliefs or practices, whereas today’s church encourages it.

The church of the past was strong on the distinctives of Catholic doctrine, the church of today spends most of its time looking for common beliefs among all the world’s religions.

The church of yesterday saw Muslims and Jews as Christ-haters who should be admonished and exhorted to convert to the Catholic faith, while the church of today considers both religions on the path to salvation through their own covenants with God.

The church of the past had such a high view of Mary, while the church of today tries its best to keep her off her traditional pedestal, and a non-candidate for any additional dogmas.

The church of yesterday believed that God created the world instantaneously and set the earth in a special place among the stars, while the church of today is enamored with the mere theories of science and uses them to embarrass former popes and councils.

The church of the past held the highest esteem for Scripture and Tradition, whereas the church of today says both are full of mistakes, as well as examples of “anti-semitism.”

The church of the past considered the papacy a strong bulwark against evil both inside and outside the church, whereas today the church seeks to dilute the papacy into collegiality, while the papacy itself fails to discipline its most egregious heretics and immoral clerics.

The church of tradition canonized only the best Catholics as saints, while the church of today has canonized more saints than all pervious centuries combined, and even talks of canonizing non-Catholics.

The church of the past excoriated and excommunicated heretics such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, but today's church gives them praises and adulation on par with past Catholic saints.

The church of the past had a most sacred liturgy, the most sacred hymns, and barred only but the most holy people from receiving the Eucharist, while today’s church has a Protestantized liturgy and hymns, and finds occasions to give even non-Catholics its sacred food.

The church of the past protected women from the battles of society and encouraged them to be mothers of children, whereas today’s church encourages women to be leaders outside the home and places them on the altar to mimic priests.

The church of the past considered praying with voodoo witch doctors an abomination of the highest order, while today’s church considers it a doorway to world peace and an answer to Christ’s prayer for unity.

(NB: For the most astonishing report on post-conciliar ecumenism mixing with pagan voodooism, see the shocking article by Craig Heimbichner in Catholic Family News titled: “Dancing With the Devil: The New Evangelization of Africa.” See excerpts of the article at www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/voodoosim.asp)

The contrasts couldn’t be greater. It is almost as if we have two different churches and two different concepts of what a church should be. If we could transport one of the saints of yesteryear, say, a St. Augustine, a St. Ignatius, a St. Francis to the present day, I dare say that even the post-conciliar promoters would admit that these saints would be shocked beyond belief at what they would see today.

The old church survived intact for 1965 years, to be exact. This is not to say that the church of yesteryear did not have its problems, but only to say that in the above categories of contrast, the church of the past held tenaciously to each one of them. They considered themselves the only game in town, and rightly so.

But now we are told that we have a “new and improved way” of bringing Catholicism to the world. For the last 40 years we have been told that this new way is the express design of the Holy Spirit, and the Catholic Church of the past was not only wrong on many issues, but it will never rise again. It is finished, terminated, buried with the post-conciliar consensus whose funeral was presided over by our last four popes (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II).

Unfortunately for them, the stench of death has not come from the post-mortem body of historical Catholicism, but from the evil spirit that rose from the grave when it was killed. I’m sure you’ve all seen the recent statistics showing the utter spiritual devastation occurring in the Catholic Church since Vatican 2. If you haven’t, take a gander at these.

Not only are we in the midst of a worldwide homosexual and pedophile scandal that has been brewing precisely for the last forty years, but since the end of Vatican II, the number of priests has declined by 30%, and nearly half of the priests today are over 65 years of age. In 1965, the Church in the U.S. ordained 1,575 new priests. In 2002, a pitiful 450 were ordained. The number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 in 1965 to an astounding 4,700 in 2002. Nearly 400 of the 600 seminaries open in 1965 have closed. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns, 104,000 of them as teaching nuns. Today there are 75,000 nuns, and only 8,200 of them teach, but most of the 75,000 are over 70 years of age. In 1965, there were 912 Christian Brother seminarians. In 2000, there were 7 left. The Franciscans decreased from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000. The Jesuits from over 3,500 in 1965 to 389 in 2000. Half of all Catholic schools have closed since 1965, and the student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. For parochial schools, it has fallen from 4.5 million to below 2 million. In 1958, 75% of Catholics attended Mass on Sunday. In 2002, only 25% attended. Marriage annulments in 1965 were 338. In 2002 they were over 50,000. Only 10% of lay religious teachers accept the Church’s teaching on contraception, and most openly teach against it. 53% of Catholics believe that a Catholic can have an abortion. 65% believe Catholics can divorce and remarry. 77% believe one does not have to attend Mass to be a good Catholic. A New York Times poll revealed that 70% of Catholics between 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.

Yet in the face of all this, the post-conciliar clerics and apologists want us to believe that we are in the “springtime” of the church, or at least heading in that direction. Human nature is amazing. It is amazing how post-conciliarists can watch these aberrations and abominations happening before their very own eyes yet convince themselves that they are seeing just the opposite.

Not only do today’s post-conciliar Catholics avoid admitting the obvious, they arrive at their position by a distorted logic, and by this they destroy their legitimacy. Here’s how:

If it is true, as the post-conciliar advocates try to convince us, that the church has found a “better way” for Catholicism and that the old way was wrong, this means they must also admit the church can err. That is a logical fact that cannot be denied.

But here is the rub: If the church of the past was wrong, then the church of the present can be wrong, too. There cannot be one without the other. If the church can err, it can err at ANY TIME. In other words, in saying that the church of the past needed to be corrected, the post-conciliar church has just cut its own throat, since it opens itself up to being judged as wrong, either now or by the future church. There is no escape from this logic.

