Posted on 12/10/2003 7:03:38 PM PST by Land of the Irish
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.
Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.
Commentary for 12-05-03
The statement does not equal "Muslims are saved by being Muslims." Where is the heresy?
If I were to chop off your arms and legs, I might comfort you by saying, "Don't worry, your essence has not changed." You might be upset nonetheless. The fact that your "form" is in a "state of flux" with regard to body parts would be very unpleasant, despite the fact that some "essence of you" remains. In fact, I could go further and kill your body entirely will still maintaining, "Your essence has not changed." One would sympathize with you if you preferred to avoid that option.
... the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.
Note the end of this paragraph, then explain to me again where the heresy is. If you want the qualifications of the quote, why not look to its source? I'm still looking for your implied "Islam is salvific" thrust here, and I just cannot find it.
Having said that, the expanded quote you provided (post 67) is a marvel of subtlety and, dare I say, double talk? (It's late again.) Yet returning to the original discussion, it certainly seems to imply there is more there than just salvation in the offing (esp. when you consider his past actions of kissing the Koran, etc).
Whatever.
I have misgivings about this pope, but I reserve judgment as I believe Our Lord's promise. And the pope's opinions, even about theological matters, aren't binding, nor are they infallible--even more so when he is speaking about extraordinary paths to salvation. So it's vain conjecture on my part to go further.
We'll just leave it at that. That's what I meant by not following a pope blindly.
All of your catechisms must be post VC II. There's no mention of this nonsense in my catechism. If the above statement were true, anybody who communicates daily or often can assume his venial sins are forgiven and he his "preserved" from "grave (mortal) sin", ergo, no need for Confession. Maybe that's why my Novus Ordo church only offers the "Sacrament of Reconciliation" 20 minutes a week.
Well, Christ thought there was a need for Confession and I'll stick with Him and not your New Catechism.
Thank-you. You have a much better comprehension of English grammar than your debater.
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.