Posted on 07/14/2014 11:38:21 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, posting on his“Standing on my Head” blog (appropriately named given the frequency with which pontifications seem to flow so freely from his other end), recently suggested that traditionalists (aka Catholics) are “getting old.” Obviously, he’s never been to a “traditionalist” gathering to witness the overwhelming presence of young, often quite large, families.
“Not only are they dying out,” he wrote, “but their ideas are dying out.”
It isn’t immediately clear what “ideas” he has in mind, but presumably he is speaking of such notions as the Social Kingship of Christ as taught with such stunning clarity by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas, the reality of Christian unity as taught by this same Roman Pontiff in Mortalium Animos, and last but not least, the Mass of all Ages, the devotees of which he has castigated as unstable for daring to drive considerable distances to assist at such a liturgy.
Fr. Longenecker went on to opine:
Fifty years after the revolution of the Second Vatican Council we are moving on from the tensions it created. Those tensions existed because Catholics kept comparing the pre-Vatican II church to the post-Vatican II church. The ones who did this most were the folks who went through the Vatican II revolution … Everything was viewed through that lens. Well, at least we agree on one thing; the Second Vatican Council was a revolution.
Where I and every other reasonably well-formed Catholic parts company with Fr. Longenecker is his preposterous assertion that those who cannot help but draw comparisons between Catholic life before Vatican II and the bitter realities of the present crisis are necessarily “the folks who went through the Vatican II revolution,” and they are the reason tensions exist over the Council.
Does Fr. Longenecker believe that to be Catholic, no matter one’s age or personal experience, is to view everything through the lens of all that preceded us?
Does he hold the firm conviction that ours is the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles; not just the faith of the most recent “pastoral exercise” or the currently reigning pope?
Does he fully embrace the reality that this faith is immutable; may never be believed to be different, and may never be understood in any other way?
Apparently not, which actually makes perfect sense if you stop to consider his background:
Brought up as an Evangelical. Dwight Longenecker graduated from fundamentalist Bob Jones University. While there he became an Anglican and after graduation went to Oxford to train as an Anglican priest. After serving for ten years as an Anglican priest he converted to the Catholic faith with his wife and family. Eventually he returned to the United States to be ordained as a Catholic priest under the special provision from Rome for married former Anglican clergy. (Amazon.com bio) Is it just me or does there seem to be something missing from this curriculum vitae; namely, any kind of training in Catholic theology and protestant deprogramming?
In any case, I suspect, and Fr. Longenecker himself may very well admit, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell he would have swum the Tiber if awaiting him on the other shore was the “pre-Vatican II church” circa all the way back to 1958.
This raises yet another question: Did Fr. Longenecker convert to the Catholic faith whole and entire, or did he convert to some protestantized (read: distorted) conception of the same?
Clearly, it is the latter. Remember what he said:
Fifty years after the revolution of the Second Vatican Council we are moving on from the tensions it created. You see, only the protestant mind can conceive of a “revolution” in the Church in such terms; as if the revolution isn’t a problem in and of itself, but only the tensions created by the recalcitrant few who just can’t seem to let go.
Indeed, it may well be that the vast majority of converts over the last fifty years, priest or otherwise, more properly converted to a protestantized conception of “Church” and not necessarily to the Faith in its fullness.
It’s not necessarily their fault.
Think about it: One who embraces with gusto every word that has come forth from the mouths of the last five popes would have at least one foot in Protestantism. Obviously, Fr. Longenecker does, and this even as he stands on his head.
God's plan of salvation (unless Catholic Dogma has changed since VII):
"Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.)
...As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: "By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord". The last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact (actu) do not belong to the Church can achieve salvation.
...It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. This principle was extended not only to pagans but to heretics and schismatics as well."
(from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 4th edition, May 1960)
Do you think that exploring "if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation" is futile
How are such explorations useful? The Church has dogmatically stated the conditions necessary for salvation.
That was recognized way before Vatican II, but the full implications were not really explored. Don't you think it needs some clarification?
One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
A member of the Church must participate in Her worship, receive the Sacraments, accept Her doctrines, and submit to the authority of the pope.
Is that the clarification? It says something true, but not something directly exlaining the spiritual status of these persons, who do not know the fullness of the Faith but have entered the Church by the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Where does the Church teach that sedevacantism is apostasy? Sedevacantism is based on Catholic principles. There are differences of opinion about it in traditional circles, but it absolutely can be defended with Catholic principles taught by saints and theologians. But that requires a bit more research than a quick, easy google to Wikipedia. Anyone who truly wants to learn more can check trad forums. I am not here to defend or explain my view.
Your accusation (and others) that it is apostasy is only an opinion. Much like it is my opinion that the See is currently Vacant.