Therefore, if those of us on the Traditional side of the fence choose to accuse the modern church of being wrong, there is nothing they can say against us, for they have already opened Pandora’s box by claiming that the Traditional church was wrong. If the Traditional church can be wrong, then the post-conciliar church can be wrong, and we are at a stand-off.

Hence, there are only two positions in the dilemma they have created: (1) both the Traditional church and the post-conciliar church can be wrong, or (2) the Traditional church was right, and any deviation from it is wrong. There are no other possibilities, that is, if one desires to be consistent in his logic.

In short, we must remember that Catholicism is an all-or-nothing game, and it has always been that way. Either the Church is right in every point it claims as truth, or it is wrong on everything. There is no in-between state. That is precisely why the other religions have hated us so much. They abhor the fact that we believe we are the only true religion in the world, and the only one whose doctrines are without error.

As it stands, the post-conciliar church is based on a false foundation, and because of that, it will eventually fall. After that, either Christ will come again, or if He tarries, the Traditional church of old will be built anew on the ashes of today.

Because those who follow the law of God written in their hearts, as Paul says, may be saved, and through such obedience are imperfectly and invisibly united with Christ. Of course the only way to be sure of salvation is to be a member of the visible Church of Christ on earth, the Catholic Church.

Christ has given us the Church and the sacraments as the only sure way to get to Heaven. Those not in visible communion may or may not make it. It is the difference between taking a hike with a map versus taking a hike without a map. One may make it without a map, but it is a much more iffy proposition. That is why it is still important to evangelize and try to bring everybody into the Catholic faith.

I would agree that many of the liturgical and devotional changes after VII have not necessarily been for the better. However, as far as sacraments are concerned, they are mere changes of form. The essence has not changed. The form of the sacraments have always been in a state of flux. The way sacraments were celebrated in the early Church or the Middle Ages were not necessarily the same as what was codified pursuant to the Council of Trent.

Of course the only way to be sure of salvation is to be a member of the visible Church of Christ on earth, the Catholic Church.

Another Calvinist attitude. You think every Catholic is predestined to Heaven.

Of course the only way to be sure of salvation is to be a member of the visible Church of Christ on earth, the Catholic Church. Another Calvinist attitude. You think every Catholic is predestined to Heaven.

Oh come on, you are now putting words into my mouth. I never said any such thing. If we have been baptized and die in a state of grace (i.e., with no unabsolved mortal sins on our conscience) then we can be sure that we are saved through the merits of Christ's passion, not otherwise.

As for the pope not saying anything heretical, I'll quote another freeper, third double: "John Paul II says that 'the plan of salvation includes the Muslims.'"

Is that heretical enough for you?

And his actions discussed in various posts go under the same category.

...or one can take the easy route and become a Muslim!

It is not easy at all, since a Muslim can never be sure he is truly following the law of God written in his heart. Moreover, there are many sinful elements of Islam that a Muslim would have to abjure or abstain from, such as offensive physical jihad.

Oh come on, you are now putting words into my mouth. I never said any such thing.

Quoting you verbatim is not putting words in your mouth:

Of course the only way to be sure of salvation is to be a member of the visible Church of Christ on earth, the Catholic Church.

Whose your spiritual advisor, Cardinal Kaspar? I suggest you learn a ~~little~~ lot more about the Catholic religion. Venial sins are additive, they are serious wounds to the soul, each one is not mortal, but combined, they can be. Secondly, only God will individually judge us as to who died in a state of grace. No one on their death bed can be sure they are saved unless they receive a divine revelation such as Francisco and Jacinto did. And look at the penances those young children, assured of heaven for themselves, still performed to keep other souls out of hell.

It is not easy at all, since a Muslim can never be sure he is truly following the law of God written in his heart.

It's not easy for Catholics either. You can't just claim, "I'm a practicing Catholic, thus, I'm guaranteed a spot in Heaven."

Granted, but it is a lot easier to determine whether one is guilty of a mortal sin and go to confession than it is to tell whether on is really and truly following God's law written in the hearts of pagans.

If one has given a fulsome confession, then one can be reasonably sure of being in a state of grace. I do think that God has given us a relatively clear roadmap. You make Catholicism sound quite Calvinist -- one can never be sure one is a member of the elect. Forget it, I trust in God's mercy and think that through the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Penance and the Eucharist, God in His infinite mercy has shown us a clear path to Heaven following fixed channels of His Grace.

You are the Calvinist; you believe in predestination:

Of course the only way to be sure of salvation is to be a member of the visible Church of Christ on earth, the Catholic Church.

I rest my case.

I don't believe in predestination. Anyone can chose to be saved or not. We have to want to be saved. If we want to be saved, being a member of the visible Church of Christ on earth, the Catholic Church, and dying in a state of grace is all that is required.

If we want to be saved, being a member of the visible Church of Christ on earth, the Catholic Church, and dying in a state of grace is all that is required.

So what's required of Muslims who, aware of the Catholic profession, want to be saved. They receive no sacraments, yet they are not "invincibly ignorant". They don't even acknowledge the Holy Trinity. How can they be saved?

Not all are necessarily saved -- they don't all follow the law of God written in their hearts. Please take it up with St. Paul on that doctrine, by the way. Also, it is not clear to me that there aren't Moslems who are invincibly ignorant.

Also, it is not clear to me that there aren't Moslems who are invincibly ignorant.

It is not clear to me that there aren't Catholics, e.g. pro-abort politicians, who will also claim they were invincibly ignorant at their final judgement. Once again, only God can make that judgement, not the individual.

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.