If there was a pope to submit to, I would. As far as I'm concerned the Modernist in the white cassock can't be a legitimate successor of St Peter because he is a Modernist. Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. Modernists are not Catholics. Non-Catholics can't be pope. I really can't understand how so many Catholics can call so much of the hierarchy Modernist and still consider them Catholic. They are either Modernist or they are Catholic.
Personally, I think it is more dangerous to my Faith to believe he is the pope and not submit to him which is what many trads do.
I am a sedevacantist. I'm not sure why you *need* me to give you a Yes or No. I thought my posts were pretty clear. Now do I question myself at times? Absolutely. Maybe that's when I'm not so clear. That's also probably when my posts seem more acceptable to you and others here.
Now, I'm done here. Why don't you go be as harsh with the Protestants as you are with me. It's amazing how quickly your tune changed with me.
The Gates of Hell have not prevailed. God will fix this mess. I leave it in His Hands.
Like I said, I’m not here to defend my position. You can learn more if you want to. I’m guessing you’re more interested in calling us “Protestants”.
Again, I’m not sure why any of those calling me an apostate care. I mean, their pope is just fine and dandy with those who are outside of the Church. He doesn’t want to convert them. Proselytism in solemn nonsense.
To think a real pope would ever say such a thing is what’s nonsense.
:sigh:
What he said.
They were considered Catholic by their baptism if they didn’t hold to heretical teachings (for example, infants are automatically Catholic). Once they believed heretical teachings, then they were no longer part of the Catholic Church.
I believe in a literal Creation, but in case you haven’t heard, I’m an apostate. ;-)
You're asking me to explain something which is outside my province. I can only point to the dogma of the Church, which Catholics believe is immutable. To reject a single dogma is to apostacize, so I accept the dogma. Only God knows the spiritual status of those who are baptized yet don't participate in the life of the Church.
From Lumen Gentium:
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
I suggest Ralph Martin's book, "Will Many Be Saved?: What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization" if you haven't already read it. The chapters on Frs. Rahner and von Balthasar delve into strange (and unfortunately influential) theology regarding universal salvation, which has resulted in the replacement of evangelization with "dialogue".
What part of "one faith" is not a clarification?
That's pure BS. I'm getting sick and tired of your lies about the Catholic religion.
Sedevacantism denies all of the above.
...come now...sedes deny the Catholic Catechism and the validity of the Sacraments...? Who knew...? For that matter some of them might not deny the validity of the NO...you paint with heap big brush...
I’m looking for a definition, and a clarification of “OK, is this your position, or not?”
It seems unexpectedly difficult to get a declarative sentence which amounts to “Yes” or “No.”
...I’m being baffled...are you asking me if I am a sede?
If so, I will answer, I am not...
You'd think someone who believes Jesus Christ is a fraud and Christians are dupes would be more concerned about other things they believe instead sticking to the Creation when they appear to throw gasoline on any disagreement between Christians.
The most interesting thing, though, is which "Evangelical" or other "Christian" folks team up with someone who openly denies Christ when they want to attack Catholics and are never bothered by their ally the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, liar who denies everything they insist Catholics should believe.
That's something I wish you'd reconsider, because I'm actually interested.
If I have been harsh with you, I truly apologize. I am taken off-guard or, shall we say, thrown off-balance when Catholics vent exhibit bitter resistance against some of the basic hallmarks of Catholicism: Catechism, Council, Continuity. Christifideles Laici would -- if truly loyal --- express themselves with heartfelt respect toward the lawful superiors, even if they are in some degree of error. I do not think that Catherine and Hildegard and Vincent Ferrer used the kind of vituperation against our popes that I hear from sedes. Frankly, it wounds me and I find it deeply repellent.
But, as I said, I am intersted in your point of view. How is a sede not an apostate? It seems to me you are in somewhat an analogous position to the Russian Old Belieers --- the Staroobriadsi, I think they called themselves. They got to the point of being a Sacramental, Hierarchical, Liturgical Church without sacrament, or hierarchy, or liturgy, since in their view too many decades has gone by since there was a legitimate succession: all the living bishops were bogus, they said, and all the legitimate ones were dead.
Sad. Desolate. And cut off from the Vine.
Saints, even Doctors of the Church, sometimes held objectively heretical opinions (Catherine of Siena, for instance, denied the Immaculate Conception; Augustine of Hippo went too far with Predestination) but it was not subjectively imputed to them as the sin of heresy, because they were not rebellious and contumacious. They were just in error, and why? Because they didn't know.
I think that is the position of not a few of our fellow non-Catholic Christians. They are blamelessly in error about one thing or another.
And they are certainly, but imperfectly, part of the Catholic Church.
Several of our brethren here (or they might be sistren) deny the Catechism, the Council, and the validity of the sacraments in what they call the "Vat2 church."
It wounded me and I found it deeply repellent when Pope Francis posited that the Virgin Mary might have believed that she was lied to by God. Error is one thing; blasphemy is quite another.
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.